On Communion

[Jim Parker]

Respectfully, How does the term "symbolic" come to mean, "I'm not believing that"...? To me the bread and wine are symbolic. The bread is his body, speaking of his existence as the man who is the expressed image of God, sent by God the Father.

Well, I think what you say there is a very good example of "I'm not believing that." and "Here's what I'm willing to believe."

Jesus didn't say the bread was a "symbol" of His existence. He said it was His body and the wine was His blood and if we did not consume them we had no life (that would be eternal life) in us.

My response to that teaching is , "Whatever you say, Lord."

To me, these are some scriptures that speak to me about what Jesus means by "eat" and "drink".

That's fine as long as you ignore the rest of what he said:

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (See John 15.)
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

The changing of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of the Lord removes any need to explain His words away as being symbolic of something unrelated to what He just said.

That is how the Church received the teaching no later than the end of the first century, contemporary with the Apostles. The historical documentary evidence is that the bread and wine became the body and blood was the teaching of the apostles which teaching they received from Jesus.

The verse that rings in my ears is, "John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

I'm not willing to say that Jesus didn't really mean what He said.

But that's just me.


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

it was a joke

 

[childeye]

Well, I think what you say there is a very good example of "I'm not believing that." and "Here's what I'm willing to believe."

Jesus didn't say the bread was a "symbol" of His existence. He said it was His body ans the wine was His blood and if we did not consume them we had no life (that would be eternal life) in us.

My response to that teaching is , "Whatever you say, Lord."

You're right that Jesus never said the words, "the bread is a symbol of my existence". But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh. The existence of the Christ Spirit that has come in the flesh, is what Christianity is built upon. John 6:63. He is the cornerstone of the temple. Hence, his death is what is in remembrance and the cross is the power of the Gospel. For this reason, the spirit of antichrist is to say, he never came, he was never sent, he never existed.

The fact remains, that there are two ways for Jesus' words to be taken; Literally or figuratively. For example, when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood, I can't see it as plausible that anyone that was present that day would say, "whatever you say, Lord", and then begin biting him so as to do what he said. Moreover, the one's who took him literally didn't follow him anymore. They were the one's offended, and I believe they were meant to be so.

The changing of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of the Lord removes any need to explain His words away as being symbolic of something unrelated to what He just said.

So please explain how believing turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood makes one righteous by faith?

That is how the Church received the teaching no later than the end of the first century, contemporary with the Apostles. The historical documentary evidence is that the bread and wine became the body and blood was the teaching of the apostles which teaching they received from Jesus.

I think the repeating of Jesus' words at communion, are so as to dwell on what he meant by them when he said them at that Passover meal, so as to take time to put myself in his shoes, and show proper reverence. So that doing the invocation means, time to turn off your cell phones and be ready to show your heart.

The verse that rings in my ears is, "John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

I'm not willing to say that Jesus didn't really mean what He said.

But that's just me.

The issue here is semantics. Notice that the question, what does he mean?... is not the same question as, does he mean it?

At any rate, we know that the crucifixion of Christ is what is in remembrance in the Eucharist/thanksgiving. I therefore also believe that the bread and the wine are symbolic of his body and blood, sacrificed there for us. It would be implausible that any one, present that day he said his flesh was real food and his blood real drink, would have been able to comprehend he was referring to the Eucharist, which is referring to the cross.

 

[Jim Parker]

So please explain how believing turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood makes one righteous by faith?

By faith, you obey the instruction of the Lord that when you eat the bread and drink the wine you eat his flesh and drink his blood as he said to do. Faith is meaningless unless it is combined with action. Faith without action is mere mental agreement. God doesn't need our agreement. We need to either obey him or quit calling him our Lord and savior. (Luk 6:46)

So when Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:54 NKJV) he meant for you to do so. If you refuse to do so then Jesus is not your Lord. If he's not your lord then he's not your savior either. If you have faith in Jesus then you have faith to do as He commanded.

Faith without works is dead and a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (Jas 2)

Jesus said the same.

John 5:28-29 (NKJV) ... the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The notion that we can be saved by a faith that does not include obedience is nonsense. That's not faith. Consider Hebrews 11; it is a list of people who, by faith, DID something.

For example, when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood, I can't see it as plausible that anyone that was present that day would say, "whatever you say, Lord", and then begin biting him so as to do what he said.

Consider the fact that John was written well after the synoptic gospels. I would not be at all surprised to find the same questions being raised then as you raise now. John's comments make it clear what Jesus meant when he said "This bread is my body." and "This wine is my blood." He meant that the bread and wine actually were His body and blood. He didn't explain how, just what.

I think we err to second guess Jesus and the earliest witness of the church.

I think the repeating of Jesus' words at communion, are so as to dwell on what he meant

What John said Jesus meant was that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood and that unless we ate his flesh and drank his blood we would not have eternal life. None of the Gospels give any indication that Jesus words meant anything other than exactly what He said.

I don't understand people's resistance to accepting what Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul have so very plainly laid our for us.

The issue here is semantics

I disagree. I think the issue here is believing that Jesus said exactly what He meant to say and that we shouldn't be second-guessing him because we're uncomfortable with His words.

 

[turnorburn]

We're not uncomfortable with Gods word its doctrines of man that your suggesting/teaching..

 

[Edward]

...I've been told that I have to decide which verse of John 6 I want to believe is the right one:
John 6:40 or
John 6:54

Okay. But what about John 6:60. Why then did the disciples walk away from Jesus if He only meant what he said figuratively?

I love what you said about physics in post no. 23.
Wondering

John 6 is a deep chapter. All of those verses have to be right because they are the word of God. A word study of them is in order.
Verse 40 seems to be for believers who have not taken communion, and they will receive everlasting life
V 54 is believers who do partake of communion, and they receive eternal life, both will be raised the last day.

Interesting! Apparently there's a difference between everlasting and eternal life.

You mean John 6:66 instead of 60? I don't think that's the apostles that left, just disciples. Maybe they got creeped out by what He was saying, thinking natural realm instead of spiritual/kingdom realm.
I do think that Jesus was being literal and not figurative inasmuch that our actions, thoughts and words here in the natural realm have effect in the kingdom realm, spiritually. Scripture says when we partake of Jesus's B & B, then we are one. Him in us and we in Him. Remember, we are spirit beings. Our reality is in the Kingdom realm, so the significance of communion takes place in the Kingdom realm. Here in the natural realm the Eucharist or PBJ is still a host, bread or pbj, while spiritually we become one with Christ. Even now, we're seated in heavenly places with Christ. (Ephesians 2:6)

So it's a 'live for the Spirit' thing, literally, and while I/we may not fully understand it completely it sounds desirable to be one with Christ...so in faith will we partake and say thank you and glory to God.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Edward]

When I was first presented with the Gospel, I was told that Christ died for our sins. I was also told that if I did not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I could not have eternal life. Some question arose within me...Why did he die for my sins?... How does his death pay for my sins? Is it morally right that the innocent should pay the punishment for the guilty? I therefore would not drink of it, until someone would answer my questions. I searched for years for answers from authority figures, such as Priests, Pastors, Elders. But no one I talked to could help me nor answer them for me. Since it was hard to articulate my feelings, I wrote this:

I was walking in despair because I hated myself and my burden of sin was great, and my only comfort was that there were others with burdens greater than my own. But alas, therefore I only loathed myself all the more. Then a man came to me holding a cup filled with the blood of the son of God, which had been shed through great torture. And he said, drink from this cup and you will be renewed and live forever. And I saw judgment at the cup. For if this son of God suffered torture and death so that I might be spared from a cruel and merciless prosecuter, I'd better drink from it so that his suffering will not have been in vain. But if it is to escape the righteous judgment that I have coming to me, I would rather die in my sins than be willing to harm one hair on his precious head.

BUT HE LIVES!!!

No better gift can one give than to lay down ones life for their friend. To take communion with much thanksgiving is to acknowledge it, and be called the friend of Christ? I like that!

 

[childeye]

By faith, you obey the instruction of the Lord that when you eat the bread and drink the wine you eat his flesh and drink his blood as he said to do. Faith is meaningless unless it is combined with action. Faith without action is mere mental agreement. God doesn't need our agreement. We need to either obey him or quit calling him our Lord and savior. (Luk 6:46)

The righteousness the apostles speaks of, comes through a described faith wherein a person believes Jesus is the Christ, the bread from heaven, symbolism for the Messiah. That is said throughout scripture. This righteousness is manifested when in us through this faith, wherein because we know him, we also become like him. It is the holy Spirit of Truth that washes away our ignorance of God. Consequently we become like him through a spiritual transformation based on the knowledge of God. Therefore God does need us to agree that Jesus is the Christ for that to happen. For Christ is the knowledge of God in a personal way.
1 John 4:13
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say to believe that the bread and wine turn into his body and blood. He did however say that to come to him, is to end your hunger for righteousness. And to believe on him would end your thirst for righteousness. So coming to him is equated with eating and believing is equated with drinking.
John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Consider the fact that John was written well after the synoptic gospels. I would not be at all surprised to find the same questions being raised then as you raise now. John's comments make it clear what Jesus meant when he said "This bread is my body." and "This wine is my blood." He meant that the bread and wine actually were His body and blood. He didn't explain how, just what.

Okay, I considered it. It still doesn't mean everyone was getting the Eucharist/thanksgiving wrong, so John had to straighten it out. Nor does it change the fact that the thanksgiving is for the Love that suffered a cross so that we may be forgiven and be given power to become the children of God.
How do you know that Jesus wasn't explaining that the Passover meal was about him?
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
John 13:1
Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

I don't understand people's resistance to accepting what Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul have so very plainly laid our for us.

This is clearly a matter of interpretation. I don't agree that it's plainly said that the bread turns into his flesh, and the wine turns into his blood. You think it is literal and I think it is a metaphor. You say to just believe what you're told. I'm trying to do that and so are you. We're just hearing two different things being said from the same words. Therefore I say that seeing this Godly Love displayed on the cross is indeed food and drink.

I disagree. I think the issue here is believing that Jesus said exactly what He meant to say and that we shouldn't be second-guessing him because we're uncomfortable with His words.

This is interesting. So let me get this straight. You disagree that asking what is meant by what he said, is not the same as asking if he meant it? To rephrase, you think that to ask, What does he mean?... Is the same as asking, does he mean it? You see no difference?

 

[childeye]

BUT HE LIVES!!!

No better gift can one give than to lay down ones life for their friend. To take communion with much thanksgiving is to acknowledge it, and be called the friend of Christ? I like that!

This is True. What friend could I be, if I didn't acknowledge the Eternal Love for which I am the most grateful for knowing.

 

[GodsGrace]

You're right that Jesus never said the words, "the bread is a symbol of my existence". But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh. The existence of the Christ Spirit that has come in the flesh, is what Christianity is built upon. John 6:63. He is the cornerstone of the temple. Hence, his death is what is in remembrance and the cross is the power of the Gospel. For this reason, the spirit of antichrist is to say, he never came, he was never sent, he never existed.

The fact remains, that there are two ways for Jesus' words to be taken; Literally or figuratively. For example, when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood, I can't see it as plausible that anyone that was present that day would say, "whatever you say, Lord", and then begin biting him so as to do what he said. Moreover, the one's who took him literally didn't follow him anymore. They were the one's offended, and I believe they were meant to be so.



So please explain how believing turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood makes one righteous by faith?

I think the repeating of Jesus' words at communion, are so as to dwell on what he meant by them when he said them at that Passover meal, so as to take time to put myself in his shoes, and show proper reverence. So that doing the invocation means, time to turn off your cell phones and be ready to show your heart.

The issue here is semantics. Notice that the question, what does he mean?... is not the same question as, does he mean it?

At any rate, we know that the crucifixion of Christ is what is in remembrance in the Eucharist/thanksgiving. I therefore also believe that the bread and the wine are symbolic of his body and blood, sacrificed there for us. It would be implausible that any one, present that day he said his flesh was real food and his blood real drink, would have been able to comprehend he was referring to the Eucharist, which is referring to the cross.

Childeye,

I have problems with John 6 and for years have gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

Here are some problems I see with your assessment. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - just trying to understand:

1. In the very first pp you say:

But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh.

What are you meaning here? "unless He had existed in the flesh". Are you saying Christ was only spiritual and didn't exist in the flesh? He DID exist in the flesh. So you're reasoning seems inconclusive in this regard. Who's saying He never came?? Or never existed?

2. In the third pp you say:

So please explain how believing turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood makes one righteous by faith?

I didn't read any post that says the above. Jesus makes one righteous by faith. There's no post here that states that turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood is the REQUIREMENT for righteous faith.

3. And lastly, in the last pp you say:

At any rate, we know that the crucifixion of Christ is what is in remembrance in the Eucharist/thanksgiving. I therefore also believe that the bread and the wine are symbolic of his body and blood, sacrificed there for us.

You state that the rememberance is of the crucifixion of Christ. Okay. Then you go on to say that you ALSO believe that the bread and wine are symbolic of his B and B...

But the crucifixion is not symbolic. So then how do you deduce that the B and B are symbolic??

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

We're not uncomfortable with Gods word its doctrines of man that your suggesting/teaching..

Please note that either belief is a doctrine of man.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

John 6 is a deep chapter. All of those verses have to be right because they are the word of God. A word study of them is in order.
Verse 40 seems to be for believers who have not taken communion, and they will receive everlasting life
V 54 is believers who do partake of communion, and they receive eternal life, both will be raised the last day.

Interesting! Apparently there's a difference between everlasting and eternal life.

You mean John 6:66 instead of 60? I don't think that's the apostles that left, just disciples. Maybe they got creeped out by what He was saying, thinking natural realm instead of spiritual/kingdom realm.
I do think that Jesus was being literal and not figurative inasmuch that our actions, thoughts and words here in the natural realm have effect in the kingdom realm, spiritually. Scripture says when we partake of Jesus's B & B, then we are one. Him in us and we in Him. Remember, we are spirit beings. Our reality is in the Kingdom realm, so the significance of communion takes place in the Kingdom realm. Here in the natural realm the Eucharist or PBJ is still a host, bread or pbj, while spiritually we become one with Christ. Even now, we're seated in heavenly places with Christ. (Ephesians 2:6)

So it's a 'live for the Spirit' thing, literally, and while I/we may not fully understand it completely it sounds desirable to be one with Christ...so in faith will we partake and say thank you and glory to God.

Or so it seems to me.

Hi Edward,

Right now John 6 is looking real to me. I keep going over it and I can't understand how it could be symbolic. In some way we can't understand, I think Jesus meant that we have to eat, just like the Hebrews ate the manna.
The word that is used for "eat" in Greek means to gnaw at. Greek is a precise language which is why so much is lost n translation. John knew Greek and I'm sure he wrote what he meant. I'm not sure why there's so much resistance to this. Didn't Luther die believing in the Real Presence? Real mean s real. It doesn't mean symbolic.

You noted re verse 60 and 66. One leads to the next. In 60 the disciples find the saying difficult and in 66 they walk away. Thanks for the clarification. And yes, they were disciples, not apostles. While Jesus was alive, the distinction had to be made.

Regarding verse 40 and 54. This goes right to the heart of the matter. BTW, in the bible I'm using right now, American Standard the word "eternal" is used for both. Although I'd have to say that eternal and everlasting means the same thing, no? Everlasting means it lasts forever, and eternal means forever.

I just checked the literal translation from Greek and both 40 and 54 is from the Greek term "age during". So it does seem that both 40 and 54 should be the same word, but this is almost irrelevant because even in English both terms you have, even though different, mean the same thing.

So, yes, the disciples that left in 66 got creeped out, as you put it. I like that! They got creeped out because they understood Jesus to be speaking literally. So, yes, we're spiritual beings as you say, but we're also material just as Jesus was a material being. Can't it be both? Can't God do what He will? They were there and understood this literally, at that moment.

Even now we're seated in heavenly places. Right. But we're REALLY seated there. Jesus said to Nicodemus that the kingdom is here but we do not see it. It's really here, but we do NOT see it. That doesn't mean it's not here.

What brings us to the kingdom? The beatitudes. They describe how our composure should be if we are to take part in the kingdom. Do you suppose that Jesus did not mean them literally?

We could go back and froth forever. Just making my points. I do lean toward the real presence. or whatever you want to call it.

Wondering

 

[Edward]

Hi Edward,

Right now John 6 is looking real to me. I keep going over it and I can't understand how it could be symbolic. In some way we can't understand, I think Jesus meant that we have to eat, just like the Hebrews ate the manna.
The word that is used for "eat" in Greek means to gnaw at. Greek is a precise language which is why so much is lost n translation. John knew Greek and I'm sure he wrote what he meant. I'm not sure why there's so much resistance to this. Didn't Luther die believing in the Real Presence? Real mean s real. It doesn't mean symbolic.

You noted re verse 60 and 66. One leads to the next. In 60 the disciples find the saying difficult and in 66 they walk away. Thanks for the clarification. And yes, they were disciples, not apostles. While Jesus was alive, the distinction had to be made.

Regarding verse 40 and 54. This goes right to the heart of the matter. BTW, in the bible I'm using right now, American Standard the word "eternal" is used for both. Although I'd have to say that eternal and everlasting means the same thing, no? Everlasting means it lasts forever, and eternal means forever.

I just checked the literal translation from Greek and both 40 and 54 is from the Greek term "age during". So it does seem that both 40 and 54 should be the same word, but this is almost irrelevant because even in English both terms you have, even though different, mean the same thing.

So, yes, the disciples that left in 66 got creeped out, as you put it. I like that! They got creeped out because they understood Jesus to be speaking literally. So, yes, we're spiritual beings as you say, but we're also material just as Jesus was a material being. Can't it be both? Can't God do what He will? They were there and understood this literally, at that moment.

Even now we're seated in heavenly places. Right. But we're REALLY seated there. Jesus said to Nicodemus that the kingdom is here but we do not see it. It's really here, but we do NOT see it. That doesn't mean it's not here.

What brings us to the kingdom? The beatitudes. They describe how our composure should be if we are to take part in the kingdom. Do you suppose that Jesus did not mean them literally?

We could go back and froth forever. Just making my points. I do lean toward the real presence. or whatever you want to call it.

Wondering

Good morning. I'm thinking that while we don't really take a bite out of Jesus in the normal (natural) sense, that we do in the spiritual sense inasmuch as we open ourselves to receive... (Something spiritual) from the Lord. The actual substance that is received may be unlawful to utter (meaning there are no human words for it, and the closest words are flesh & blood)

The substance of Gods spiritual being. Perhaps part of the promised renewal of us?

A lot (most?) of divine things are predicated on our actions before we can receive them. (increased) faith, healing, revelation and so forth. We have not because we ask not. God forces nothing upon us. We desire these things, then act in seeking them by opening our heart to receive.

Our belief and desire activate a (spiritual something) that enables us to receive it Mark 11:24-25
(Sort've like when you hug your wife, an unfocused heart makes for a mediocre hug but if you focus your heart & love upon her while you hug her...wow the energy (love) flows)

I do think we're talking about spiritual flesh & blood and not natural though. John 6:63

 

[Edward]

All right! The blue letter bible works on my android. (Esword won't).

Everlasting and eternal are indeed the same Greek word. Huh. It reads as if suggesting a difference.

 

[GodsGrace]

All right! The blue letter bible works on my android. (Esword won't).

Everlasting and eternal are indeed the same Greek word. Huh. It reads as if suggesting a difference.

I like the last part of your first pp, in post no. 53.

I can't seem to get to the spiritual understanding.
You must know that the first Christians were known as cannibals.
But the beat goes on...

Wondering

 

[Edward]

I like the last part of your first pp, in post no. 53.

I can't seem to get to the spiritual understanding.
You must know that the first Christians were known as cannibals.
But the beat goes on...

Wondering

Thanks Brother. The good thing is that we don't need to be able to fully understand God in order to trust & have faith in Him.

That's real good for me, lol.

 

[turnorburn]

Please note that either belief is a doctrine of man.

Wondering

Please note: one is the word of God..

I Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

"this do in remembrance of me."

the other a doctrine of man...

 

[childeye]

Childeye,

I have problems with John 6 and for years have gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

Here are some problems I see with your assessment. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - just trying to understand:

1. In the very first pp you say:

But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh.

What are you meaning here? "unless He had existed in the flesh". Are you saying Christ was only spiritual and didn't exist in the flesh? He DID exist in the flesh. So you're reasoning seems inconclusive in this regard. Who's saying He never came?? Or never existed?

Keep in mind, that you would have to read all the exchanges between Jim Parker and myself, to understand how this has unfolded. Jim Parker had said this: Jesus didn't say the bread was a "symbol" of His existence. My response was: But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh. So in other words, Jesus did say we couldn't eat of him or rather believe in him unless he was sent and therefore existed.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not

I therefore simply pointed out that indeed the Word of God come in the flesh is the bread from heaven. Or in clearer terms, he is the Word made flesh which is food from heaven. That means that we do recognize that the Jesus is the Word made flesh, even as we believe it is true. John 1:14. The use of the phrase bread from heaven clearly implies, that this word made flesh, is a type of food or sustenance. But it is not actually the flesh, muscle, organs, that we literally eat. It should be ascertained that this food from heaven gives eternal life. John 6:27. But rather it is the Spirit of the Word that has come in the flesh, which we eat for sustenance. John 6:63. And it also should be noted, that it is not with our mouths that we eat of him, but it is through our belief in him as the Word, by which he is swallowed. John 6:47. So it is that likewise, scripture says elsewhere, that it is by grace through faith that we receive the righteousness of God revealed in the Christ. Romans 1:17.John 1:12. Therefore Christ did exist on earth as flesh and blood. and even now we are his body if his Spirit dwells in us, and us in him.

2. In the third pp you say:

So please explain how believing turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood makes one righteous by faith?

I didn't read any post that says the above. Jesus makes one righteous by faith. There's no post here that states that turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood is the REQUIREMENT for righteous faith.

You're right, there is no post that said that, prior to my posting it. Keep in mind that Jim Parker is saying that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus at the invocation of "Take this, all of you, and eat it :this is my body which will be given up for you". He is inferring that John 6:53, is referring to the Eucharist/thanksgiving where the bread and wine are turned into his flesh and blood, and that we consume Jesus this way. Meanwhile, I am saying that in John 6:53, Jesus is referring to his existence as the word made flesh (the bread from heaven), and his subsequent crucifixion, (the blood), and that we consume him through belief in him.

The reason I asked the question is to point out that whatever the food is, it will make us righteous on the inside, according to what Jesus says here. Matthew 5:6. And Paul says here. Romans 3:22.

Therefore, if it is true that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist in John 6:53, as Jim Parker is claiming; Then believing that the bread and wine turns into his flesh and blood, and literally eating and drinking it, should make one righteous. But if I am right that Jesus is talking about believing in him as the Christ; Then the invocation and John 6:56 is referring to believing Jesus is the Christ, and also pertaining to his role as the lamb of God. In this scenario, understanding why he was crucified, is also the food and drink being spoken of. For I can understand how through belief/eating, drinking, this food one becomes righteous through faith. But I don't see how believing the bread and wine turn into his flesh and blood makes one righteous through faith.

In fact, if I am right, then believing the bread and wine turn into his flesh and blood, and by eating this we ingest Christ, it could deter one from understanding that Christ is eaten through faith in his Character, as the true Image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Therefore I asked, How does believing the bread and wine turns into his body and blood make one righteous through faith?

3. And lastly, in the last pp you say:

At any rate, we know that the crucifixion of Christ is what is in remembrance in the Eucharist/thanksgiving. I therefore also believe that the bread and the wine are symbolic of his body and blood, sacrificed there for us.

You state that the rememberance is of the crucifixion of Christ. Okay. Then you go on to say that you ALSO believe that the bread and wine are symbolic of his B and B...

But the crucifixion is not symbolic. So then how do you deduce that the B and B are symbolic??

Wondering

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't see where I say that the actual body of Christ and blood of Christ are symbolic. I said the bread and wine are symbolic of the actual body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine partaken of at the communion of the saints, are properly understood as a sacrament, the sign/symbol of something sacred. Therefore I believe there is a spiritual discernment in the symbolism.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Notice what scripture says about flesh Israel.
1 Corinthians 10:18.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

 

[GodsGrace]

Please note: one is the word of God..

I Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

"this do in remembrance of me."

the other a doctrine of man...

Read 25 again.
Are we drinking the cup or the blood in it?

Why is what you believe any more valid than what I believe if we can both prove our point??

I respect your belief as I think you should respect mine.

Plus, I wasn't really arguing with you - just pointing out that John 6 could be understood either way. Pre 1,500 or so AD is was believed to be real bread and real blood. Transubstantiation. Read Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John. The John that wrote John 6. Now after 1,500 AD an idea has been developed that maybe it's all spiritual. Consubstantiation.

Brother, it's okay. This doctrine - either one believed and espoused by man - is not what's going to save you but your belief in the Lord.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Keep in mind, that you would have to read all the exchanges between Jim Parker and myself, to understand how this has unfolded. Jim Parker had said this: Jesus didn't say the bread was a "symbol" of His existence. My response was: But he did say it was his flesh that we were to eat, and we couldn't eat of it unless he had existed in the flesh. So in other words, Jesus did say we couldn't eat of him or rather believe in him unless he was sent and therefore existed.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not

I therefore simply pointed out that indeed the Word of God come in the flesh is the bread from heaven. Or in clearer terms, he is the Word made flesh which is food from heaven. That means that we do recognize that the Jesus is the Word made flesh, even as we believe it is true. John 1:14. The use of the phrase bread from heaven clearly implies, that this word made flesh, is a type of food or sustenance. But it is not actually the flesh, muscle, organs, that we literally eat. It should be ascertained that this food from heaven gives eternal life. John 6:27. But rather it is the Spirit of the Word that has come in the flesh, which we eat for sustenance. John 6:63. And it also should be noted, that it is not with our mouths that we eat of him, but it is through our belief in him as the Word, by which he is swallowed. John 6:47. So it is that likewise, scripture says elsewhere, that it is by grace through faith that we receive the righteousness of God revealed in the Christ. Romans 1:17.John 1:12. Therefore Christ did exist on earth as flesh and blood. and even now we are his body if his Spirit dwells in us, and us in him.


You're right, there is no post that said that, prior to my posting it. Keep in mind that Jim Parker is saying that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus at the invocation of "Take this, all of you, and eat it :this is my body which will be given up for you". He is inferring that John 6:53, is referring to the Eucharist/thanksgiving where the bread and wine are turned into his flesh and blood, and that we consume Jesus this way. Meanwhile, I am saying that in John 6:53, Jesus is referring to his existence as the word made flesh (the bread from heaven), and his subsequent crucifixion, (the blood), and that we consume him through belief in him.

The reason I asked the question is to point out that whatever the food is, it will make us righteous on the inside, according to what Jesus says here. Matthew 5:6. And Paul says here. Romans 3:22.

Therefore, if it is true that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist in John 6:53, as Jim Parker is claiming; Then believing that the bread and wine turns into his flesh and blood, and literally eating and drinking it, should make one righteous. But if I am right that Jesus is talking about believing in him as the Christ; Then the invocation and John 6:56 is referring to believing Jesus is the Christ, and also pertaining to his role as the lamb of God. In this scenario, understanding why he was crucified, is also the food and drink being spoken of. For I can understand how through belief/eating, drinking, this food one becomes righteous through faith. But I don't see how believing the bread and wine turn into his flesh and blood makes one righteous through faith.

In fact, if I am right, then believing the bread and wine turn into his flesh and blood, and by eating this we ingest Christ, it could deter one from understanding that Christ is eaten through faith in his Character, as the true Image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Therefore I asked, How does believing the bread and wine turns into his body and blood make one righteous through faith?

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't see where I say that the actual body of Christ and blood of Christ are symbolic. I said the bread and wine are symbolic of the actual body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine partaken of at the communion of the saints, are properly understood as a sacrament, the sign/symbol of something sacred. Therefore I believe there is a spiritual discernment in the symbolism.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Notice what scripture says about flesh Israel.
1 Corinthians 10:18.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Hi Childeye,

I can't go back and read all the posts between you and Jim Parker. I'll take your word for it.

Here's my problem: Like I said to turnandburn there's a big divide between what was believed prior to 1,500 and what came to be believed after 1,500. Really, if you read the very early church fathers, 1st century, you'll find that they believed they were actually eating the body and drinking the blood. Ignatius of Antioch was clear on this. I think I can't post, not sure. It could be googled very easily. Ignatius of Antioch knew John. What more can I say?

I can't go on posting back and forth and we're each going to have to respect what the other believes. I understand about the spiritual concept of John 6, I just can't wrap my brain around it.

Just a few comments. I think Jim Parker meant that Jesus didn't say the bread was a SYMBOL of Himself, but that it WAS Himself. (not that it was a symbol of His existence - it wouldn't make sense). I could be wrong, not in his brain.

Your no. 35 above is symbolic. Like Jesus telling the woman at the well that if she drank of His water she would never thirst again. Okay.

Your entire next pp after no. 36 is right on. I could get into John 6:47 a little but it won't get us anywhere.
I don't understand what 2 Corinthians 4:4 has to do with this. Are you saying I'm under satan's power of disbelief?? I hope not. This is not a heretical belief. It does not take me far from God or damage my relationship with Him. I refer back to what I said about the early church fathers. We could discount them now, but they were the speakers of God's Word and explained it for fifteen hundred years! I repeat that Luther believed in the Real Presence, which is the same as saying the real B and B.

1 Corinthians 10:18 - Odd that you should pick this scripture. It says those who EAT the sacrifices are partakers at the altar. But Paul is saying not to participate with demons, but not to participate in eating meat that was sacrificed to demons.

When a priest made a sacrifice on the altar, he ate part of it, the people ate part of it, and part of it was burned up as God's portion. But keep reading on. At 1 Corinthians 11:29 Paul says that anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the BODY of the Lord, eats and drinks judgement on Himself.

Also, the perfect Lamb in Exodus 11/12 also had to literally be eaten.

I don't know. There's too much stuff. It seems literal to me, but, I repeat, our belief on this is not our salvation and we'll h ave to stop at what we could believe by reading the scriptures carefully. I doubt there's anything new anybody here could add to this.

Wondering