What is the Baptist interpretation to "Eat My Fles

You’re right in that the disciples knew exactly what Jesus was saying during Christ’s sermon in John 6, hence many disciples left and followed Him no more. Why would Jesus, often referred to as Rabbi, which means “teacher”, allow many of his followers to simply walk away over a misunderstanding? Could it be that they knew exactly what Christ was talking about, when He said His flesh was meat indeed and blood was drink indeed?

 

Excellent. Did you come up with that yourself?
Anyway, that's a pretty good synopsis.

 

Read the entire context: all the way from John 6:53 to John 6:70.
Look what it says near the end of that passage:

John 6:67-69 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Will you also go away, Jesus asks his disciples.
What was the reason they went away?
The reason is because they did not believe that Christ was the Messiah. It was their unbelief. Peter said: "We are sure that thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was all related back to verse 53. To eat his flesh and drink his blood was symbolic of believing on him. Jesus says plainly after that, that whosoever would do so, he would have Christ dwelling in him. What happens when one gets saved? Christ comes and dwells in him. The teaching is so plain how can one miss it?

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

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

 

Good point. No one ever left Christ over His words, "I am the Door", or "I am the Vine; nor did John the Baptist's declaration that Christ was the "lamb of God" drive people away.

Along those same lines: Christ indeed said "I am the door", but never pointed to a wooden door and say, "This is me". Christ also said "I am the vine", but never pointed to a live plant and say "This is me." Christ is the "lamb of God", but he never pointed to an actual sheep and say "Hey, that's me, too!"

 

But what effect does the division of the episcopal magisterium have on the efficacy of that Tradition since 1054?

 

Objection 1: During the Last Supper, Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said, "This is my body."

Objections to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist can usually be divided into three categories: scriptural, philosophical, and historical. Whenever discussing the scriptural objections, keep in mind how many different interpretations are out there. William Whalen’s book Separated Brethren was published in the 1950s, and it recorded that there were over three hundred different interpretations of the phrase, "This is my body."

Two Christians with differing views could debate the matter for hours and not make any progress. That being the case, the issue of authority should always be brought up first. If there are at least three hundred interpretations of those four words, how is a sincere Christian to know what Christ meant by them? Whose authority should be trusted when it comes to interpreting the Bible?

If you are not favorable to the idea of accepting the Catholic Church as that authority, perhaps you are willing to concede that the first two or three centuries of Christian writings are worth examining. After all, if anyone knew what Christ meant at the Last Supper it would be the apostles and their disciples. (I can supply the quotes from the Early Church Father if someone wants to see them)

In addition to the historical evidence, it is useful to examine the language that Christ would have used at the Last Supper. In Aramaic, there are over three dozen words that mean represent or symbolize, but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." In fact, a literal translation in the Aramaic is simply, "This my body."

If this phrase were metaphorical, a serious difficulty arises in 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

Objection 2. But the bread of life discourse in John 6 shouldn’t be taken literally. Elsewhere, Jesus said that he was the door, the gate, the vine, et cetera. Here he is saying that he is the bread, since he gives us spiritual nourishment.

When questions of biblical interpretation are raised, it is beneficial to read in context the entire passage that is in dispute. The bread of life discourse begins in John 6:22, and the first point to address is the discussion of the heavenly bread. Jesus makes the point that as the Father sent manna from heaven for the physical nourishment of the Israelites, he has sent Jesus for the spiritual nourishment of the world. When Jesus announced this (6:41), the Jews murmured because he said that he had come down from heaven, not because he said that he was like bread. They understood his symbolic statement regarding the origin of the manna, and were scandalized by what it implied: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’" (6:42).

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesus’ initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: "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. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

One last passage worth considering is John 10:9, where Jesus says, "I am the door." Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, "And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’" This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.

Objection 3. If Jesus was speaking literally, then why did he say, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail," and "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63)?

The fundamental misunderstanding here springs from the implication that the word spirit is symbolic. Never in Scripture is this the case. We are told that God is spirit and that the devil is spirit, but no one would conclude from this that they are merely symbolic beings. What Jesus is driving at is that the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of grasping spiritual realities—such as the Eucharist.

If one concludes from the above verses that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of his flesh and blood, a major difficulty arises. The Bible teaches that blood is essentially the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another's flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. "I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.

Objection 4. If a miracle occurs when the priest says, "This is my body," then why doesn’t the bread change?

This objection is more of a philosophical one, and so I need to shift apologetic gears a bit to address it. What we perceive with our senses is not always a good indicator of spiritual realities.

In the Old Testament, there are several occasions where angels take on human appearances in order to carry out the work of God. Now, is the angel an angelic being or a human being? It would not look angelic. Through touch, smell, sight, et cetera it would appear to be fully human. But it is an angel. If an angel can take on human form, God is infinitely able to humble himself under the appearance of bread in order that we might receive him. In the words the Eucharistic hymn Tantum Ergo, "What our senses fail to fathom let us grasp through faith’s consent."

Objection 5. If we took Jesus’ words literally, wouldn’t that imply cannibalism?

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

Objection 6. Besides, the doctrine of transubstantiation wasn’t invented until the thirteenth century.

Fundamentalists often use this argument in the same way that a Jehovah’s Witness would say that the Trinity was invented in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea. Neither argument is sound because the truth of a particular term should be established by what it means, not by when it was first used.

Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term. A citation from Justin Martyr’s First Apology (A.D. 151): "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is compelling and unanimous. In fact, it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied.

 

Good post

 

#1. Nobody in John 6 "Crunches" Jesus' Flesh.

#2. In John 6 Jesus does not say "SOME day in the future you will need to Crunch" My flesh - He says it is ALREADY the case!

#3. NO one - NOT the faithFUL and not the faithLESS disciples BITE Jesus in John 6.

#4. Jesus then says "Literal flesh crunching is WORTHLESS - only My WORDS have spirit and LIFE" in John 6 -- THUS EXPLAINING the entire illustration.

#5. The book of JOHN STARTS with the clear meaning SHOWING us that the WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us.

#6. IN John 6 Christ ALSO gives us the "Manna" illustration saying that HE ALREADY IS the manna of heaven - the bread that came down out of heaven. MOSES said that the "LESSON OF MANNA" is this "MAN shall NOT LIVE by LITERAL FLESHLY BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD That comes from the mouth of God". - Again another detail to be ignored in taking the FAITHLESS disciple's view of John 6 that was "cannibalism" as they left Christ!

#7. PETER (Pope Peter for some of you ) ALSO "Gets the POINT" in John 6. Christ said "will you JOIN the faithLESS disciples in thinking that this is cannibalism and missing the point?" and Peter says "You Have the WORDS of LIFE" which directly goes back and references Christs words "Literal FLESH eating is WORTHLESS - it is my WORDS that have Spirit AND LIFE".

This is key because in the entire symbolic discussion Christ said you have to do this eating to "GAIN eternal life". Then He tells us that it is HIS WORD not "literal flesh eating" that obtains LIFE!!

#8. In Matt 16 we are shown the example - the illustration of "taking the symbol of bread TOO literally"!

I am suprised that you would know to link it to John 6 since it so fully debunks the idea saying that the loyal disciples were in error as they "thought he was speaking of LITERAL bread!"

In Christ,

Bob

 

So?

So?

So?

Actually if you read the passage He doesn't say that.

Yes. And?

But if you're trying, as you seem with #5, to establish some kind of tie-up between "word from the mouth of God" and Jesus being "the Word", then that, if anything, supports the Real Presence doctrine, does it not?

Not for me.

Again He doesn't say that; do try and be accurate with your Bible quotes; it's not that difficult. Similarly:

Again, these are not the words Christ used.

But the point about Matt 16 is that there Jesus does plainly say that He is not talking about real bread/leaven; in John 6 there is no such disclaimer, hence I suppose your efforts to put words into His mouth that He didn't say.

 

I would like to make a comment on JackRUS post. In his response to Stan the man's post he says "Not that I give a hoot what any of the so-called church fathers think”
Then why did he quote four early church fathers in his first post? And the four supposed quotes, They are not verbatim words from the Church Fathers, and there are four Church Fathers that he quoted but only one reference (reference usually includes title and page number).

 

I noticed that as well. Plus, Stantheman provided actual quotes of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria which expressed belief in the real presence.

 

I wonder whether OP was posted after the poster reviewed the previous one titled "Transubstantiation!!"
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3619/5.html#000061


Also, there was another thread recently.

This is my flesh;

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3834.html?


I hope RC would not complain that many protestants bash them while they are quiet.


Again, simply speaking

1. what Jesus said was " take it, reckon it as flesh and wine, regard it" which doesn't mean that the materials were changed.

2. Jesus said " I am the True Vine" do we have to carry some fertilizers to Him? I wonder there is nobody carrying fertilizers to the church while they believe that Bread is literally changed to Flesh and Jesus is the True Vine.

3. Catholic themselves have not cleared about this as they claim that External Accidents are not changed, but the Substance are transformed.
They have left some hole thru which they can escape.

4. Ancient believers were not always correct as Reformers made mistakes quite a lot. This is why we should not trust anything other than Scriptures. Sola Scriptura! Other references can be used only when they don't contradict Scriptures.

 

Someone claimed Disciples ate the flesh of Jesus actually. I asked him if they ate the cooked flesh or the uncooked one, then he said dunno!

There are many followers after the Babylonian Cana-Baal worshippers ( Cannibal) and Egyptian Cookie god!

 

Here we go again, we can't simply disagree, we have to insult.

 

If you read through this thread carefully, you'll find that this bogus argument was addressed and answered more than once.

But where they are/were in unanimous agreement, particularly in interpreting the literal sounding Scripture passages in question in a literal fashion, perhaps that should give pause to us moderns, no?

Again interpreted by whom? Whose interpretation do you trust when there are contradictory interpretations among believers all claiming the Spirit's guidance and all claiming the "anointing"?

 

This is from Catholic dictionary:

Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

If all claim that they have the anointing of Holy Spiri but still remains disagreement, we have no way to resolve the disgreement until Lord comes. What God has left to us unresolved cannot be improved by any other means.I don't expect this disagreement will be resolved before Lord comes.

Paul said " I am crucified with Christ" ( Gal 2:20)

Was Paul crucified besides Jesus?

We take them, regard them as flesh and blood by faith and believing in Him.

As I showed you, even Catholic don't believe it!

 

It will be a good idea to have all together> I hope You change the vine tree to a little older one with some branches so that we may find our places too.

 

It seems to have been a common expression for a meal. The Lord's supper was a meal, so it would apply to that as well; in fact it is a play on it "Take, my body is broken for you. This is why, for instance Acts 20:7 is not teaching a "Sunday service" with a "communion" every week in the early Church. They met and ate at that time.

 

Yes, bread is like his flesh in a way, for it is "broken" for us, and bread feeds us, and we are to be spiritually fed by Christ (1 Cor.10:4, and perhaps "rock" is a better analogy than "door", to illustrate the folly of taking these things literally!). So Christ spiritualizes his physical body and uses the bread Christians eat together to symbolize the spiritual unity they are to have.

This is still a metaphor, like "door", or "lamb" or "rock". It is a very different, and more spiritually in depth metaphor, and one they were completely unfamiliar with. And you're right, in that He pushed it in a very literal way, and their problem was in fact that they took it literal. The questions you have posed "why would they be offended...?" can be turned back on you: why would they be offended at Him turning a cracker into flesh, (as if that much is what they even actually understood Him as meaning?) Rabbinic sources claim that Jesus practiced magic and witchcraft (and perhaps this doctrine is one source of that myth), but still, God did us His prophets to work supernatural miracles like that (the staff turn into the snake, etc). If He had done what they wanted Him to do as Messiah (rise up and put down the Romans), they they would have accepted whatever He would have done. So that was not the problem. Their taking it literal does not prove it was somehow literal. They were blinded, remember. And where He may have clarified Himself to them elsewhere, John's account is focusing on their blindness, so what good would it have been to clarify to them? (actually, in Matthew's instance, it was the disciples He clarified himself to privately, not the Pharisees themselves).
(Still, do all the other metaphors in Aramaic use these words that mean "represent" or "symbolize"?)

It's funny, because the Calvinists use the same passage in John 6, focusing in v.65 to teach that it is their "hard doctrine" of [Augustinian] election that offended them! Just appealing to "carnal understanding of fallen human flesh cannot understand the spiritual" does not prove any "hard truth" people come up with. The true spiritual reality, is, however, something many people have missed, going off on tangents such as physical elements somehow "changing", but you can't see it; it is spiritual. If it's spiritual, then it is not a physical change, as it is insisted.

Once again, a spiritual unity is what is being taught, and THAT is why we have "eat and drink unworthily to damnation". The context of 1 Cor.11, is not that they were eating little cracker crumbs or flat (almost transparent) wafers and shot vials of wine, and people had committed just any sin, and not "repented" of it, or whatever. (Even Baptists fall into this assumption). The issue was GLUTTONY of the food itself. Their time together was solemn, and something like that struck at the heart of their fellowship.
By putting the focus in the physical FOOD itself as being what Christ somehow resides in, people ARE just as mistaken as those Jews who took "my flesh" literally". Christ is in the PEOPLE, and as they gather, (in which case, they usually ate, back then), Christ is present in them (Matt.18:19)
Also, I don't think anyone addressed Bob's point that "eat my flesh" is something they could have done then, in John, not only years later at "the Lord's supper". This shows it was a primarily spiritual act of being in commuonion with Christ. "His body" is spiritual, after all. Also, that He said "my flesh and blood" when He had the meal with them; His physical flesh being present and separate.

Also, while something symbolic may be spiritual, and something spiritual come out as symbolic, no one is arguing for a complete synonymization of the two words. God and Satan are living entities. So to say they are spiritual has nothing to do with symbols. Spirit is their composition. Communication, on the other hand (of which Communion is a part) is not a living entity, so can be symbolic.

[ May 02, 2006, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]