The Bread of Life

[InSpiritInTruth]

Jesus said in John 6:33 "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." So who is he? Jesus said in John 6:48 "I am that bread of life." As he also confirmed here in John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

So what is this bread of life? Jesus said in John 6:53-57 "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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

Ah, so His flesh is that bread of life. But what is his flesh, and what is that bread of life? The answer is found in He whom was made flesh. It is written in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." So if God's Word was made flesh in Jesus, then what do we eat if we eat Jesus' flesh as he said above? That's right, we eat the bread of Life, which is also the Word of Life.

So who did the apostles see, and who did the apostles touch, and who did the apostles hear? We are also given that as well in 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

Yes, this is that bread of God that if a man eat he shall never hunger nor thirst again, this Manna that God shall give a man shall lead to eternal life. So why do men labor so hard for that which is not meat, and for that which shall never satisfy their hunger? Labor rather for the True bread that leads to eternal life.

John 6:27 "Labor 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."

 

[iakov]

Ah, so His flesh is that bread of life. But what is his flesh, and what is that bread of life? The answer is found in He whom was made flesh. It is written in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." So if God's Word was made flesh in Jesus, then what do we eat if we eat Jesus' flesh as he said above? That's right, we eat the bread of Life, which is also the Word of Life.

It is a common mistake to insert the modern, English meaning for "word" into the ancient, middle eastern, Greek word ,"logos." They are not the same.

John gave us that passage as an affirmation that, in the Eucharist, we consume the body and blood of the Lord. (Jesus didn't explain how the bread and wine become body and blood. It's a mystery.)

Jhn 6:53-54 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." (RSV)

iakov

 

[StanJ]

It is a common mistake to insert the modern, English meaning for "word" into the ancient, middle eastern, Greek word ,"logos." They are not the same.

John gave us that passage as an affirmation that, in the Eucharist, we consume the body and blood of the Lord. (Jesus didn't explain how the bread and wine become body and blood. It's a mystery.)

Jhn 6:53-54 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." (RSV)

iakov

That is the RCC dogma of transsubstantiation, NOT a doctrine of the Bible. God is spirit, and those that worship Him must do so IN spirit. Paul also said we are crucified WITH Christ, but that also does not mean literally, but spirutually. You have to put context on here, which Jesus does in v63, where He states;
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

 

[tom55]

That is the RCC dogma of transubstantiation, NOT a doctrine of the Bible. God is spirit, and those that worship Him must do so IN spirit. Paul also said we are crucified WITH Christ, but that also does not mean literally, but spirutually. You have to put context on here, which Jesus does in v63, where He states;
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

One of the LAST things Jesus did with his Apostles was break bread and shared wine saying “do this in remembrance of me”. One of the FIRST things he did after his resurrection was break bread with his disciples. He was recognized by them when he broke the bread (LK 24:35). It was one of the last things he did before he died and one of the first things he did when he rose from the dead.

Bread and wine are first mentioned in Genesis 14 when the priest Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” as a sacrifice. According to the Letter to the Hebrews 7:17, Jesus Christ is identified as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". In Exodus 16:4 God said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread (manna) from Heaven for you…”. And when the people asked what it (manna) was Moses told them “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.”

Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died (reference to Exodus16:4). This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “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 yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6). In the OT the people who ate the manna (bread) that God sent them while they were in the wilderness died because it was just normal bread. The new manna or bread is Jesus flesh and He is not normal bread. He, his flesh, is the bread of life and he who eats this bread lives forever. If you believe that the bread Jesus offers (his flesh) is just like the bread of the OT then what you believe contradicts what Jesus said. Paul later re-affirms what Jesus said: I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 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? (1 Corinthians 10:15)

Clement (who walked and talked with Peter and Paul) wrote: "In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree” .

In the year 110 AD Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John) wrote: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. In other words Ignatius is saying some Christians did not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus and since they “speak against this gift of God” they “incur death” because they dispute it. He also wrote of "one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice" . So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote around 180 AD: Three things are alleged against us (Christians): atheism, THYSTEAN FEAST and Edipoen intercourse..” Thyestean Feast is marked by the consumption of human flesh.
In other words the non-Christians, who did not participate in church services, thought the Christians were eating real flesh during services. Why did they think that? Because the early Christians believed Jesus when he said, this is my body, this is my blood. They believed it and pronounced it just like the Catholic Church pronounces it today, 2000 years later. So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

In regard to the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ and what to do on Sunday the Didache says: But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." The Eucharist is holy because it is the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church still today, 2000 years later, does not allow you to take communion unless you are baptized and you believe it is His body and blood just like the early (during the apostles life) Christians practiced. So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

In Acts 2: So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Based on Scripture and historical writings we know what the Apostles instructed early Christians to do on Sunday and what they practiced on Sunday’s (communion). The Catholic Church still practices what the Apostles taught. Catholics still do this “in remembrance of him” at every mass. Jesus commanded us to DO this in remembrance of him (communion). He said it was his flesh and blood; not a symbol of it. Historically we see that the early Christians believed it was his flesh and blood. Historically we know what Christians did on Sunday and why they did it!! So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

I must say one thing. All these attacks and nonfactual statements from you and others on this website about what the RCC teaches has forced me to research what the RCC actually teaches instead of your false statements. Your actions and false statements has ME growing closer and closer to the Catholic beliefs.

So now I have a decision to make. Should I believe what the RCC teaches which seems to ME to be backed up by scripture and what the very first Christians (men who walked and talked with the Apostles) practiced OR do I follow your interpretation of scripture 2,000 years later? I am leaning toward the RCC.......More research to be done by ME opcorn:

 

[StanJ]

Tom,

What you NEED to do is study the Bible WITHOUT the lense of RCC tradition, and learn to recognize grammatical components. Jesus Himself said the wine was "fruit of the vine", when describing it. His metaphorical uses are to convey spiritual realities in the context of physical comparisons which were easily understood by the masses. No Jew thought they were actually eating Jesus' flesh or drinking His blood. Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented. To take transsubstantiation to it's fullest extent would be to advocate that Jesus was teaching against the OT prohibition on cannibalism, which we know He was not, because He Himself said He came NOT to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

What you NEED to do is study the Bible WITHOUT the lense of RCC tradition, and learn to recognize grammatical components.

OR StanJ should study the Bible WITHOUT the lens of Protestant tradition and learn to recognize what Jesus, Paul and the men that walked and talked with the Apostles said.


His metaphorical uses are to convey spiritual realities in the context of physical comparisons which were easily understood by the masses.

Metaphorical? This doesn't sound metaphorical to me: the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.......unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life..... “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him...... so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died;.... No metaphor there!!

What happened AFTER He said that? From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Why did they no longer follow Him? Because they DIDN'T take His words as a metaphor!!

No Jew thought they were actually eating Jesus' flesh or drinking His blood.

Simply not true StanJ! As I stated before the early Christians (converts) were accused of being cannibals and Ignatious (who was a convert) said, "they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".

The Didache (probably written by Jewish converts) says this: "Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'. If THEY thought it was a metaphor whey did they say it (the Eucharist) was sacred???

Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented.

Not true!! Actually Paul said this:
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?

Paul also wrote this which is a repeat of what Jesus said: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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.


If ME taking what Jesus said, Paul said and what the people who walked and talked with the apostles said/practiced/believed/preached is following RCC tradition then the RCC CLEARLY got this one right!!

 

[StanJ]

Tom,
What you NEED to do is study the Bible WITHOUT the lense of RCC tradition, and learn to recognize grammatical components.

OR StanJ should study the Bible WITHOUT the lens of Protestant tradition and learn to recognize what Jesus, Paul and the men that walked and talked with the Apostles said.


His metaphorical uses are to convey spiritual realities in the context of physical comparisons which were easily understood by the masses.

Metaphorical? This doesn't sound metaphorical to me: the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.......unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life..... “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him...... so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died;.... No metaphor there!!

What happened AFTER He said that? From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Why did they no longer follow Him? Because they DIDN'T take His words as a metaphor!!

No Jew thought they were actually eating Jesus' flesh or drinking His blood.

Simply not true StanJ! As I stated before the early Christians (converts) were accused of being cannibals and Ignatious (who was a convert) said, "they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".

The Didache (probably written by Jewish converts) says this: "Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'. If THEY thought it was a metaphor whey did they say it (the Eucharist) was sacred???

Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented.

Not true!! Actually Paul said this:
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?

Paul also wrote this which is a repeat of what Jesus said: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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.


If ME taking what Jesus said, Paul said and what the people who walked and talked with the apostles said/practiced/believed/preached is following RCC tradition then the RCC CLEARLY got this one right!!

If you're not going to use the proper tools, I won't bother addressing your messy posts, in any event you didn't really answer anything here, you just denied.

 

[brakelite]

Those of you advocating transubstantiation need to red just a little further to find Jesus' explanation of what He was meaning. He was not speaking of a literal flesh, but of a spiritual reality. After the discussion on eating the flesh and blood, He said...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.

 

[StanJ]

Those of you advocating transubstantiation need to red just a little further to find Jesus' explanation of what He was meaning. He was not speaking of a literal flesh, but of a spiritual reality. After the discussion on eating the flesh and blood, He said...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.

Thanks tips...exactly what I posted in #3.

 

[brakelite]

Oh yeah, so you did Stan lol. h well, truth comes and is confirmed by many counsellors. Or words to that effect.

 

[19DuggarFan]

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think that ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. John 5:39

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. II Timothy 3:15
While we see that we come to faith by the Bible, Romans 10:17 We also see that the scriptures are a source of food to the Christians, see Hebrews 5:11-14; and also I Peter 1:25-2:3. Jesus also stated man does not live by bread alone, by every word of God, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

But when talking of John chapter 6 I agree with the majority that Jesus begins to make an announcement of the time when He would introduce the Lord's Supper. But one problem I see is that the Christian Church does way to much to separate ourselves from our Jewish Roots. For the Lord's Supper was instituted during the Passover season, celebrating when Israel was delivered out of Egypt in the Old Testament. And lest we forget Passover is followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread and these two feast are so interchangeable that they are both often refer to by one or the other. Paul makes a strong point of how Jesus is our true Passover, see I Corinthians 5:7-8.

The Jews have a Passover Seder which has 15 steps, and step 4 and 12 IMHO are what Jesus is referring to when speaking on Himself being the Bread of Life. In the 4th step called Yachatz of the PS we see 3 loaves of Matzah (unleavened bread) put side by side and the loave in the middle (which was token out of a bag) is broken in two. Notice that there are 3 loaves of bread many liken this to the Trinity. The middle matzah which was broken into two pieces is separated the smaller being eaten, while the larger piece (which is called the afikomen) is wrapped in cloth and hidden. Does this remind you of anybody after He was crucified, The afikomen is hidden and the children of the Passover Seder seek to see who can find it, the one that does is given a ransom/gift for finding it. In the 12th step of the PS called the Tzafun the afikomen is broken into smaller pieces and every one partakes in eating it. So in this way Jesus is the Afikomen that was offer for our sins and when we find Him we are given the gift of grace unto eternal life for it is He who ramson/redeem us.

 

[StanJ]

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think that ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. John 5:39

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. II Timothy 3:15
While we see that we come to faith by the Bible, Romans 10:17 We also see that the scriptures are a source of food to the Christians, see Hebrews 5:11-14; and also I Peter 1:25-2:3. Jesus also stated man does not live by bread alone, by every word of God, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

But when talking of John chapter 6 I agree with the majority that Jesus begins to make an announcement of the time when He would introduce the Lord's Supper. But one problem I see is that the Christian Church does way to much to separate ourselves from our Jewish Roots. For the Lord's Supper was instituted during the Passover season, celebrating when Israel was delivered out of Egypt in the Old Testament. And lest we forget Passover is followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread and these two feast are so interchangeable that they are both often refer to by one or the other. Paul makes a strong point of how Jesus is our true Passover, see I Corinthians 5:7-8.

The Jews have a Passover Seder which has 15 steps, and step 4 and 12 IMHO are what Jesus is referring to when speaking on Himself being the Bread of Life. In the 4th step called Yachatz of the PS we see 3 loaves of Matzah (unleavened bread) put side by side and the loave in the middle (which was token out of a bag) is broken in two. Notice that there are 3 loaves of bread many liken this to the Trinity. The middle matzah which was broken into two pieces is separated the smaller being eaten, while the larger piece (which is called the afikomen) is wrapped in cloth and hidden. Does this remind you of anybody after He was crucified, The afikomen is hidden and the children of the Passover Seder seek to see who can find it, the one that does is given a ransom/gift for finding it. In the 12th step of the PS called the Tzafun the afikomen is broken into smaller pieces and every one partakes in eating it. So in this way Jesus is the Afikomen that was offer for our sins and when we find Him we are given the gift of grace unto eternal life for it is He who ramson/redeem us.

Welcome 19DF.

I have experienced the Seder suppress several times in a Christian Perspective and found it very interesting, but even in the OT, it was symbolic.

 

[tom55]

If you're not going to use the proper tools, I won't bother addressing your messy posts, in any event you didn't really answer anything here, you just denied.

I do not know what you mean by not using "the proper tools"? Maybe you could clarify?

I didn't deny anything. I stated a fact and quoted Jesus. Jesus said it is his body and blood.

Jesus first said, "Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” The Jews were confused by this and said, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So to answer their question Jesus doubled down on what he first said and said this: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

I agree with you StanJ that this saying was "easily understood by the masses". That is why when they heard what Jesus said many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." THEY clearly understood His "hard teaching" to mean His real flesh and blood (not a symbol) so they walked away. His true believers and Apostles stayed with Him.

He said the same thing TWICE so there would be NO CONFUSION. "Verily, verily, I say unto you" are words used by Christ when He is about to teach on a profound matter, not metaphorical/symbolic matters. However, since you are a bible scholar you already knew that.


YOU quoted verse 63 which in part says, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, however, YOU turned His words that are full of Spirit and life into empty words by saying He didn't really mean what he said. You are not accepting His words of which He doubled down on, pre-fixed with "Verily, Verily I say to you", of which Paul later re-affirmed and words upon which the early Christians practiced and believed.

When He said The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing that saying refers to the truth that it is only the Spirit. The Spirit can accomplish or give life to the miracle of what the RCC calls transubstantiation. However you apparently think that God can not do miraculous things; or at least this miracle. That text clearly says "THE FLESH", not MY flesh. When He said the flesh counts for nothing he clearly was not talking about His flesh.

Why would Jesus tell his disciples TWICE, pre-fixing what he was about to say by saying Verily, verily I say to you (which means listen to me, this is very important) and then at the end (v63) say, I didn't mean what I just said? What I really said was a metaphor!! That would make Jesus a confusing teacher.

YOU said, "Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented." YOU didn't back up your opinion with scripture on what Paul allegedly "confirmed". I clearly destroyed your opinion by quoting what Paul ACTUALLY said and you didn't defend it.

If my posts are "messy posts" by quoting scripture multiple times and stating historical facts that back up what I say then your posts are REALLY MESSY since you didn't quote scripture to back up your opinion.

 

[StanJ]

I do not know what you mean by not using "the proper tools"? Maybe you could clarify?

I didn't deny anything. I stated a fact and quoted Jesus. Jesus said it is his body and blood.

Jesus first said, "Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” The Jews were confused by this and said, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So to answer their question Jesus doubled down on what he first said and said this: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

I agree with you StanJ that this saying was "easily understood by the masses". That is why when they heard what Jesus said many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." THEY clearly understood His "hard teaching" to mean His real flesh and blood (not a symbol) so they walked away. His true believers and Apostles stayed with Him.

He said the same thing TWICE so there would be NO CONFUSION. "Verily, verily, I say unto you" are words used by Christ when He is about to teach on a profound matter, not metaphorical/symbolic matters. However, since you are a bible scholar you already knew that.


YOU quoted verse 63 which in part says, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, however, YOU turned His words that are full of Spirit and life into empty words by saying He didn't really mean what he said. You are not accepting His words of which He doubled down on, pre-fixed with "Verily, Verily I say to you", of which Paul later re-affirmed and words upon which the early Christians practiced and believed.

When He said The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing that saying refers to the truth that it is only the Spirit. The Spirit can accomplish or give life to the miracle of what the RCC calls transubstantiation. However you apparently think that God can not do miraculous things; or at least this miracle. That text clearly says "THE FLESH", not MY flesh. When He said the flesh counts for nothing he clearly was not talking about His flesh.

Why would Jesus tell his disciples TWICE, pre-fixing what he was about to say by saying Verily, verily I say to you (which means listen to me, this is very important) and then at the end (v63) say, I didn't mean what I just said? What I really said was a metaphor!! That would make Jesus a confusing teacher.

YOU said, "Even Paul confirmed it was symbolic but not to be misused or misrepresented." YOU didn't back up your opinion with scripture on what Paul allegedly "confirmed". I clearly destroyed your opinion by quoting what Paul ACTUALLY said and you didn't defend it.

If my posts are "messy posts" by quoting scripture multiple times and stating historical facts that back up what I say then your posts are REALLY MESSY since you didn't quote scripture to back up your opinion.

Well this is a start, now if you can just stop using red and blue text all the tine, we'll be just ducky.

Jesus wasn't 'doubling down' as you frame it, and he wasn't about to explain to those who were not spiritual that His words were OF a spritual nature. He only EVER explained things to the 12. The 12 did NOT have a problem with what Jesus was saying because they KNEW what He meant. Their spiritual eyes were WIDE open.
I quoted the only scripture necessary to put this in context. If you really believe Jesus literally drank His OWN blood and ate His OWN body, then explain why they said what they did in v41 & 42? They were obviously NOT thinking in a spiritual vein. Jesus was speaking about Himself as the WORD incarnate and they could only see with their physical eyes. Apparently you have the same problem. Just as scripture says Jesus was the light of the world, and the Son of God, does not mean He was the actual SUN!
Again Paul made it clear that communion was a SPIRITUAL event, and was NOT to be used to actually eat food and wine. It was NOT about the physical, but strictly about the spiritual. You apparently cannot distinguish between metaphor and symbolic versus literal?

 

[tom55]

Well this is a start, now if you can just stop using red and blue text all the tine, we'll be just ducky.

Jesus wasn't 'doubling down' as you frame it, and he wasn't about to explain to those who were not spiritual that His words were OF a spiritual nature. He only EVER explained things to the 12. The 12 did NOT have a problem with what Jesus was saying because they KNEW what He meant. Their spiritual eyes were WIDE open.
I quoted the only scripture necessary to put this in context. If you really believe Jesus literally drank His OWN blood and ate His OWN body, then explain why they said what they did in v41 & 42? They were obviously NOT thinking in a spiritual vein. Jesus was speaking about Himself as the WORD incarnate and they could only see with their physical eyes. Apparently you have the same problem. Just as scripture says Jesus was the light of the world, and the Son of God, does not mean He was the actual SUN!
Again Paul made it clear that communion was a SPIRITUAL event, and was NOT to be used to actually eat food and wine. It was NOT about the physical, but strictly about the spiritual. You apparently cannot distinguish between metaphor and symbolic versus literal?

Let me clarify my "doubling down" statement. He said John 6:51 in a casual manor. The Jews then began to question him in v52 so he not only REPEATED (doubled down) himself in v53 but pre-fixed it by saying Verily, verily.....which He says throughout scripture just before he is about to teach on a profound matter. If you want to disregard the FACT that he repeated himself and pre-fixed it with such strong language as Verily, Verily then I can see were you would disregard the FACT that He said it is His body/blood. If we throw out all the FACTS then you have a strong case. (Double Down= to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position) (Verily = truly, in fact or without doubt, really, certainly)

I will try to answer your question/statement ".....then explain why they said what they did in v41 & 42? They were obviously NOT thinking in a spiritual vein." Are you talking about this: I am the bread that came down from heaven. They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” If those are the verses you are asking about my answer is: He is referring to Exodus 16:15, HOWEVER, the Jews don't understand what He is saying since they have known him since he was a child. They only see Him as an equal, born of a woman! Since you, StanJ, are a bible scholar you know a prophet is not accepted to in his own community (Luke 4:24).

I agree with you StanJ and you made my point. They were NOT thinking in a spiritual vein, they were thinking He REALLY meant that He came down from heaven and that they had to eat Him (his flesh) to have life in them. They were taking him literally (probably thinking he was crazy) saying how can he give us his flesh to eat and who is He to say these things; he is only the kid that grew up down the block from us, the son of Joseph. It was hard for them to accept so they walked away. Jesus didn't chase them down and say to them Wait, come back....I was speaking metaphorically!! Let me clarify for you!

At the Last Supper it seems that Jesus did not receive His own body and blood because He only gave it to his Apostles. Scripture does not say that he actually took it himself. But scripture also says "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” So it kind of indicates that He COULD have eaten at the Passover meal (Last Supper).

I would further say that He would derive no benefit from taking the Sacrament of the Eucharist HOWEVER He did partake in the Sacrament of Baptism before imposing Baptism upon us!! We also know that Scripture says in Acts: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Because Jesus would not impose anything on us that He wouldn't do himself, is it possible he took His own body and blood and then gave it to the Apostles? I think it is possible but I am not 100% sure. Even if He didn't partake in the Eucharist that doesn't change what He said, Paul said, the early Christians practiced and MOST Christians have believed for 2000 years.

You once again referenced Paul saying he made it clear, HOWEVER, you have not provided anything from scripture. I am curious what you are talking about?

Also, why do you talk (write) to people in such a degrading manner? They way I infer your answers to me and others is you act like you are superior to everyone on this website.

Also, why do you not answer my questions. Here are two that you failed to answer:

I do not know what you mean by not using "the proper tools"? Maybe you could clarify?

If THEY thought it was a metaphor whey did they say it (the Eucharist) was sacred??? (I asked this question in reference to the early Christians, the ones who walked and talked with the Apostles)



No blue or red this time!!

 

[StanJ]

Let me clarify my "doubling down" statement. He said John 6:51 in a casual manor. The Jews then began to question him in v52 so he not only REPEATED (doubled down) himself in v53 but pre-fixed it by saying Verily, verily.....which He says throughout scripture just before he is about to teach on a profound matter. If you want to disregard the FACT that he repeated himself and pre-fixed it with such strong language as Verily, Verily then I can see were you would disregard the FACT that He said it is His body/blood. If we throw out all the FACTS then you have a strong case. (Double Down= to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position) (Verily = truly, in fact or without doubt, really, certainly)

Jesus was never casual when He preached to crowds. He made a declaration in v49-51. Then in v52 they asked each other, "how can this maN GIVE us his flesh"? Then Jesus said in v53, "I tell you the solemn truth". They had called Him Rabbi so he responded as such. If you want to call thus doubling down I guess it's not a big deal, but He was just as serious the first time as He was the second time.

I will try to answer your question/statement ".....then explain why they said what they did in v41 & 42? They were obviously NOT thinking in a spiritual vein." Are you talking about this: I am the bread that came down from heaven. They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” If those are the verses you are asking about my answer is: He is referring to Exodus 16:15, HOWEVER, the Jews don't understand what He is saying since they have known him since he was a child. They only see Him as an equal, born of a woman! Since you, StanJ, are a bible scholar you know a prophet is not accepted to in his own community (Luke 4:24).

Correct, they weren't, so he had to repeat Himself to make them see this did not carry a physical connotation. Regress of their reasons, the issue was spiritual so Jesus was trying to show them He was NOT talking about His own physical body, but about His spiritual self. That is what came from heaven, not his body. Yes it was because he was known locally that they thought that way, but again that was not the physical, and Jesus stared his words back in the proper direction. The words 'solemn truth' were meant to spiritual truths.

I agree with you StanJ and you made my point. They were NOT thinking in a spiritual vein, they were thinking He REALLY meant that He came down from heaven and that they had to eat Him (his flesh) to have life in them. They were taking him literally (probably thinking he was crazy) saying how can he give us his flesh to eat and who is He to say these things; he is only the kid that grew up down the block from us, the son of Joseph. It was hard for them to accept so they walked away. Jesus didn't chase them down and say to them Wait, come back....I was speaking metaphorically!! Let me clarify for you!

Right. He knew that either their spiritual eyes were open or they weren't. Regardless of why they walked away, it did NOT change His core message of who he was and why he came. He never explained to anyone, except the 12. That was his M/O.

At the Last Supper it seems that Jesus did not receive His own body and blood because He only gave it to his Apostles. Scripture does not say that he actually took it himself. But scripture also says "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” So it kind of indicates that He COULD have eaten at the Passover meal (Last Supper).

Yes it does, in Luke 22 and Matt 26, but clearly in Matt 26:23

I would further say that He would derive no benefit from taking the Sacrament of the Eucharist HOWEVER He did partake in the Sacrament of Baptism before imposing Baptism upon us!! We also know that Scripture says in Acts: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Because Jesus would not impose anything on us that He wouldn't do himself, is it possible he took His own body and blood and then gave it to the Apostles? I think it is possible but I am not 100% sure. Even if He didn't partake in the Eucharist that doesn't change what He said, Paul said, the early Christians practiced and MOST Christians have believed for 2000 years.

Jesus instituted communion here, but He was celebrating the Passover Seder with the Apostles. Matt 26:17-19
They could not celebrate something that had NOT transpired as of yet. Let's not get sidetracked with Baptism here, as this is a whole other issue.

You once again referenced Paul saying he made it clear, HOWEVER, you have not provided anything from scripture. I am curious what you are talking about?
Also, why do you talk (write) to people in such a degrading manner? They way I infer your answers to me and others is you act like you are superior to everyone on this website.

Paul made it clear about why people were getting sick or dieing because of how they practise communion. 1 Cor 11:30
Sorry I sometimes forget to actually cite what I refer to. The feeling is in your mind Tom. I intend no suchmthing, but teaching is NOT my forte. I was never called to do it. I suggest you stop inferring what I say, as I'm not one to mince words.

Also, why do you not answer my questions. Here are two that you failed to answer:
I do not know what you mean by not using "the proper tools"? Maybe you could clarify?
If THEY thought it was a metaphor whey did they say it (the Eucharist) was sacred??? (I asked this question in reference to the early Christians, the ones who walked and talked with the Apostles)

As you are now using them I assumed answering that would be pointless, and you'll have to quite a scripture along with this question, which is probably why I ignored it. I don't always answer every query if I find it superfluous.

No blue or red this time!!

Not quite, but thanks. :)

 

[tom55]

Jesus was never casual when He preached to crowds. He made a declaration in v49-51. Then in v52 they asked each other, "how can this maN GIVE us his flesh"? Then Jesus said in v53, "I tell you the solemn truth". They had called Him Rabbi so he responded as such. If you want to call thus doubling down I guess it's not a big deal, but He was just as serious the first time as He was the second time.


Correct, they weren't, so he had to repeat Himself to make them see this did not carry a physical connotation. Regress of their reasons, the issue was spiritual so Jesus was trying to show them He was NOT talking about His own physical body, but about His spiritual self. That is what came from heaven, not his body. Yes it was because he was known locally that they thought that way, but again that was not the physical, and Jesus stared his words back in the proper direction. The words 'solemn truth' were meant to spiritual truths.


Right. He knew that either their spiritual eyes were open or they weren't. Regardless of why they walked away, it did NOT change His core message of who he was and why he came. He never explained to anyone, except the 12. That was his M/O.


Yes it does, in Luke 22 and Matt 26, but clearly in Matt 26:23


Jesus instituted communion here, but He was celebrating the Passover Seder with the Apostles. Matt 26:17-19
They could not celebrate something that had NOT transpired as of yet. Let's not get sidetracked with Baptism here, as this is a whole other issue.


Paul made it clear about why people were getting sick or dieing because of how they practise communion. 1 Cor 11:30
Sorry I sometimes forget to actually cite what I refer to. The feeling is in your mind Tom. I intend no suchmthing, but teaching is NOT my forte. I was never called to do it. I suggest you stop inferring what I say, as I'm not one to mince words.


As you are now using them I assumed answering that would be pointless, and you'll have to quite a scripture along with this question, which is probably why I ignored it. I don't always answer every query if I find it superfluous.


Not quite, but thanks. :)

Good point on Matt 26:23....Kudo's. Looks like he did eat his own body and drink his own blood.

The rest of your post is somewhat confusing to me!!

Thanks for your response.

 

[StanJ]

Good point on Matt 26:23....Kudo's. Looks like he did eat his own body and drink his own blood.

Nope...keep reading and pay attention to v29.
His words about communion are metaphorical tom, not literal. You'll never learn the Bible if you can't read it IN context and grammatical style.

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

One of the LAST things Jesus did with his Apostles was break bread and shared wine saying “do this in remembrance of me”. One of the FIRST things he did after his resurrection was break bread with his disciples. He was recognized by them when he broke the bread (LK 24:35). It was one of the last things he did before he died and one of the first things he did when he rose from the dead.

Bread and wine are first mentioned in Genesis 14 when the priest Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” as a sacrifice. According to the Letter to the Hebrews 7:17, Jesus Christ is identified as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". In Exodus 16:4 God said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread (manna) from Heaven for you…”. And when the people asked what it (manna) was Moses told them “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.”

Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died (reference to Exodus16:4). This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “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 yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6). In the OT the people who ate the manna (bread) that God sent them while they were in the wilderness died because it was just normal bread. The new manna or bread is Jesus flesh and He is not normal bread. He, his flesh, is the bread of life and he who eats this bread lives forever. If you believe that the bread Jesus offers (his flesh) is just like the bread of the OT then what you believe contradicts what Jesus said. Paul later re-affirms what Jesus said: I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 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? (1 Corinthians 10:15)

Clement (who walked and talked with Peter and Paul) wrote: "In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree” .

In the year 110 AD Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John) wrote: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. In other words Ignatius is saying some Christians did not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus and since they “speak against this gift of God” they “incur death” because they dispute it. He also wrote of "one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice" . So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote around 180 AD: Three things are alleged against us (Christians): atheism, THYSTEAN FEAST and Edipoen intercourse..” Thyestean Feast is marked by the consumption of human flesh.
In other words the non-Christians, who did not participate in church services, thought the Christians were eating real flesh during services. Why did they think that? Because the early Christians believed Jesus when he said, this is my body, this is my blood. They believed it and pronounced it just like the Catholic Church pronounces it today, 2000 years later. So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

In regard to the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ and what to do on Sunday the Didache says: But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." The Eucharist is holy because it is the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church still today, 2000 years later, does not allow you to take communion unless you are baptized and you believe it is His body and blood just like the early (during the apostles life) Christians practiced. So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

In Acts 2: So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Based on Scripture and historical writings we know what the Apostles instructed early Christians to do on Sunday and what they practiced on Sunday’s (communion). The Catholic Church still practices what the Apostles taught. Catholics still do this “in remembrance of him” at every mass. Jesus commanded us to DO this in remembrance of him (communion). He said it was his flesh and blood; not a symbol of it. Historically we see that the early Christians believed it was his flesh and blood. Historically we know what Christians did on Sunday and why they did it!! So it sounds like the RCC got their "DOGMA" from scripture and early Christian practices.

I must say one thing. All these attacks and nonfactual statements from you and others on this website about what the RCC teaches has forced me to research what the RCC actually teaches instead of your false statements. Your actions and false statements has ME growing closer and closer to the Catholic beliefs.

So now I have a decision to make. Should I believe what the RCC teaches which seems to ME to be backed up by scripture and what the very first Christians (men who walked and talked with the Apostles) practiced OR do I follow your interpretation of scripture 2,000 years later? I am leaning toward the RCC.......More research to be done by ME opcorn:

Very well thought out and yes, you are close to the church, indeed.

Not sure why people don't understand why the early church beliefs are significant. These are folks who succeeded from the apostles. And remember, we didn't have our first bible until the end of the 4th century. Everything was apostolic tradition, some of which was written down, others not but remained in the church. All the doctrines of the church are organic in nature.

Getting back to the Eucharist, the early church was sacramental. They weren't all bringing bibles to church and listening to minister Osteen preach 45 minute cotton candy sermons There was no bible (NT anyway), it was all about the Eucharist and that's why Paul placed so much importance on examining yourself before partaking. 1 corinthians 11

The typology between Catholic teaching and the old testament is quite astonishing. Manna that came from heaven prefigures the Eucharist. It's why the Orthodox church to this day calls their communion "what is it" which is the definition of Manna.

And the very birthplace of Jesus, Bethlehem, means "house of bread"...yet another Eucharistic foreshadowing.

Acts 2:42

English Standard Version
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers

.

^^That sounds like a Catholic mass to me. Thanks be to God!

 

[ISeeU]

Breaking of bread is shown in Luke 24:45 also, and if there was any mass there it was on the road prior as it approached evening as they ended up constraining him to abide with them at that time.

This verse here

1 Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Is followed by another, this one

1 Cr 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

And the same "we being many are one bread are one body (the body of Christ) and partakers of "that one bread"

Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Theres a couple.

Hey, I am new, just dropping in.