Mass Is Not the Topic in John 6th Chapter

[JesusIsFaithful]

Neither the Mass nor communion was the topic in John 6th chapter. The topic was about how we are saved by believing in Him.

Before we start on the most misread and misapplied portion of scripture used for the Mass and communion; let us start at the very beginning when Jesus was talking about how we are saved.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 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.

Please note verse 35 as to why Jesus was not talking about the Mass nor communion. If He was, then by His words, you would only have to take Mass or communion one time, and that's it, but He was not talking about the Mass nor communion. He was talking about how we receive the bread of life Whom is Jesus Christ in order to be saved and that is by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ.

Now note verse 36 above where Jesus had pointed out how they had not received the bread of life by commenting on how they had believed not on Him even after having seen Him.

So we go down to that portion of the misread & misapplied words of His where Jesus once again, preached the gospel message on how to be saved before His message was lost by Catholic theology.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

So why did Jesus used symbolism or a parable towards the unbelieving Jews about eating his flesh? Obviously because of their refusal to believe in Him to be saved.

Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Getting back to John 6th chapter, we see when Jesus spoke plainly to His disciples that He was not talking about eating for the flesh profiteth nothing, but by believing in Him is how one is saved.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

When only the twelve disciples were left, and after Peter spoke for the twelve tat they believed in Him, Jesus said so otherwise because He knew Judas did not believe in Him and would betray Him soon.

So everything discussed in these portions of scripture was about how one receives eternal life and that was by believing in Jesus Christ after He had ascended to the Father as promised in verse 62.

 

[aspen]

Well, it certainly mislead the Disciples, Apostles, the disciples of the Apostles and the rest of the Early Church.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Well, it certainly mislead the Disciples, Apostles, the disciples of the Apostles and the rest of the Early Church.

I doubt the disciples had any inkling that Jesus was talking about the Mass or communion in John 6th chapter from which the "church tradition" claimed to base this on. All they understood from that discourse is that they had believed in Him ( except for Judas Iscariot )

That was the only thing that the 11 believing disciples took from that discourse is that they had believed in Him. They did not immediately went & got bread and wine to hold what the "church" had led believers down through history to believe that Jesus had wanted them to do that from that discourse.

 

[zeke25]

Well, it certainly mislead the Disciples, Apostles, the disciples of the Apostles and the rest of the Early Church.

Put the subject in chronological order. Communion was taught at the Last Supper, not anywhere else prior to that. John 6 occurred before the Last Supper. Therefore, John 6 was not teaching communion in any manner, shape, or form.

Anyone in the early church, and up to the present, that tried to make John 6 into something that it was not, was obviously a reprobate. It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

zeke25

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Put the subject in chronological order. Communion was taught at the Last Supper, not anywhere else prior to that. John 6 occurred before the Last Supper. Therefore, John 6 was not teaching communion in any manner, shape, or form.

Anyone in the early church, and up to the present, that tried to make John 6 into something that it was not, was obviously a reprobate. It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

zeke25

Thanks, zeke25, for confirming the word to our brother, aspen. May God cause the increase.

 

[zeke25]

Communion


1. As a Christian have you wondered what the Lord's supper, called communion, is all about? 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 KJV, "23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord [Yahoshua] 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."

2. For those who have been taught about communion, sometimes it is necessary to unlearn erroneous information previously believed to be true. In the Bible, in the book of John, chapter 6, verses 26-63, is one such place. These verses do not teach communion. For those who have been taught that they do, we must begin here so that these verses can be understood in their proper context. If we neglect this step, then we risk that these verses will forever be a hindrance in understanding communion as our Lord and Savior taught it to us.

3. Please keep in mind that the events in John 6 occurred prior to the Last Supper. These Hebrews in John 6 had never received any teaching from Christ regarding communion. This is an unknown concept to them. So please, constantly remind yourself of this fact and continually remember to receive from Christ, that which He teaches here, without interjecting thoughts of communion, which do not exist in history yet. How true it still is as written in 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

4. John 6:26-27 KJV, "26 [Yahoshua] answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Here, Yahoshua sets the tone for His teaching that follows. First, He rebukes the Hebrews. He is discouraged at their lack of faith and understanding. They saw miracles but were not interested in these miracles. They heard teachings directly from the mouth of God, and they were not interested. These Hebrews only wanted physical food to nourish their flesh. Then He tells them they should not be working so hard just to get food for their physical bodies, instead they need to feed their spirits with His teachings, because if they believe in Him and His teachings they can attain eternal life.

5. Since these Hebrews minds were on physical food, they did not understand what Yahoshua just told them. So they ask a question. John 6:28 KJV, "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

6. John 6:29 KJV, "[Yahoshua] answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." So, Yahoshua repeats the answer He gave in verse 27 above. Taking verse 27 and 29 together He is saying, "Labor for food (spiritual understanding) which endures to everlasting life, I am giving you that food (spiritual understanding) through my teachings - in other words, believe in Me. Believe in Me because the Heavenly Father has sent and approved Me."

7. John 6:30-31 KJV, "30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat." These people’s total focus was still on food that would fill their stomachs. Listen to their insults to the God of the universe as their provoking and unbelief manifests itself. They asked for a miracle that would give them bread to eat. They wanted to believe in Him for food, they did not want to believe in Him for what He was offering, that is, eternal life. After all, they reasoned, Moses gave our forefathers bread, so You should give us bread too. They wanted a caretaker, but they did not want God. Yesterday's miracles were not sufficient for them. They were hungry again today. "Feed us again," they cried, "we will believe in you for physical food, but we will not believe in you to be a miracle working personal God who wants us to fellowship with Him for all eternity."

8.a. John 6:32-33 KJV, "32 Then [Yahoshua] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Yahoshua has just taught again that which he had previously said to Satan in Matthew 4:4 KJV (also in Deuteronomy 8:3),"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Yahoshua has just made a comparison between Himself and bread, because these people want bread (food) to fill their stomachs. Yahoshua wants them to desire Him and the teachings He gives, to fill their spirits.

8.b. More needs to be said however. (1) Yahoshua corrected them and said that Moses did not give them the bread from Heaven. In other words, My Father gave you the bread, not Moses, and I am not another Moses. (2) Besides, that was physical bread, you need true bread. You need faith, teachings, and understandings that will well up to eternal life. (3) You need what I have come to give you. I am the one who can give you this faith and these teachings and understandings that lead to life. I am that life (bread) from God. You have it all, right here, right now, just believe in Me.

8.c. As you can see, there has been no teaching, whatsoever, up through verse 33 that even hints at communion. Yahoshua is not teaching communion here, nor will He. We will continue the exegeses of these passages so that you can be convinced of this. He is teaching that the path to eternal life is believing in Him. Eternal life is obtained by being washed in His Blood and believing in Him for this salvation. Eternal life is not achieved, or even partially achieved, through communion or water baptism (which is a whole other teaching).

9. John 6:34 KJV "Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread." They still did not understand Him. They did not know He was referring to Himself when He said, "the true bread from Heaven" and "the bread of God". They were still looking for physical food.

10. John 6:35-36 KJV, "35 And [Yahoshua] 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." These people had seen miraculous signs and wonders. People they had known their wholes lives were healed of visible maladies right before their very eyes. They had seen five thousand fed with five loaves of bread and two fish. Yet, they did not believe in Him. The stubbornness and unbelief of some boggles the mind. And Yahoshua makes the comparison again between Himself and bread. He even calls Himself the Bread of Life. He is saying that the bread that fills your stomach only gives you life here and now. The Bread of Life, that is, Yahoshua, gives you life forever. Yahoshua is not saying He is a piece of bread of higher quality which will go into your stomach and sustain your physical body forever. Rather, He is comparing bread made by human hands to be consumed for food, with Himself, the Bread of Life, that must be consumed in your spirit for eternal life.

11. John 6:37-40 KJV, "37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." They have just been told that He holds the keys to eternal life, because He can raise them up on the last day. Please, people, listen to Him.

12. But, incredibly, they do not listen, just as people do not listen today. They actually start complaining in John 6:41-42 KJV, "41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this [Yahoshua], the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

13. John 6:43-48 KJV, "43 [Yahoshua] therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life." He says it again. He says, "I am the bread of life." Also, He just told them again the key to eternal life, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

14. He continues to explain, yet again, that bread consumed into the stomach gains you nothing in eternity. Only living bread, namely Himself, consumed into your spirit gains eternity. John 6:49-51 KJV, "49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. In others words, He was predicting the death of His body as an atonement for the sins of all. John 3:16 KJV, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

15. John 6:52 KJV, "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" The people cannot break from the desire of their hearts. The desire of their hearts is to eat bread, made by human hands, so that their stomachs will be full. Many were blinded then as to what Yahoshua was saying to them, just as many are blinded today and cannot understand these verses now.

16. John 6:53-59 KJV, "53 Then [Yahoshua] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum." Yahoshua continues to reinforce everything He has said since verse 26. He continues to make the comparison of consuming bread made by human hands as only being temporary (temporal), and referring to Himself as the bread that came down from heaven (spiritual).

17. John 6:60 KJV, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" They continue in their unbelief and, therefore, are unable to understand.

18. John 6:61-63 KJV, "61 When [Yahoshua] knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Yahoshua continues, yet another time, to stress that He is speaking spiritually about eating His flesh, not physically. He stresses that eating His flesh means that you are taking Him and His teaching into your spirit so that you may receive eternal life.

19. It is important to inject a paragraph here to explain what has not taken place in John 6:26-63. No where in these passages has Yahoshua taught communion. He did reveal what He meant when He was referring to Himself and His teachings as the Bread of Life. But communion was not taught here, nor did anyone here even know anything at all about communion. Communion was taught in the future, at the Last Supper. Prior to the Last Supper, communion was unheard of.

20. Now that we have looked at the Bible’s teaching on what Yahoshua meant when he called Himself the Bread of Life, we can turn to what is expected of us when we partake in the Lord’s Supper as He instructed us to do. Luke 22:19 KJV, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Yahoshua is not saying that bread made by human hands is His actual flesh. Yahoshua is not saying that bread made by human hands has spiritual power. He is saying that partaking of this bread, made by human hands, in this frame of mind, is to remind us of His sacrifice, the sacrifice of His physical flesh, the sacrifice of the Bread of Life, for the sins of all men. The bread made by human hands has no spiritual power. Only the Bread of Life has spiritual power.

 

[zeke25]

For those who missed this thread when it was being discussed a very short time ago.

 

[JimParker]

Jesus said

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

and

John 6:53-54 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

And a the "last supper" Jesus said about the bread which He broke and gave to His disciples: "This is my body." (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1Co 11:24)

Then, of the cup of wine He said; "this is my blood" (Mat 26:28, Mar 14:24, Luke 22:20)

How much simpler can it be?

That's the Eucharist. (or communion, if you like.)

 

[zeke25]

Jesus said

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

and

John 6:53-54 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

And a the "last supper" Jesus said about the bread which He broke and gave to His disciples: "This is my body." (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1Co 11:24)

Then, of the cup of wine He said; "this is my blood" (Mat 26:28, Mar 14:24, Luke 22:20)

How much simpler can it be?

That's the Eucharist. (or communion, if you like.)

JImParker,

There is no question that communion was taught at the Last Supper. But in John 6:23-63 a totally different topic is being taught by Yahoshua. What part of post #6 (and posts 1,3,4,5) did you not understand? More importantly what part of John 6:23-63, when you read it as one topic, as one point of instruction, could possibly make you think that Christ was teaching about communion? His listeners had no clue or idea whatsoever that communion was to be a future doctrine taught at the Last Supper.

Zeke25

 

[Axehead]

JImParker,

There is no question that communion was taught at the Last Supper. But in John 6:23-63 a totally different topic is being taught by Yahoshua. What part of post #6 (and posts 1,3,4,5) did you not understand? More importantly what part of John 6:23-63, when you read it as one topic, as one point of instruction, could possibly make you think that Christ was teaching about communion? His listeners had no clue or idea whatsoever that communion was to be a future doctrine taught at the Last Supper.

Zeke25

There is a very good reason why Jesus said this in the same conversation:


John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

How much more simpler can it be after Jesus clarifies?

Axehead

 

[JimParker]

JImParker,

There is no question that communion was taught at the Last Supper. But in John 6:23-63 a totally different topic is being taught by Yahoshua. What part of post #6 (and posts 1,3,4,5) did you not understand? More importantly what part of John 6:23-63, when you read it as one topic, as one point of instruction, could possibly make you think that Christ was teaching about communion? His listeners had no clue or idea whatsoever that communion was to be a future doctrine taught at the Last Supper.

Zeke25

<< John 6:23-63 a totally different topic>>

No. It's not.

<<More importantly what part of John 6:23-63, when you read it as one topic, as one point of instruction, could possibly make you think that Christ was teaching about communion?>>

Rather, how is it that it is not crystal clear to you that it is specifically addressing the Eucharist?

Eucharist

MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
MT 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

MK 14:22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
MK 14:23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

LK 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
LK 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

In John 6 with 13 bold statements, Jesus first declared that He is the bread of life. (This is a metaphor. Obviously Jesus was not a talking loaf of bread.) Then he explained the meaning of the metaphor by stated that His flesh is the bread; and that it is necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. There are no other examples of a similar extended metaphor in any of Jesus’ sayings. The language, rather than being a metaphor, is more a driving home of a point which is difficult to accept. (Which is the precise reaction of many of those who heard His words; they could not accept them.) It is of note tht Jesus did not attempt to explain any parabolic or metaphoric meaning to the disciples as He had done in other instances. Indeed, the apostles do not even question Jesus as to the meaning of His words. This lack of questioning suggests that they did not receive His words a metaphor or parable which would require that the symbols be explained in order to understand the meaning of the speech. It suggests that they understood them to be words plainly spoken and having no hidden or symbolic meaning.

JN 6:35 Then Jesus declared,

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the metaphor
(1) "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

48 (2) I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50 (3) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 (4) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
(5) If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

THE BREAD IS MY FLESH – the metaphor explained
(6) This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

JN 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
(7) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 (8) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 (9) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 (10) 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
(11) the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the lesson summarized
58 (12) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
(13) he who feeds on this bread will live forever."


Paul’s words concerning the Eucharist confirm that the bread and wine are the actual Body and Blood of the Lord rather than a symbol or a prop in a ritual of recalling.

1CO 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1CO 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1CO 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Now apply what Paul has told us at 1CO 4:6, “Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another”

How then can it be said that the bread and wine are merely symbols when there is no mention of symbols anywhere in scripture, but rather, the repeated statement “This is my body” and “This is … my blood” and, , JN 6:53"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. JN 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. JN 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. JN 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. JN 6:57 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.”?



Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; [SIZE=14pt]“[/SIZE]They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”

He was taught by the John, the beloved disciple of Christ and, in this statement, he affirms the teaching of the apostles and Christ that the bread is Christ’s body.

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is not some later innovation by the Roman church but was a part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church. And here it is:

“And this food is called among us Eujcaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”

Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), in his book Against Heresies,

Book IV Chapter XVIII.—Concerning Sacrifices and Oblations, and Those Who Truly Offer Them.
4…………..But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Chapter XXXIII.—Whosoever Confesses that One God is the Author of Both Testaments, and Diligently Reads the Scriptures in Company with the Presbyters of the Church, is a True Spiritual Disciple; And He Will Rightly Understand and Interpret All that the Prophets Have Declared Respecting Christ and the Liberty of the New Testament.

2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?

Book V, Ch. II. 2 states, “He (Jesus) has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.

Chapter XXXVII
[SIZE=14pt]…………….[/SIZE] And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

Tertullian; On Prayer, Chapter XIX: “Of Stations.”
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. If the “Station” has received its name from the example of military life—for we withal are God’s military —of course no gladness or sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the “stations” of the soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more carefully.


So how is it that you know better than they?

 

[Axehead]

I have always wondered why men have replaced the true church fathers with other men (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian; Augustine, etc). These are not the church fathers, at least not the church I know of in the NT.

The church fathers are the Apostles and the ones that wrote the New Testament. I think I know why men have elevated other over the true church fathers.

Men have taken a simple time of eating and drinking with one another and remembering the Lord and turned it into a religious ritual.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; “They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,.

Ridiculous. We are not asked to confess that bread is the flesh of Jesus Christ. We are however to confess that Jesus came in the flesh.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Justin Martyr wasn't the church's first apologist. I would say Paul the Apostle was. But, that's just my opinion based on his NT writings.

"So how is it that you know better than they?"

Simple, they are misguided and deceived. They are men like you and me, except another group of men have elevated them to such great heights of "veneration", in order to make their words authoritative and those who question them to look like fools. Yes and their writings are held in higher esteem that than scripture itself. That is a red flag to me that says, RUN!

 

[zeke25]

<< John 6:23-63 a totally different topic>>

No. It's not.

<<More importantly what part of John 6:23-63, when you read it as one topic, as one point of instruction, could possibly make you think that Christ was teaching about communion?>>

Rather, how is it that it is not crystal clear to you that it is specifically addressing the Eucharist?

Eucharist

MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
MT 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

MK 14:22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
MK 14:23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

LK 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
LK 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

In John 6 with 13 bold statements, Jesus first declared that He is the bread of life. (This is a metaphor. Obviously Jesus was not a talking loaf of bread.) Then he explained the meaning of the metaphor by stated that His flesh is the bread; and that it is necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. There are no other examples of a similar extended metaphor in any of Jesus’ sayings. The language, rather than being a metaphor, is more a driving home of a point which is difficult to accept. (Which is the precise reaction of many of those who heard His words; they could not accept them.) It is of note tht Jesus did not attempt to explain any parabolic or metaphoric meaning to the disciples as He had done in other instances. Indeed, the apostles do not even question Jesus as to the meaning of His words. This lack of questioning suggests that they did not receive His words a metaphor or parable which would require that the symbols be explained in order to understand the meaning of the speech. It suggests that they understood them to be words plainly spoken and having no hidden or symbolic meaning.

JN 6:35 Then Jesus declared,

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the metaphor
(1) "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

48 (2) I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50 (3) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 (4) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
(5) If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

THE BREAD IS MY FLESH – the metaphor explained
(6) This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

JN 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
(7) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 (8) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 (9) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 (10) 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
(11) the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the lesson summarized
58 (12) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
(13) he who feeds on this bread will live forever."


Paul’s words concerning the Eucharist confirm that the bread and wine are the actual Body and Blood of the Lord rather than a symbol or a prop in a ritual of recalling.

1CO 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1CO 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1CO 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Now apply what Paul has told us at 1CO 4:6, “Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another”

How then can it be said that the bread and wine are merely symbols when there is no mention of symbols anywhere in scripture, but rather, the repeated statement “This is my body” and “This is … my blood” and, , JN 6:53"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. JN 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. JN 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. JN 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. JN 6:57 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.”?



Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; [SIZE=14pt]“[/SIZE]They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”

He was taught by the John, the beloved disciple of Christ and, in this statement, he affirms the teaching of the apostles and Christ that the bread is Christ’s body.

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is not some later innovation by the Roman church but was a part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church. And here it is:

“And this food is called among us Eujcaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”

Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), in his book Against Heresies,

Book IV Chapter XVIII.—Concerning Sacrifices and Oblations, and Those Who Truly Offer Them.
4…………..But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Chapter XXXIII.—Whosoever Confesses that One God is the Author of Both Testaments, and Diligently Reads the Scriptures in Company with the Presbyters of the Church, is a True Spiritual Disciple; And He Will Rightly Understand and Interpret All that the Prophets Have Declared Respecting Christ and the Liberty of the New Testament.

2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?

Book V, Ch. II. 2 states, “He (Jesus) has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.

Chapter XXXVII
[SIZE=14pt]…………….[/SIZE] And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.

Tertullian; On Prayer, Chapter XIX: “Of Stations.”
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. If the “Station” has received its name from the example of military life—for we withal are God’s military —of course no gladness or sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the “stations” of the soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more carefully.


So how is it that you know better than they?

JimParker,

Axehead has already said it quite well. But I would like to add that you might consider going back to post #6 and reread the teaching I wrote regarding John 6 and communion. There you will find the correct exegesis of John 6:26-63. Of course, you can choose not be believe it and instead believe the laughable teaching of the heretics you quoted.

Give me a break, how could anyone ever believe such a satanic myth that they must eat the flesh and drink the blood of their god. This is Mithraism.

Here is what the Bible says about the eucharistic cup: Revelation 17:4 KJV, "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:".

I can't take you out of your mindtrap, Jim. But I will pray for the Holy Spirit to do so.

I would be glad to take you through the teaching, verse by verse, and show you how John 6:26-63 never goes into any teaching whatsoever about communion. But I've tried this with people before who were imprisoned with the same teachings you have experienced. Their emotions will never allow them to go through John 6:26-63 one step at a time. It is impossible for them to do it. They always break and run to verse 55 instead of patiently waiting until we arrive there by methodical instruction. I repeat, it has thus far been impossible for them to patiently receive instruction one verse at a time. So, I issue the challenge to you. Here are the first two verses:

4. John 6:26-27 KJV, "26 [Yahoshua] answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Here, Yahoshua sets the tone for His teaching that follows. First, He rebukes the Hebrews. He is discouraged at their lack of faith and understanding. They saw miracles but were not interested in these miracles. They heard teachings directly from the mouth of God, and they were not interested. These Hebrews only wanted physical food to nourish their flesh. Then He tells them they should not be working so hard just to get food for their physical bodies, instead they need to feed their spirits with His teachings, because if they believe in Him and His teachings they can attain eternal life.

Do you see anything in there that alludes to communion? No, of course you don't, it is not there. So, now we can move onto John 6:28. What do you say? You asked me the question: why should you believe me. I am offering you the answer to that question right now. Fight that gut instinct you have to turn and run, and stay and learn. When you cannot come into agreement with any Scripture along the way, we have plenty of time to stop and discuss it, in chronological order as the story unfolds. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong, but only if you will stick with the guidelines of one Scripture at a time in chronological order.

Zeke25

 

[JimParker]

JimParker,

Axehead has already said it quite well. But I would like to add that you might consider going back to post #6 and reread the teaching I wrote regarding John 6 and communion. There you will find the correct exegesis of John 6:26-63. Of course, you can choose not be believe it and instead believe the laughable teaching of the heretics you quoted.

Give me a break, how could anyone ever believe such a satanic myth that they must eat the flesh and drink the blood of their god. This is Mithraism.

Here is what the Bible says about the eucharistic cup: Revelation 17:4 KJV, "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:".

I can't take you out of your mindtrap, Jim. But I will pray for the Holy Spirit to do so.

I would be glad to take you through the teaching, verse by verse, and show you how John 6:26-63 never goes into any teaching whatsoever about communion. But I've tried this with people before who were imprisoned with the same teachings you have experienced. Their emotions will never allow them to go through John 6:26-63 one step at a time. It is impossible for them to do it. They always break and run to verse 55 instead of patiently waiting until we arrive there by methodical instruction. I repeat, it has thus far been impossible for them to patiently receive instruction one verse at a time. So, I issue the challenge to you. Here are the first two verses:

4. John 6:26-27 KJV, "26 [Yahoshua] answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." Here, Yahoshua sets the tone for His teaching that follows. First, He rebukes the Hebrews. He is discouraged at their lack of faith and understanding. They saw miracles but were not interested in these miracles. They heard teachings directly from the mouth of God, and they were not interested. These Hebrews only wanted physical food to nourish their flesh. Then He tells them they should not be working so hard just to get food for their physical bodies, instead they need to feed their spirits with His teachings, because if they believe in Him and His teachings they can attain eternal life.

Do you see anything in there that alludes to communion? No, of course you don't, it is not there. So, now we can move onto John 6:28. What do you say? You asked me the question: why should you believe me. I am offering you the answer to that question right now. Fight that gut instinct you have to turn and run, and stay and learn. When you cannot come into agreement with any Scripture along the way, we have plenty of time to stop and discuss it, in chronological order as the story unfolds.

Zeke25

<< There you will find the correct exegesis of John 6:26-63. >>

Says who?? You?? How would you possibly know? (Rhetorical question)

<< Of course, you can choose not be believe it and instead believe the laughable teaching of the heretics you quoted.>>

Laughable?? Heretics?? Whatever.

Did you think I posted all that for YOU??

I wouldn't wast my time. You already know everything!

 

[Axehead]

C'mon, we are all nobody, aren't we? Only Jesus has all the truth and only Jesus is "somebody".

Jim, will you also admit that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Ignatius are "nobody" in the sense that you are using that term? Personally, I am happy to be a nobody and I haven't asked Zeke, but sense that he is, too. I don't want anyone following me. Men need to follow Christ, as He is the only one that is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

[zeke25]

<< There you will find the correct exegesis of John 6:26-63. >>

Says who?? You?? How would you possibly know? (Rhetorical question)

<< Of course, you can choose not be believe it and instead believe the laughable teaching of the heretics you quoted.>>

Laughable?? Heretics?? Whatever.

Did you think I posted all that for YOU??

I wouldn't wast my time. You already know everything!

JimParker,

I wish I did already know everything. But I've invited you to look at the Scriptures together, one at a time. Let's see if Justin's & the others' teachings agree with those Scriptures. Let's see if my teachings agree with those Scriptures. I've invited you to prove me wrong. Are you the one who thinks you know everything, so much so that you are unwilling to investigate the Scriptures for yourself?

Also, you've made no comment about John 6:26-27. Why not? Oh yeah, I remember. You wouldn't waste your time. Why is it a waste of time to investigate the Scriptures? You certainly spent a lot of time on your teachers of choice. Is not the Bible more worthy of your time and attention? It contains the words of God.

The offer still stands, to you or anyone else of your persuasion that wants to jump in.

Zeke25

 

[brakelite]

According to Strongs #473 the primary meaning of anti as in antichrist is 'instead of' or 'in the room of'. It denotes substitution, and in that sense becomes an opponent of Christ.
Can anyone deny the blasphemous and antichrist spirit of the following....


[SIZE=10pt]"...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. ...thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator..." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist (communion wafer), Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or it not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema." Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Original text with English translation, by Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P., B. Herder Book Co. 1960, Canon 6 [/SIZE]



[SIZE=10pt] "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist (communion wafer) are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema." (An exhausted definition of "Anathema" = To be damned and put to death) p.79, Canon 1. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.1413[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but to put heretics (Protestants) to death; for the (Romish) church proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely excommunicated them; afterwards she added a fine; then she banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to death." -Cardinal Bellarmine famous champion of Romanism cited by Schumucker p. 76

" 'The church,' says [Martin] Luther, 'has never burned a heretic.' . . I reply that this argument proves not the opinion, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther. Since almost infinite numbers were either burned or otherwise killed, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant, or if he was not ignorant, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood,--for that heretics were often burned by the [Catholic Church may be proved from many examples."--Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. II, Lib. III, cap. XXII, 1628 edition [Bellarmine is one of the most respected Jesuit teachers in the history of the Gregorian University in Rome, the largest Jesuit training school in the world].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"The church may by Divine right confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their persons, and condemn them to the flames." -Vatican II[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ the Eternal and Omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ; he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially found of applying to the priest is that of 'alter Christus.' For the priest is and should be another Christ" (Faith of Millions, John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269, "nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"The priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, he has to say it for the validity of the consecration. Meum! But it is not he who says these words; his voice indeed we hear, but he is only the instrument of the Sovereign Priest: our Lord speaks through His minister. The glory of this minister consists precisely in disappearing, in allowing Jesus to act through his personality: Sacerdos alter Christus. This Christ now offering Himself to God by the hands of the priest is the same Christ who is in heaven. Same happiness, same power, same majesty. He is performing the same acts, offering the same adorations, the same thanksgiving, the same prayers. He, the object of the beatitude of the elect, is now in the hands of the priest: Agnoscite quod agitis. But if really the priest causes our Lord to be present on the altar, if he offers Him, whilst Jesus is now in heaven, have we not to conclude that it is from the very bosom of the Father that the priest draws this divine Victim? Agnoscite quod agitis". (Our Priesthood, Rev.Joseph Bruneau, S.D.D., 149-151, "nihil obstat" by M.F. Dinneen, S.S.,D.D. -Censor deputatus, "imprimatur" by James Cardinal Gibbons -Archbishop of Baltimore, "Re-Imprimatur" by Michael J. Curley -Archbishop of Baltimore).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"...we find in the obediance to the words of his priests --- Hoc est Corpus Meum ---
God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. 'Oh, how very great is their power!' -The Dignity of the Priesthood by Ligouri p. 26,27[/SIZE]


[SIZE=10pt]"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man (...) he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." -Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National July 1895.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The title "Lord God the Pope" is found within a gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4,

In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, "Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam" (Our Lord God the Pope) can be found in column 153. In a Paris edition, they are found in column 140.

"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords"--La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]These quotes from Catholic sources, many of them with the official vatican impramatur, are but a few of the many like quotes one can find proclaiming the pope, or his subordinates, and the religious actions they partake in, [/SIZE]as being not only equal to God, but in some cases even greater than God.
2 Thess.2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

[justaname]

My question to Jim is,

when did Jesus being a loaf of bread change from metaphor to reality?

Also you are wrong Jesus did explain the hard teaching and the disciples did question the teaching. You simply need to continue the reading within context.


This begins the teaching...

John 6:25

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

This is a definitive portion of the teaching...

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Jesus is speaking about the death on the cross...not the Eucharist.

This concludes the teaching...

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

All of this coincides with...

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

I will agree through the lens of sacramental theology the Eucharist can easily be read into this pericope. Try reading it without those glasses and read it from a historical critical perspective without other interpretations. Put yourself in the sandals of the disciples. What would they understand from this teaching without further revelation? In other words they still had not participated in passover, and Jesus had not gone to the cross. What did this teaching mean to them then? I believe it is still significant to us today now.

 

[JimParker]

I have always wondered why men have replaced the true church fathers with other men (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian; Augustine, etc). These are not the church fathers, at least not the church I know of in the NT.

The church fathers are the Apostles and the ones that wrote the New Testament. I think I know why men have elevated other over the true church fathers.

Men have taken a simple time of eating and drinking with one another and remembering the Lord and turned it into a religious ritual.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; “They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,.

Ridiculous. We are not asked to confess that bread is the flesh of Jesus Christ. We are however to confess that Jesus came in the flesh.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Justin Martyr wasn't the church's first apologist. I would say Paul the Apostle was. But, that's just my opinion based on his NT writings.

"So how is it that you know better than they?"

Simple, they are misguided and deceived. They are men like you and me, except another group of men have elevated them to such great heights of "veneration", in order to make their words authoritative and those who question them to look like fools. Yes and their writings are held in higher esteem that than scripture itself. That is a red flag to me that says, RUN!

<<I have always wondered why men have replaced the true church fathers with other men (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian; Augustine, etc). These are not the church fathers, at least not the church I know of in the NT. >>

You have answered your own question with the words; "at least not the church I know of in the NT. "

<<Justin Martyr wasn't the church's first apologist. I would say Paul the Apostle was. But, that's just my opinion >>

And everybody's got an opinion. Yours is apparently based on a total lack of understanding of the difference between teaching and opologetics.

Question: "So how is it that you know better than they?"

<< Simple, they are misguided and deceived. >>

That's a pretty arrogant statement to make. It assumes that you have prefect knowledge of all the teaching which Jesus gave to the apostles which, if written down in books, they would be more than the world could hold. (John 21:25) It assumes that you have better knowledge than men who were contemporaries of the Apostles and some who were personally taught by them.

That sounds a whole lot like the arrogance of the founders and leaders of almost every cult and schism since Pentecost.

Why should anyone take your "knowledge" seriously?

<<Men have taken a simple time of eating and drinking with one another and remembering the Lord and turned it into a religious ritual. >>

Actually, they have taken Jesus' words seriously. (Which you, apparently, have not.)

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Your choosing to obstinately refuse to accept (and even refute!) those words of Jesus is done at your own peril.

Jesus also said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mar 1:15)

It's your choice. Believe Jesus' words or continue to be enthralled by your own words based on your exalted opinion of your ability to understand scripture better than the thousands of real Biblical scholars who have come before you.

I suggest you polish you "apologetic" in order to persuade Jesus that you understood His words better than He does.

 

[zeke25]

"at least not the church I know of in the NT. "

Jim,

5. Since these Hebrews minds were on physical food, they did not understand what Yahoshua just told them. So they ask a question. John 6:28 KJV, "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

6. John 6:29 KJV, "[Yahoshua] answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." So, Yahoshua repeats the answer He gave in verse 27 above. Taking verse 27 and 29 together He is saying, "Labor for food (spiritual understanding) which endures to everlasting life, I am giving you that food (spiritual understanding) through my teachings - in other words, believe in Me. Believe in Me because the Heavenly Father has sent and approved Me."

We started in verse 26 and now we're through verse 29. Do you see anything yet that describes communion? If so, where in these 4 verses is it?

BTW, where is the church you know of in the NT. Please identify it by book, chapter, and verse.

Zeke25