Normative Christian Experience: the Missing Basic

[Berserk]

In the NT normative Christian experience is limited neither to mere confession of sins and repentance nor to a lived faith based on salvation by grace through faith, but primarily consists of a living intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In a recent study 3 of 4 Christian young people reportedly lost their faith during their college years. In my view, this apostasy is primarily due to their failure to have ever enjoyed such a sustained supernatural relationship. 3 of my cousins, children of missionary parents, were such casualties. I would have been too, were it not for a momentous experience of the Spirit's power that cemented such a life-changing relationship with Christ.

This thread will develop its normative claim with a focus on these 4 topics, separated to make dialogue more focused and less helter-skelter:
(1) John the Seer's focus on the need for the experience of feasting on the Risen Lord
(2) Peter's focus on the affective experience of "tasting" Christ's goodness
(3) Jesus' [and Paul's] focus on the experience of "drinking in the Spirit" and Paul's understanding of the need to "pray in the Spirit"
(4) Paul's further understanding of the need to dramatically experience the power of the Spirit
Please join in once each theme is developed.

 

[Berserk]

(1) JOHN THE SEER'S FOCUS ON THE NEED FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF FEASTING WITH THE RISEN LORD

In Rev. 3:20 feasting on Jesus is an image of a "hot" spirituality in contrast with "lukewarm" faith-based spirituality whose adherents the Lord will "spit" or "vomit" (The Greek "emeo" can mean both) out of His mouth (see 3:16). John's image of feasting on (or with) Christ is an eloquent sensory image of an intimate personal relationship with Christ achieved when we sense His offer of such a personal interior relationship and invite Him in:
"Behold, I stand at the door, knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into you and feast with you, and you with me."
The church addressed at Laodicea consider themselves spiritually "rich" without any serious spiritual "needs." It is striking that the Risen Lord would prefer that they be spiritually "cold" rather than "lukewarm," a divine preference that highlights His position that Christian faith without an intimate personal relationship with Christ makes Jesus "barf" because it is worse than no faith at all! The obvious point here is that, unlike the "lukewarm," the "cold" are at least aware of where they stand spiritually.

This image of feasting with [not on] Jesus develops from the Johannine theme that Holy Communion is intended as a vehicle whereby Jesus comes to "abide in me, and I in them (John 6:56)." On 5 grounds Catholics criticize Protestants who reduce Holy Communion to a merely symbolic act:
(1) Jesus says, "Whoever eats me will live because of me (6:57)."
(2) Jesus anticipates the merely symbolic sacramental interpretation with his insistence: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (6:55)."
(3) Jesus literally says, "Those who munch on (Greek: "trogo") my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them (6:56)." The verb "trogo" means "munch," "eat audibly" a meaning that is inconsistent with a merely symbolic interpretation.
(4) Commentaries point out that John relocates the words of institution for Holy Communion from his account of the last Supper in John 13 to the expanded wording in John 6:53-58.--a point that Protestant bias prompts them to ignore.
(5) Jesus' Eucharistic interpretation triggers a mass exodus of His disciples (6:66), an exodus Jesus might have avoided if He explained that the sacramental participation is merely symbolic.

That said, I reject the Catholic Transubstantiation interpretation, but I find John's teaching that we mystically encounter Christ in the sacrament inescapable, unless we feel free to invent our own religion.

 

[Berserk]

(2) PETER'S FOCUS ON THE AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF "TASTING" CHRIST'S GOODNESS
Through John the seer, the Risen Lord describes His personal relationship with true believers as being spiritually "hot" and stuns the reader by adding that He'd rather we be spiritually "cold" than "lukewarm," apparently because "cold" believers are less pretentious about their true condition.

Peter teaches that to "grow into salvation" you must "have tasted that the Lord is good" by direct experience conveyed by drinking "pure spiritual milk (1 Peter 2:1-2)." What is the normative affective verification of such feasting on Jesus? "You believe in Him and rejoice with an indescribable joy full of [the weighty energy of divine] glory (1:8)." The inserted clarifying words are based on the fact that the Hebrew word for "glory" (kabod) also connotes "weight." Hence Paul can speak of "the weight of glory" that awaits believers (2 Cor. 4:17). Thus, to experience the joy that derives from an intimate personal relationship with Christ charismatic believers speak of feeling "pressed down" by an overwhelming burden of awe and reverence and, for this reason, often feel compelled to lie prostrate on their faces, lost in praise and adoration. Paul describes the joy of an intimate relationship with Christ as "peace that surpasses understanding" and the petitions generated by this intimate connection as bathed in gratitude for privilege of such a divine audience for the expression of our needs (Phil. 4:6-7). So glorious a vision of what can be expected from a personal relationship with Christ seems far removed from the experience of most Christians who have reduced that Gospel to a set of dry principles to be followed with little regarded to any mystical empowerment by the Spirit.

 

[Berserk]

(3a) JESUS' AND PAUL'S FOCUS ON THE EXPERIENCE Of "DRINKING IN THE SPIRIT"

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized (immersed) into one body and we were all made to drink of one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).

Many Christians don't realize how central the image of drinking is for both Jesus and Paul's portrayal the believer's initial reception of the Holy Spirit. In the Jewish thought of Jesus' day "living water" is an expression for flowing water. Thus, Jesus can say,

"Let anyone who is thirsty come to me; and let the one who believes in me drink. ad the Scripture has said, "Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water." Now He said this about the Spirit (John 7:37-39)."

So reception of the Holy Spirit is a mystical experience of the energy of an inner flow that extinguishes one's spiritual thirst (john 4:10, 14).

What is it like to drink in the Spirit? Paul teaches that "we are all made to drink of one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13)" and implies that we become intoxicated with the Spirit in a way analogous to alcoholic intoxication: "Do not get drunk with wine...but be filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:18)." This intoxication is reminiscent of the apparent drunkenness of the `120 when they were baptized in the Spirit (Acts 2:13ff.).

What is it like to be intoxicated with the Spirit? We experience a "peace that surpasses understanding" because our petitions are bathed in gratitude (Phil. 4:7-8)" and "our inner nature is being made new day by day (2 Cor. 4:16)." Paul is well aware that our impoverished experience of the Spirit will rarely be so blissful. So he insists that our claim to an intimate personal relationship with Christ must be tested through honest self-examination (2 Cor. 13:5-6).

In my next planned post I will explain what Paul means by the related concept of praying in the Spirit.

 

[Riverwalker]

In the NT normative Christian experience is limited neither to mere confession of sins and repentance nor to a lived faith based on salvation by grace through faith, but primarily consists of a living intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In a recent study 3 of 4 Christian young people reportedly lost their faith during their college years. In my view, this apostasy is primarily due to their failure to have ever enjoyed such a sustained supernatural relationship. 3 of my cousins, children of missionary parents, were such casualties. I would have been too, were it not for a momentous experience of the Spirit's power that cemented such a life-changing relationship with Christ.

This thread will develop its normative claim with a focus on these 4 topics, separated to make dialogue more focused and less helter-skelter:
(1) John the Seer's focus on the need for the experience of feasting on the Risen Lord
(2) Peter's focus on the affective experience of "tasting" Christ's goodness
(3) Jesus' [and Paul's] focus on the experience of "drinking in the Spirit" and Paul's understanding of the need to "pray in the Spirit"
(4) Paul's further understanding of the need to dramatically experience the power of the Spirit
Please join in once each theme is developed.

I would contribute this to the toxic liberal godless agenda driven curriculums of colleges and university, and the extreme peer pressure that if you can't see the the emperors new clothes, then you are not cool

Each of us who grew Christian and are not Christian graduated from our parents faith to our own

 

[farouk]

(1) JOHN THE SEER'S FOCUS ON THE NEED FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF FEASTING ON THE RISEN LORD

In Rev. 3:20 feasting on Jesus is an image of a "hot" spirituality in contrast with "lukewarm" faith-based spirituality whose adherents the Lord will "spit" or "vomit" (The Greek "emeo" can mean both) out of His mouth (see 3:16). John's image of feasting on (or with) Christ is an eloquent sensory image of an intimate personal relationship with Christ achieved when we sense His offer of such a personal interior relationship and invite Him in:
"Behold, I stand at the door, knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into you and feast with you, and you with me."
The church addressed at Laodicea consider themselves spiritually "rich" without any serious spiritual "needs." It is striking that the Risen Lord would prefer that they be spiritually "cold" rather than "lukewarm," a divine preference that highlights His position that Christian faith without an intimate personal relationship with Christ makes Jesus "barf" because it is worse than no faith at all! The obvious point here is that, unlike the "lukewarm," the "cold" are at least aware of where they stand spiritually.

This image of feasting on Jesus develops from the Johannine theme that Holy Communion is intended as a vehicle whereby Jesus comes to "abide in me, and I in them (John 6:56)." On 5 grounds Catholics criticize Protestants who reduce Holy Communion to a merely symbolic act:
(1) Jesus says, "Whoever eats me will live because of me (6:57)."
(2) Jesus anticipates the merely symbolic sacramental interpretation with his insistence: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (6:55)."
(3) Jesus literally says, "Those who munch on (Greek: "trogo") my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them (6:56)." The verb "trogo" means "munch," "eat audibly" a meaning that is inconsistent with a merely symbolic interpretation.
(4) Commentaries point out that John relocates the words of institution for Holy Communion from his account of the last Supper in John 13 to the expanded wording in John 6:53-58.--a point that Protestant bias prompts them to ignore.
(5) Jesus' Eucharistic interpretation triggers a mass exodus of His disciples (6:66), an exodus Jesus might have avoided if He explained that the sacramental participation is merely symbolic.

That said, I reject the Catholic Transubstantiation interpretation, but I find John's teaching that we mystically encounter Christ in the sacrament inescapable, unless we feel free to invent our own religion.

I don't see the Lord's Supper in John 6. (In Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22, yes; but not in John 6 or anywhere in John's Gospel, actually.)

 

[Berserk]

I don't see the Lord's Supper in John 6. (In Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22, yes; but not in John 6 or anywhere in John's Gospel, actually.)

Then John's image of drinking Jesus' blood sounds like vampirism! The massive commentaries on John disagree with you. John relocates his dicussion of Communion from the Last Supper (John 13) to John 6 and uses the Greek word "trogo" which means "munch on" to describe what it means to eat Jesus' flesh (communion bread), a verb appropriate for nibbling on a wafer, but not for "eating Jesus!" In any case, you duck the real question of this thread: Have you experienced what John the Seer, Peter, Jesus, and Paul imply you should experience when you received the Spirit?

 

[farouk]

Then John's image of drinking Jesus' blood sounds like vampirism! The massive commentaries on John disagree with you. John relocates his dicussion of Communion from the Last Supper (John 13) to John 6 and uses the Greek word "trogo" which means "munch on" to describe what it means to eat Jesus' flesh (communion bread), a verb appropriate for nibbling on a wafer, but not for "eating Jesus!"

I don't see what you are saying.

 

[Berserk]

I don't see what you are saying.

First, you ignore the problem that on the one hand Jesus tells us we will "munch on (Greek: "trogo") His flesh and drink His blood in John 6 and on the other hand John's report on the Last Support makes no mention of the words of [Communion] Institution at the Last Supper in John 13. So either holy Communion is of no interest to John or he relocates his discussion of Communion to John 6.

Second, the image of munching on Jesus is grotesque unelss it means munching on Communion bread.

Third, Jesus' reference to drinking His blood can only mean drinking from the cup. No other possible understanding is represented in early Christian interpretation.

Fourth, Jesus would hardly lose most of His disciples, if He made it clear He was only using symbolic language. He offers no such clarification because He means that He is actually present in the Eucharistic act of consuming the bread and the wine.

 

[farouk]

First, you ignore the problem that on the one hand Jesus tells us we will "munch on (Greek: "trogo") His flesh and drink His blood in John 6 and on the other hand John's report on the Last Support makes no mention of the words of [Communion] Institution at the Last Supper in John 13. So either holy Communion is of no interest to John or he relocates his discussion of Communion to John 6.

Second, the image of munching on Jesus is grotesque unelss it means munching on Communion bread.

Third, Jesus' reference to drinking His blood can only mean drinking from the cup. No other possible understanding is represented in early Christian interpretation.

Fourth, Jesus would hardly lose most of His disciples, if He made it clear He was only using symbolic language. He offers no such clarification because He means that He is actually present in the Eucharistic act of consuming the bread and the wine.

Not all Christians or commentators see the Lord's Supper explicitly in John 6. Issues of faith sustenance however are indeed present.

 

[Berserk]

Not all Christians or commentators see the Lord's Supper explicitly in John 6. Issues of faith sustenance however are indeed present.

(1) Can you Name even one modern commentator's book just on the Fourth Gospel who agrees with you?
(2) Can you identify any biblical or ancient Christian source that interprets drinking the blood of Jesus in any other way than drinking the Communion cup?
(3) God expects you to base your claims on spiritual integrity and that requires you to offer exegetical reasons (not just a mindless pontification) for your rejection of the scholarly consensus that John 6:53-58 refers to Communion.

 

[farouk]

(1) Can you Name even one modern commentator's book just on the Fourth Gospel who agrees with you?
(2) Can you identify any biblical or ancient Christian source that interprets drinking the blood of Jesus in any other way than drinking the Communion cup?
(3) God expects you to base your claims on spiritual integrity and that requires you to offer exegetical reasons (not just a mindless pontification) for your rejection of the scholarly consensus that John 6:53-58 refers to Communion.

Precious Seed | View or print articles from the Precious Seed magazine

John 6 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (concise)

John 6 Matthew Poole's Commentary

Is there a Bible contradiction in John 6:53–54?

What did Jesus mean in John 6:54 where he says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life ..."? Is he referring to Communion?

 

[Curtis]

In the NT normative Christian experience is limited neither to mere confession of sins and repentance nor to a lived faith based on salvation by grace through faith, but primarily consists of a living intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In a recent study 3 of 4 Christian young people reportedly lost their faith during their college years. In my view, this apostasy is primarily due to their failure to have ever enjoyed such a sustained supernatural relationship. 3 of my cousins, children of missionary parents, were such casualties. I would have been too, were it not for a momentous experience of the Spirit's power that cemented such a life-changing relationship with Christ.

This thread will develop its normative claim with a focus on these 4 topics, separated to make dialogue more focused and less helter-skelter:
(1) John the Seer's focus on the need for the experience of feasting on the Risen Lord
(2) Peter's focus on the affective experience of "tasting" Christ's goodness
(3) Jesus' [and Paul's] focus on the experience of "drinking in the Spirit" and Paul's understanding of the need to "pray in the Spirit"
(4) Paul's further understanding of the need to dramatically experience the power of the Spirit
Please join in once each theme is developed.

This is true, , but it needs to include those who were once true believers, but fell - not because of failing to have a real relationship with God, but because they hardened their hearts through the deceitfulness of sin, and thus *depart from* God, per Hebrews 3.

Hebrews 6 is even more specific: that some who were once enlightened, and were partakers of the Holy Spirit (received the Holy Spirit), fell away (the Greek there is parapipto - apostasy - they didn’t just backslide while remaining believers - they stopped believing completely) and thus it’s impossible to renew them again to repent of their sins, because they no longer have any faith (like asking an atheist to repent of his sins) — and their unbelief symbolically crucifies Jesus again - as was literally done by those with unbelief that Jesus is the Messiah and savior.

And Jesus Himself also said some will believe for a while, but then fall away.

As to losing faith in college, there is a YouTube channel called Genetically Modified Skeptic, who was once a believer who experienced fellowship with God and the Holy Spirit, even heard Gods voice and talked with God, and openly discusses all this - making it evident that before going to college, he had a real and living relationship with God - yet once in college, he lost his faith completely by the atheist professors convincing him that all his experience with god is explainable by science and psychology, and was basically just his imagination - and he heard a voice that wasn’t there, and felt subjective experiences explainable apart from the existence of God.

Now that he’s been converted to atheism, he has a YouTube channel where he seeks to convince other born again Christians that their experiences with God are also mere self delusion and subjective experiences, explainable by psychology and science.

Looks like what’s needed is more apologetics for believers about to go to college, to prepare them ahead of time for the kinds of attacks on their faith that will occur, and give them the answers to those attacks.

In fact that should be done by all parents of believers, before their children go to high school, let alone to a university.

As it is now, Christian parents ignorantly and naively send their children off to college as lambs to the slaughter, into a den of wolves called leftist atheist professors, who devour them and strip them of their faith,

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Curtis]

In Rev. 3:20 feasting on Jesus is an image of a "hot" spirituality in contrast with "lukewarm" faith-based spirituality whose adherents the Lord will "spit" or "vomit" (The Greek "emeo" can mean both) out of His mouth (see 3:16). John's image of feasting on (or with) Christ is an eloquent sensory image of an intimate personal relationship with Christ achieved when we sense His offer of such a personal interior relationship and invite Him in:
"Behold, I stand at the door, knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into you and feast with you, and you with me."
The church addressed at Laodicea consider themselves spiritually "rich" without any serious spiritual "needs." It is striking that the Risen Lord would prefer that they be spiritually "cold" rather than "lukewarm," a divine preference that highlights His position that Christian faith without an intimate personal relationship with Christ makes Jesus "barf" because it is worse than no faith at all! The obvious point here is that, unlike the "lukewarm," the "cold" are at least aware of where they stand spiritually.

But that same Sardis church was told by Jesus that their church was DEAD, through having a reputation of being alive, and told them to REPENT, and warned them that if they fail to be over-comers, He will blot their names out of the book of life.

So it seems to me that they had serious sin problems, that go beyond Lukewarmness.
Shalom Aleichem

 

[Curtis]

(1) JOHN THE SEER'S FOCUS ON THE NEED FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF FEASTING ON THE RISEN LORD

In Rev. 3:20 feasting on Jesus is an image of a "hot" spirituality in contrast with "lukewarm" faith-based spirituality whose adherents the Lord will "spit" or "vomit" (The Greek "emeo" can mean both) out of His mouth (see 3:16). John's image of feasting on (or with) Christ is an eloquent sensory image of an intimate personal relationship with Christ achieved when we sense His offer of such a personal interior relationship and invite Him in:
"Behold, I stand at the door, knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into you and feast with you, and you with me."
The church addressed at Laodicea consider themselves spiritually "rich" without any serious spiritual "needs." It is striking that the Risen Lord would prefer that they be spiritually "cold" rather than "lukewarm," a divine preference that highlights His position that Christian faith without an intimate personal relationship with Christ makes Jesus "barf" because it is worse than no faith at all! The obvious point here is that, unlike the "lukewarm," the "cold" are at least aware of where they stand spiritually.

This image of feasting on Jesus develops from the Johannine theme that Holy Communion is intended as a vehicle whereby Jesus comes to "abide in me, and I in them (John 6:56)." On 5 grounds Catholics criticize Protestants who reduce Holy Communion to a merely symbolic act:
(1) Jesus says, "Whoever eats me will live because of me (6:57)."
(2) Jesus anticipates the merely symbolic sacramental interpretation with his insistence: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (6:55)."
(3) Jesus literally says, "Those who munch on (Greek: "trogo") my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them (6:56)." The verb "trogo" means "munch," "eat audibly" a meaning that is inconsistent with a merely symbolic interpretation.
(4) Commentaries point out that John relocates the words of institution for Holy Communion from his account of the last Supper in John 13 to the expanded wording in John 6:53-58.--a point that Protestant bias prompts them to ignore.
(5) Jesus' Eucharistic interpretation triggers a mass exodus of His disciples (6:66), an exodus Jesus might have avoided if He explained that the sacramental participation is merely symbolic.

That said, I reject the Catholic Transubstantiation interpretation, but I find John's teaching that we mystically encounter Christ in the sacrament inescapable, unless we feel free to invent our own religion.

Sounds very feasible, if it wasn’t for the fact that Jesus already dwells in the hearts of believers, Ephesians 3:17, , and that indwelling of Jesus is called a mystery among the gentiles by Paul.

Given that Jesus already lives within us, why would His presence need to go into flour and grape Juice?

This leads me to believe that communion is just what Jesus said it is at the actual last supper - a solemn REMEMBRANCE of His sacrifice of flesh and blood for us.

Jesus said, this do IN REMEMBRANCE of me.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Curtis]

(1) Can you Name even one modern commentator's book just on the Fourth Gospel who agrees with you?
(2) Can you identify any biblical or ancient Christian source that interprets drinking the blood of Jesus in any other way than drinking the Communion cup?
(3) God expects you to base your claims on spiritual integrity and that requires you to offer exegetical reasons (not just a mindless pontification) for your rejection of the scholarly consensus that John 6:53-58 refers to Communion.

Look at the events in John 6: it says, Jesus knew most of the huge crowd following along with His travel, didn’t really believe, but were doing it for free meals.

So to get rid of those who didn’t really believe, Jesus blew their minds by describing the symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, but letting them think He was speaking literally.

After they left because they thought Jesus lost His mind, Jesus told all the real believers who were left, that those words He spoke WERE SPIRIT and life.

He let them know He had been speaking of the symbolic eating of His flesh, not the literal eating - that it’s not a bizarre cannibalistic and vampire ritual, but a symbolic ritual.

That’s why at the actual last supper, which was NOT during the John 6 incident, Jesus said to do it in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Curtis]

In Philippians 4:6-7, the *peace that passes all understanding* is given to those who pray a specific request to God, with much thanksgiving, about a specific need.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Curtis]

Then John's image of drinking Jesus' blood sounds like vampirism! The massive commentaries on John disagree with you. John relocates his dicussion of Communion from the Last Supper (John 13) to John 6 and uses the Greek word "trogo" which means "munch on" to describe what it means to eat Jesus' flesh (communion bread), a verb appropriate for nibbling on a wafer, but not for "eating Jesus!" In any case, you duck the real question of this thread: Have you experienced what John the Seer, Peter, Jesus, and Paul imply you should experience when you received the Spirit?

The Metaphorical and symbolic are frequently stated using literal words, so that a Greek word means MUNCH proves nothing.

Example: that pitcher is ON FIRE today, he’s pitching a no -hitter game!

The words ON FIRE in the example, are literal words being applied symbolically.

 

[Enoch111]

(2) Can you identify any biblical or ancient Christian source that interprets drinking the blood of Jesus in any other way than drinking the Communion cup?

The cup is SYMBOLIC just as the bread is SYMBOLIC. We seem to forget that even while Christ was very much alive, He called the bread and cup His body and His blood (Mt 26:26-28).
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

He had not even gone to the cross at that time. So to put any other spin on this is to go beyond Scripture.

So what did Jesus mean in John 6 which was addressed to all and sundry? What He meant is clarified in Revelation 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[Berserk]

Farouk: "John 6 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (concise)
John 6 Matthew Poole's Commentary"

You unwittingly conceded my point. I challenged you to come up with even one MODERN commentary just on John, and instead you offer 2 ancient commentaries on the whole Bible, not just on John, written by non-scholars who lived in the 1600s!

Curtis: Jesus knew most of the huge crowd following along with His travel, didn’t really believe, but were doing it for free meals.

The text distinguishes "the crowd (6:24)" or "the Jews (6:41)" from "many of His disciples (6:66)."

Curtis: So to get rid of those who didn’t really believe, Jesus blew their minds by describing the symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, but letting them think He was speaking literally."

But it is precisely "many of His disciples," not "the crowd" who defected because they naturally took Him literally. So if Jesus were only speaking symbolically, He should clarified that for the offended believers!

Curtis: "He let them know He had been speaking of the symbolic eating of His flesh, not the literal eating - that it’s not a bizarre cannibalistic and vampire ritual, but a symbolic ritual."

Nope! He said "My flesh is real food and my blood in real drink (6:55)." Do taking Jesus literally, Peter responds not "Now I understand," but "To whom else can we go (6:68)?" In other words, "It makes no sense to me that your real presence makes it possible to munch on your flesh and drink your blood."

Curtis: "That’s why at the actual last supper, which was NOT during the John 6 incident, Jesus said to do it in REMEMBRANCE of Him."

You forget that John's account of the Last Supper omits the words of (Communion) institution. So are actually you saying Holy Communion
was not important to John? Modern commentaries agree that John likely omits a Communion reference at the Last Supper (John 13) precisely because He has already explained the meaning of Communion in John 6. You also forget that the Greek verb "trogo" = "munch on") used in Johb 6:53-58 must refer to literal munching, not merely symbolic munching. I challenge you to find a single exception.

Enoch, your claim that John 6:53-58 should be understood in terms of Rev. 3:20 fails because 3:20 is speaking of dining with Jesus, not munching on Jesus' flesh! In fact, you just highlight my point that the New Testament and the early church offers no alternative interpretation of drinking Jesus' blood besides a Eucharistic interpretation!



































































Enoch: "The cup is SYMBOLIC..."
Actually the cup was a real chalice!

Enoch: "We seem to forget that even while Christ was very much alive, He called the bread and cup His body and His blood (Mt 26:26-28)."
Jesus does not say, "This symbolizes my body;" He says, "This IS my body."



So what did Jesus mean in John 6 which was addressed to all and sundry? What He meant is clarified in Revelation 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.