BREAKING OF BREAD

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life?
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic
"Scripture Catholic" is an oxymoron i think, no offense, "eucharist" is not in There anyway, that is obviously just a popular idol? and i have no doubt that plenty of Prots have already repeated the vv i just did that would clarify "symbolic" for you, if you had ears to hear that? Also, understand why the publicans and prostitutes are beating you into the kingdom is prolly the best response to your "unspiritual people" i bet!

Adults often remark how children of a certain age hear very literally, right? After we have corrupted them into the world? How surprising is it that many just slowly or even never grow out of that? Naive dialectic is very hard for a Westerner to even contemplate i guess, let alone try to assimilate
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Was Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 10:16 a stupid question question?
@Illuminator too i guess,
10 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual food; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.
17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.


have you and i ever literally shared a loaf of bread, Mary? And while we're at it, could you just Quote that part where Moses ritually baptized everyone? Wadr you arent even trying imo, ok, although being a Catholic i cant really blame you for avoiding the Bible like the plague, either. Your bargain with the grave will not stand, ok? And i dont doubt that you are feeling rather trampled as we speak? Which i guess also applies to any Prots who have faith in Death, More Abundantly too. Who also churn out pedophiles, i guess
 
Last edited:

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is a 500 year teaching.

The same "500 year teaching" that brought us Maryalotry? Having to confess to a Priest to have our sins forgiven? The unbiblical invention of Nuns and Popes? teaching you have starts here.

Everett Ferguson in his Encyclopedia of Early Christianity remarks on the Eucharist... "The consecration and communion bread and wine as a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection in the Christian liturgy. (p. 320). As he traced the history of it, he remarks... "The change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus came to be identified in later Western thought with the repetition of the words of institution (Ambrose, Sacram. 4.4.14-4.5.23.) and later Eastern thought with the invocation of the Holy Spirit (Const. app 8.2.12).(p. 322).

The Apostolic Constitutions are from 375-380. Ambrose was alive 340–397. The "500 year" teaching you have starts here; it's the wrong 500 years!

Though not the same, but not in contradiction of Everett, Johnson and Webber in What Christians Believe/ A Biblical & Historical Summary, Pages 399-401, quotes Justin Martyr (150). In a letter written to the Emperor Titus in defense of the Christian faith, he explains Communion... "For we do not receive these things (the bread and wine) as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood is nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Johnson and Webber clarify that "Justin's description of the bread and wine as the body and blood of the Lord is neither the later Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation nor the Protestant concept of memorialism. The bread and drink, Justin writes, is more than common food or drink... The general consensus among liturgical scholars is that Justin's understanding may be described as a "real presence." That is, there is a real mystery at work here, whereby Jesus becomes more savingly present to us through the action represented by the rite of bread and wine." (p. 400).

Many in history have found a via media between Transubstantiation and a mere Memorial. Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood was not literal in the Earliest days of the Church. It was more than a Memorial Service, but not through any magical incantation or sacramental value, God is present in the moment. We "eat" the Flesh and "drink" the blood of Christ on a spiritual level, meaning that we consume the whole of Christ and what He has done for us on the Cross. We do not have to use a physical Communion to do this; our remission of sins is based on our total reliance of Christ and He is our Sustenance. It is a Memorial as a reminder of our total dependence on Christ for salvation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood was not literal in the Earliest days of the Church.

Hello Candidus,

Demonstrably false:

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch circa 100 AD wrote:

'They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up again.

They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again.'

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Hello Candidus,

Demonstrably false:

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch circa 100 AD wrote:

'They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up again.

They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again.'

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!
fortunately a Christian believer does not rely on one of Paul's wolves for their theology, huh?
You too are welcome to join Christianity and abandon the cult of Sol Invictus, pj
 
  • Like
Reactions: XRose

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The only "Flesh" in context, is the Flesh of Jesus!
Why did he ask: Do you take offense at this?

They were offended because they knew he was speaking about His flesh ....NOT a spiritual flesh. They were soooo offended they walked away. Sounds like you walked away also :(
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The same "500 year teaching" that brought us Maryalotry? Having to confess to a Priest to have our sins forgiven? The unbiblical invention of Nuns and Popes? teaching you have starts here.

Everett Ferguson in his Encyclopedia of Early Christianity remarks on the Eucharist... "The consecration and communion bread and wine as a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection in the Christian liturgy. (p. 320). As he traced the history of it, he remarks... "The change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus came to be identified in later Western thought with the repetition of the words of institution (Ambrose, Sacram. 4.4.14-4.5.23.) and later Eastern thought with the invocation of the Holy Spirit (Const. app 8.2.12).(p. 322).

The Apostolic Constitutions are from 375-380. Ambrose was alive 340–397. The "500 year" teaching you have starts here; it's the wrong 500 years!

Though not the same, but not in contradiction of Everett, Johnson and Webber in What Christians Believe/ A Biblical & Historical Summary, Pages 399-401, quotes Justin Martyr (150). In a letter written to the Emperor Titus in defense of the Christian faith, he explains Communion... "For we do not receive these things (the bread and wine) as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood is nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Johnson and Webber clarify that "Justin's description of the bread and wine as the body and blood of the Lord is neither the later Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation nor the Protestant concept of memorialism. The bread and drink, Justin writes, is more than common food or drink... The general consensus among liturgical scholars is that Justin's understanding may be described as a "real presence." That is, there is a real mystery at work here, whereby Jesus becomes more savingly present to us through the action represented by the rite of bread and wine." (p. 400).

Many in history have found a via media between Transubstantiation and a mere Memorial. Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood was not literal in the Earliest days of the Church. It was more than a Memorial Service, but not through any magical incantation or sacramental value, God is present in the moment. We "eat" the Flesh and "drink" the blood of Christ on a spiritual level, meaning that we consume the whole of Christ and what He has done for us on the Cross. We do not have to use a physical Communion to do this; our remission of sins is based on our total reliance of Christ and He is our Sustenance. It is a Memorial as a reminder of our total dependence on Christ for salvation.
Thank you for quoting Justin Martyr....I agree with him...we do not receive these things (the bread and wine) as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip James

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
well, the same way i ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, mary; spiritually, as i said? How is it you did not know I was not talking about bread see, no actual literal "food" involved at all?
You partake in His body/blood spirituality???? o_O

That makes ZERO SENSE!!!

He SHOWED you how to partake of it at The Last Supper. Soooo why don’t you believe Him?
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
well, the same way i ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, mary; spiritually, as i said? How is it you did not know I was not talking about bread see, no actual literal "food" involved at all?

well, He also said No one has ever gone up to heaven but He Who came down from it Mary, why don't y'all believe that?
12If I have told you about things that happen on earth and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you about things of heaven?

So, i dunno about Catholicism, but i did have several pastors all pretty much thought they were the pope i guess, and while i wouldnt want you to take this wrong, yes imo most prots who are also in the Cult of Sol Invictus with you may as well be going to a Catholic congregation, yes; at least their buildings are still open most days :)
or they were anyway, dunno about now? Are masses still being held?
i currently tithe to a catholic charities, but i noticed last time that they are meeting me at the door alla sudden
Lol....you are the pope of your church which has one member....YOU!;)
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In John 10:9, Jesus said... "I am the door..". I suppose that Jesus has hinges on His side and a doorknob for a bellybutton!
Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience was fully aware of it. Since they knew he wasn’t speaking in a metaphor when he said we must eat his body they were offended by him. It is the only passage in scripture that has his disciples walk away from Him and it is verse 6:66
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The only "Flesh" in context, is the Flesh of Jesus!
He was literally talking about flesh and blood....that is why they walked away. If he changes it to spiritual flesh in that one passage it would be COMPLETELY out of context and would make him a very confusing teacher ....he wasn’t a confusing teacher. Several years later Even Paul knew that and reaffirmed we participate in his body/blood via bread/wine.
 

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello Candidus,

Demonstrably false:

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch circa 100 AD wrote:

'They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up again.

They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God
perish by their questionings. But it were expedient
for them to have love, that they may also rise again.'

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!
Who are "they" that Ignatius is railing against?

Answer: The Gnostics.

The Gnostics did not accept that Jesus ever was actually "in the flesh." If Jesus was never in the Flesh... then what meaning could possibly be in saying: "This is my Body, broken for you." J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, remarks (Vol. 1, p.159) "Ignatius-- calls it (the Eucharist), an antidote against death, and the Docetists are censured because they deny that the eucharist is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,"

Speaking of Ignatius, McGiffert in his History of Christian Thought (p.42) says, "In general his hostility to heresy, or teaching out of harmony with the common faith of the church as he knew it, was very bitter. This hatred of heresy and the heretic-- for Ignatius drew no distinction between them." Words have meaning, but they have meaning in context of what was going on. In the Early Church has proponents of realism and others advocating a spiritual view. There was no consensus. Ignatius emphasized the realism view of the eucharist.

Ignatius did not give any indicator that he believed as Paul about the connection of salvation and faith. To him, it was consolidated in the Eucharist, meaning, Faith in the Body and Blood for salvation is expressed in the participation of this act. Nothing of the words in context would lead to an agreement with Transubstantiation. The Realism View does not mean anything more than a presence, not necessarily a conversion of the elements into something physical. J.G. Davies in his The Early Christian Church, says on page 268, "Eucharist Doctrine during this period, in relation to the presence of Christ, was of two kinds: the figurative, which stresses the distinction between the elements and the reality they represent, and the conversionist--which affirms a change in the bread and wine. The former view was more primitive and was represented by the West by Augustine, the latter was an Eastern development, exemplified by John Chrysostom and popularized in the West by Ambrose. "
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
You partake in His body/blood spirituality???? o_O

That makes ZERO SENSE!!!

He SHOWED you how to partake of it at The Last Supper. Soooo why don’t you believe Him?
Mary, you are a Catholic, and i am, nominally at least, a Christian, ok? Iow no offense, but i am not interested in anything you have to teach, nor am i interested in playing "nevermindthatwhataboutthis" with you, regardless of how much pleasure you get from it; it is abundantly plain that you do not respond to my posts and the Scriptures in them because you cannot, and i am not here to make you see any light, or for that matter to teach anyone anything, ok?

You obviously have no desire to abandon your pope, right, and also have no desire to learn anything about Christianity, as a guess, so with all due respect i am going to not bother even reading what is surely just a mute reiteration there in your next post--which ill come back andapologize if im wrong there--that experience tells me you have not paid the slightest attention to my post that you quoted? That about right?
Lol....you are the pope of your church which has one member....YOU!;)
so, as i said, no apology needed, but i will leave you with another Scripture, that i doubt you will like much either, mostly so that i can say that i have conscientiously responded to the author of every post i have ever quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:24 Lexicon: then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. , which i dont expect you to respond to either, ok. Have a nice day maam
When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience was fully aware of it.
do you realize that every single time you post you contravene Scripture? Havent you just read How is it that you did not know I was not talking about bread? today, Mary? jesus already, woman, will you ever get a clue
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
He was literally talking about flesh and blood....that is why they walked away. If he changes it to spiritual flesh in that one passage it would be COMPLETELY out of context and would make him a very confusing teacher ....he wasn’t a confusing teacher. Several years later Even Paul knew that and reaffirmed we participate in his body/blood via bread/wine.
so iow you are determined to read like a stubborn ten year old the rest of your life, we get it
 

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience was fully aware of it. Since they knew he wasn’t speaking in a metaphor when he said we must eat his body they were offended by him. It is the only passage in scripture that has his disciples walk away from Him and it is verse 6:66

Notice that a door does not sound like cannibalism! If it's not spiritual, then they were right to walk away!
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Scripture Catholic" is an oxymoron i think, no offense, "eucharist" is not in There anyway, that is obviously just a popular idol?
Your ignorance of scripture astounds me. Eucharist, which in Greek is eucharistia, means thanksgiving. Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, .....

He TOLD us to do this in remembrance of Him.....Christians still do this 2000 years later. Sooo do you give thanks??
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,318
5,352
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Blood is an issue, and it is an issue with people. Some people find it grotesque. Was it something about Christ’s blood that saved us? Maybe it was the symbology of blood that saved us. Maybe Christ was only symbolically crucified? People can read the scriptures and make any possible thing out of them, but the concept of the saving blood of Christ is a consistent theme regarding salvation. Wouldn’t it have been a wonderful thing if the Son of God would not have had to be crucified? If He came and just said, “If you believe in Me your sins are forgiven.” And He spent a few centuries teaching us the way. But that is not what happened, so are we going to understand why and how His blood saved us. One of the great mysteries, God the Father can get a little wrathful, how is it that killing His Son made us right with God? You would think it would do just the opposite….

The scriptures pertaining to the blood and flesh ritual that was conducted using wine and bread, are not short or vague scriptures. Drinking blood…yuck! I sympathize with those that have trouble with it. But that is one of the points, those listening to what Christ said felt the same way. Yuck! To the Jews this was not only sacrilegious, but smacked of Paganism! I can’t blame them, but it shows that they understood exactly what Christ was saying and reacted to it. So He was not saying that, “We are going to go somewhere and drink some wine and eat some bread and have a good time and pretend it is my body and blood.” That is not what this long set of scriptures are saying. His own Apostles objected! Yeshua knew the implications and the controversial nature of it, and He knew it had to be done. Why cause all the controversy if it was not necessary? He gave His own Apostle no recourse, accept it or leave….So it was important enough that He risked losing His own Apostles over it, and then He performed it with them. So it was not an obscure, metaphysical concept for them to ponder. It happened, and after washing their feet He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you.” DONE TO YOU. There was something about that, that did something important to them. So Yeshua made the concept real and His blood went on to save us from hell.

Here is something else that needs to be made clear, Christ did not say that the blood and wine ritual is what saves us. He said, “…anyone that eats of this bread, he shall live forever….” Now regular bread does not make you live forever. Then to reinforce the truth He said, “….unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

So what does it mean to be saved from hell and not have any life in us? What does it mean if He does not raise you from the dead? Saved from hell but not raised or go to heaven! WOW! I got a question….is that where ghosts come from? They are not in hell and they are not in heaven, they are not among the physical living or the spiritual living. Pretty much defines ghosts! My best advise, don’t be silly enough to think you can figure out the exact divine functionality of the event. Christ told us to do it, if you don’t believe Him, you can tell Him you are not interested. Free-will is a great thing. Then you can come back and tell us were you ended up with no life in you. Me? I believe!
 
Last edited:

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,466
1,707
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Notice that a door does not sound like cannibalism! If it's not spiritual, then they were right to walk away!
I sincerely apologize....I don’t understand what you are trying to convey!