-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
Matt Black said:To answer the question at the top of this page, I would limit the authority to preside to those who are ordained for two reasons:-
1. Authorisation - the person presiding must in some way be authorised by the church to do so, otherwise you can get any old Joe off the street coming in and purporting to do it. Ordination is an effective way of achieving this, by and large
Who can be authorized by the church? Because we don't find any clergy system in NT, but there are only Elders and Deacons appeared in NT.
We have not got any trouble like the Old Joes as you mentioned or any distrubances so far. Can we trust not the Lord on this matter?
2. Ontology - if, as I believe, you believe that there is some kind of ontological change in the bread and wine (whether that be physical or spiritual) at the consecration, it follows that the consecrator must be set apart in some way and effectively have undergone some kind of ontological change himself. I believe that that change occurs when one is ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession.
Sounds like pre-qualification for the magic performance. In that case it's understandable to combine the Ontology with Ordination. You insinuate that the power to perform the magic performance is endowed to the priests at the time of Ordination.
But the great problem is that the Bible never mention that there is special group of people who can perform the sacraments. Acts 20:7 " Disciples" gathered together, 1 Cor 10:16-17 simply says " we" .Bible tells us that we all are the priests ( 1 Peter 2:5-9, Rev 1:6, 5:10)
However, thank you very much for your bringing the reasons to back up the requirements for the Ordination.
BobRyan said:That would be "making stuff up".
How about a more Bible-centered approach??
Why? What's the point? All we'll do is end up in the usual dialogue of the deaf over the meaning of John 6 etc
I think Baptism and Lord's Supper are considered as the main sacraments for the believers.
The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptised by Philip who was a deacon ( Acts 8:36-39), and Paul said he didn't baptize more than a few believers ( 1 Cor 1:14-17).
Preaching the Gospel was not restricted to any elders as we read 1 Cor 14:29-32.
I don't find any specific requirements for presiding the Lord's Supper as the Host of it is Lord Jesus Christ.
The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptised by Philip who was a deacon ( Acts 8:36-39), and Paul said he didn't baptize more than a few believers ( 1 Cor 1:14-17).
Preaching the Gospel was not restricted to any elders as we read 1 Cor 14:29-32.
I don't find any specific requirements for presiding the Lord's Supper as the Host of it is Lord Jesus Christ.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Without further delay....
However, if you can produce a "Zwinglian" from this time period, then we can talk.
(But if you want to divert the issue by bringing up Calvinism or Sabbatarianism go right ahead…I think this thread is long enough without debating the Scriptural and historical merits or demerits of those other two ideas)
Continued…..
Well, it’s not a “straw man”, because the existence of mere memorialism, when one looks at the plain meaning of the text (as well as the rest of that early historical record), is simply that---imaginary.Eric B said:Eliyahu was right that you characterize what we say as "imaginary memorialism", to make it a straw man in comparison with what you think is a "plain meaning".
Actually, it was that ‘clear cut’. The only ones recorded to have denied the “Real Presence” (the realist belief regarding the actual Body and Blood of Christ present in the forms of bread and wine during Communion) were the docetist Gnostics. Among the orthodox there was no ‘debate’. (What you are doing is taking this ‘modern debate’ and trying desperately to find evidence of your view point among orthodox catholic Christians of that period, but to no avail.)You take this modern debate, and try to project both sides in their current form back to the 2nd century with your view as "orthodox", and our view as "gnostic", but it was not that clear cut.
However, if you can produce a "Zwinglian" from this time period, then we can talk.
Except that we’re not debating Calvinism or Sabbatarianism. My point was that if the plain meaning of the Scriptural passages in question meant what they said (ie, that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ; that the cup is the communion of the blood of Christ; that the “bread” Christ was going to give was His flesh—for the life of the world—and that the same flesh was food indeed that we must munch/chew, and that His blood was drink indeed that we must drink; and that He called the literal bread in the upper room “His body” that was to be eaten, and the literal cup of wine “His blood” that was to be drunk), then the lack of one word (“change” or “changing”) shouldn’t be problematic given that such a change would be implied based on the realism of the other passages (or else all bread and wine would already be the flesh and blood of Christ).The so-called "inferential doctrine" argument, which all the differing groups use. Calvinists claim reprobation and unconditional election are "implied" by salvation being of God alone. Sabbatarians claim sabbath observance is implied by NT scriptures mentioning "commandments", which is taken to imply all ten of the Ten Commandments.
(But if you want to divert the issue by bringing up Calvinism or Sabbatarianism go right ahead…I think this thread is long enough without debating the Scriptural and historical merits or demerits of those other two ideas)
Especially Zwinglianism, as there is not any “clear enough” evidence to support it without severely distorting the plain grammatical reading of the passages in their Scriptural contexts. The Zwinglian just reads into Bible their doctrine, ignoring the plain, grammatical meaning of the text.Everybody comes with their own doctrine, and tries to read it into the Bible as an "implication" if they cannot find any clear enough support of it.
Continued…..
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
I then spent several paragraphs discussing John 6, especially comparing the “bread of life” with other metaphorical statements about Christ (“door”, “vine”) and how they ultimately diverged with the former by becoming more specific and literal in a way that the latter did not. I also mentioned how the metaphorical meaning for “eat [one’s] flesh” in biblical usage meant to revile or show hostility towards someone. Then you said this…
But since you brought up this idea of “believing”, as did Eliyahu, that should be addressed, because it seems that the idea of biblical faith (“believing in”) needs to be clarified to see whether or not the alleged contradiction between simply “believing in” Christ (for salvation) and the necessity of partaking of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist is a real contradiction or an imaginary one. Is Biblical faith merely intellectual assent to some prepositional truth? There does seem to be a way in which the Bible uses this more limited understanding of faith. However, when “faith” is used in this way, as intellectual assent, then the Scriptures say that such faith in and of itself is not enough, as James wrote: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17)”. And this is consistent with Paul who wrote that the only thing that avails is a “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). So the more complete biblical “saving” faith involves more than just intellectual assent to doctrinal truths (although such assent is necessary…it’s just not sufficient)—it involves the idea of “trust” and “reliance” and demonstrates itself in “loving obedience”.
So before proceeding to see whether the idea partaking of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is inconsistent with biblical saving faith (“believing in”), perhaps an old familiar illustration is warranted. There is an old story of a man who used to tightrope across the Niagara falls (or something like that), and after going across a few times (at times with additional weight), he would ask the astonished crowds whether they believed he could carry someone across on his back. The story goes that everyone answered “yes”, that they believed he was capable of such a feat. However, when he asked for volunteers, everyone fell silent. This illustrates, perhaps, the difference between belief in terms of intellectual assent, and real faith involving trustful action.
Likewise, if we acknowledge that full Biblical saving faith falls into (or at the very least includes) this latter category (trustful action), then there is no contradiction at all in “believing in Christ” and necessarily “coming to” Him to partake of His precious Body and Blood (that He sacrificially gave for us on the Cross) in the Holy Eucharist. In partaking in the Eucharist one faithfully demonstrates his belief in the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ and is demonstrating his reliance (faith) on that sacrifice. Rather than just expressing an intellectual belief that Christ’s sacrifice was/is necessary for salvation, the one who believes (correctly) that he is partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist is acting on his belief (in the necessity of the Passion) by partaking of that New Testament Sacrifice (cf 1 Cor 10:16-18).
So, Biblically there is no contradiction in the general notion that one must “come to” Christ, the bread of Life, in faith, and in the specific manner of faithfully coming to Him in Holy Communion (eating His flesh and drinking His blood), in which we are relying on His sacrificial giving of His body(flesh) and blood for our Life and the Life of the world which we receive in the forms of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment and salvation.
(Continued)
I then spent several paragraphs discussing John 6, especially comparing the “bread of life” with other metaphorical statements about Christ (“door”, “vine”) and how they ultimately diverged with the former by becoming more specific and literal in a way that the latter did not. I also mentioned how the metaphorical meaning for “eat [one’s] flesh” in biblical usage meant to revile or show hostility towards someone. Then you said this…
Yet, you are the one who insists that, despite the literal statements of Christ that His flesh was the bread, etc, and that He didn’t clarify that it was a new metaphor, that He was still just merely speaking metaphorically. This is problematic for many reasons: one, it’s an argument from silence—you are reading a metaphor into the passage; two, it ignores the key difference (outlined earlier) between this passage and the others where Christ never goes beyond the metaphorical (“door”, “vine”); three, it leaves us with the fact that this alleged new ‘metaphor’ would have had the opposite meaning of the ‘metaphor’ (“eat [one’s] flesh”) that was currently in use, and that Christ let many of is disciples leave Him at this point without the understanding that He didn’t meant to be taken literally but was offering a new, positive metaphorical meaning for “eating ones flesh”; fourth, it ignores again the fact that “drinking His blood” (etc) was not part of the initial bread of life metaphorical statement He gave, nor was it implied by such a statement.Eric B said:This is kind of the reverse of the other argument about God/Christ "doing new things". Just because He did not explain or state it exactly the same way He did the other metaphors does not prove it is not a metaphor. I don't see how you think that argument follows.
Except that in this verse Christ is speaking generally and metaphorically, before proceeding to the more and more specific and literal later in the discourse. Parallelisms, such as those found in Psalms and Proverbs, are poetic in nature and are typically found within the same verse (or within two adjacent verses). The only parallelism in play here is perhaps within verse 35 (“he who comes…never hungers”, and “he who believes…never thirsts”)And Eliyahu also answered weel, by quoting the rest of the verse, where He interprets this "eating" as "believing" (it is a parallelism, where parallel thoughts are stated next to each other. This is one key to interpreting many such scriptures).
But since you brought up this idea of “believing”, as did Eliyahu, that should be addressed, because it seems that the idea of biblical faith (“believing in”) needs to be clarified to see whether or not the alleged contradiction between simply “believing in” Christ (for salvation) and the necessity of partaking of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist is a real contradiction or an imaginary one. Is Biblical faith merely intellectual assent to some prepositional truth? There does seem to be a way in which the Bible uses this more limited understanding of faith. However, when “faith” is used in this way, as intellectual assent, then the Scriptures say that such faith in and of itself is not enough, as James wrote: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17)”. And this is consistent with Paul who wrote that the only thing that avails is a “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). So the more complete biblical “saving” faith involves more than just intellectual assent to doctrinal truths (although such assent is necessary…it’s just not sufficient)—it involves the idea of “trust” and “reliance” and demonstrates itself in “loving obedience”.
So before proceeding to see whether the idea partaking of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is inconsistent with biblical saving faith (“believing in”), perhaps an old familiar illustration is warranted. There is an old story of a man who used to tightrope across the Niagara falls (or something like that), and after going across a few times (at times with additional weight), he would ask the astonished crowds whether they believed he could carry someone across on his back. The story goes that everyone answered “yes”, that they believed he was capable of such a feat. However, when he asked for volunteers, everyone fell silent. This illustrates, perhaps, the difference between belief in terms of intellectual assent, and real faith involving trustful action.
Likewise, if we acknowledge that full Biblical saving faith falls into (or at the very least includes) this latter category (trustful action), then there is no contradiction at all in “believing in Christ” and necessarily “coming to” Him to partake of His precious Body and Blood (that He sacrificially gave for us on the Cross) in the Holy Eucharist. In partaking in the Eucharist one faithfully demonstrates his belief in the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ and is demonstrating his reliance (faith) on that sacrifice. Rather than just expressing an intellectual belief that Christ’s sacrifice was/is necessary for salvation, the one who believes (correctly) that he is partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist is acting on his belief (in the necessity of the Passion) by partaking of that New Testament Sacrifice (cf 1 Cor 10:16-18).
So, Biblically there is no contradiction in the general notion that one must “come to” Christ, the bread of Life, in faith, and in the specific manner of faithfully coming to Him in Holy Communion (eating His flesh and drinking His blood), in which we are relying on His sacrificial giving of His body(flesh) and blood for our Life and the Life of the world which we receive in the forms of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment and salvation.
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
“And as they were eating Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to them and said: ‘Take eat; this is My Body’.” (Mark 14:22)
Here, there is no wiggle room—the passage teaches that Christ is identifying the bread with His body. Likewise He also identifies the cup (from which they literally drank) with His blood (v.24). And of course, as I’ve demonstrated, Paul identifies the bread and wine as the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.
(Continued)
Actually, my statements on John 6 in the earlier post (from a couple of weeks ago) indirectly addressed Helen’s post, and my words above on Biblical faith/belief above also adds more by way an indirect answer to her post, but I will now address it more directly…Eric B said:Also, you still never answered the following earlier responses by others:
He did explain what He meant by His “flesh”: it was the “flesh” He was giving for the life of the world (v.51). He certainly did not mean that His physical “flesh profited nothing” in that regard! The “flesh profited nothing” refers to a carnal sense of understanding as opposed to a spiritual sense—not to His material flesh that He was literally going to give for the life of the world. (Or else He’d be saying in essence: “the bread is My flesh I’m giving for the life of the world, but that flesh is really profitless”)[Helen]In the meantime, if anyone should look at little earlier in John 6, Jesus has already explained what He means by the 'flesh and blood' -- and the comment about the flesh profiting nothing simply wraps it up.
Yes, he started generally and metaphorically (as I’ve pointed out several times already), stating that He Himself was the bread and that those who “come to” Him will never go hungry—but, again, what specifically does it mean to “come to” Christ? (And what does “believing in” mean—intellectual assent to propositional truths, or something more? [see above].) Christ specifies the manner of this “coming”--and the way in which we must demonstrate our “believing in--later in the passage…[Helen]"Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." (John 6:35)
”Bible does explain Bible”, but I think Helen has it the wrong way around. As I’ve said, the specific way of “coming to” Christ and of demonstrating one’s “believing in” Him is spelled out in more detail as the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood that He was giving for the life of the world. We are to express our faith/trust in Christ and His sacrifice by “coming to” Him in order to partake of that sacrifice—the true Passover Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And we partake of that sacrifice by partaking of the bread and wine which is the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).[Helen]Bible explains Bible. Jesus explains exactly what He is about to talk about.
I’m not sure his (Nicodemus) questions are that different from the crowd in John 6. He wants to know how a grown man can get back in his mother’s womb and be born again; they want to know: (1)what does Christ mean when He says He comes down from Heaven; and (2) how can He give them His flesh to eat. In the case of Nicodemus, Christ informs him that He is speaking of a spiritual rebirth (of water and the spirit); in the case of the murmuring crowd, Christ proceeds to become more literal by reiterating that His flesh is “food indeed” and His blood is “drink indeed” and that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to abide in Him and have life. The only caveat was that they must understand this spiritually and not carnally. Christ never said He was just introducing a new metaphor. (In fact, the only other time that Christ talks about eating His body and His blood is in the context of the last supper). Christ is the true Bread from Heaven because He is the true Sacrifice—literally, not metaphorically—as He is the true Passover lamb who gives Life and takes away the sin of the world.[Helen]You will also notice that when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is very calm. That's because Nicodemus honestly wants to know.
Yes, they don’t understand how this Man, this empirical human being, could have come down from heaven to give His flesh for the life of the world. They don’t understand His heavenly origin or His sacrificial mission.[Helen] However in John 6, the attitude of the crowd is different. They are grumbling and challenging -- they liked the food they were fed earlier in the chapter, but this business about believing in Jesus "whose father and mother we know" -- that's pushing it just a bit too far! And so rather than honestly questioning Him, they simply argue among themselves (v.52).
Of course she hasn’t demonstrated that at all. Jesus became more specific by stating the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world was the same that was true food that must be eaten. Just as those in the OT ate of the OT sacrifices, we in the NT partake of the Body and Blood of Christ—the NT sacrifice—by partaking of the bread and wine. The John 6 discourse anticipates the Lord’s Supper, the only other time Christ is recorded to be talking about His body being eaten and His blood being drunk, and this is in the context of His pending Sacrifice. Paul’s statements in Corinthians shed even more light on the sacrificial nature of Communion.[Helen]So Jesus responds to them in a very Jewish way, turning their arguments on their ears. It has nothing to do with eating His actual flesh or drinking His actual blood!
Of course, as I’ve said repeatedly, “body of Christ” is used in more than one sense in the Scriptures.[Gerhard Ebersoehn]:Can the bread then, be taught anything? (Eph1:4:12) How are WE, the Body of Christ but don't eat ourselves? (1Cor12:27)
Just because a translation may be allegedly “legitimate”, doesn’t mean it’s correct. This is especially true in this case when we compare this passage to parallel passages the other synoptic gospels:[GE]: As for Lk22:19. A perfectly legitimate translation (and literal at that), would be: "Then taking a loaf having given thanks, He broke (it) then gave to them saying: This the body of mine is for you being given; unto my memory do (eat) ye!" The reference clearly is not to the bread as the body of Christ; but to the body of Christ Himself being broken for the disciples; eating the bread, they should remember that!
“And as they were eating Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to them and said: ‘Take eat; this is My Body’.” (Mark 14:22)
Here, there is no wiggle room—the passage teaches that Christ is identifying the bread with His body. Likewise He also identifies the cup (from which they literally drank) with His blood (v.24). And of course, as I’ve demonstrated, Paul identifies the bread and wine as the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
In response to my analysis of the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, showing these grammatically and in context support the realist view, and the resulting absurdities for the merely-memorialist view, you said this:
Again, I demonstrated (repeatedly now) how Paul specifically and grammatically identifies the bread and cup themselves with the communion of (participation in) the Body and Blood of Christ respectively, and how in context this was referring to the literal bread they were breaking and the literal cup they were drinking, and how likewise Christ referred to literal bread and literal wine as His body and blood. I then proceeded to show the absurdities that would result in the context of 1 Corinthians 10-11 if we were to hypothetically substitute the idea of “our gathering to eat in His name” for the word “bread” and “our gathering to drink in His name” for the word “cup”. The point was to show that the specific grammar and context point to the fact that the “bread” and “cup” were really… literal “bread” and “cup”, and not simply some metaphorical code for “our gathering to eat and drink”. To espouse the latter is to, therefore, disregard the actual biblical language in favor of eisigesis. The burden of proof is on you to show how you are not reading your view into the text in light of what is actually written in Scripture…not what you may wish Paul’s meaning was despite the actual grammar and context of the passages in question.
I also notice that, for whatever reason (whether you were in a rush or whatever), you didn’t respond to the point I made about how in verse 18, in which the partaking of OT sacrifices is apparently compared to our partaking of (participating in) Christ in communion (v.16), that the Israelites in the OT did not partake of a mere visual aid of the sacrifice, but they ate of the actual sacrifice itself. Paul’s words again:
“Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor 10:18)
This further strengthens the teaching that we in the NT actually partake of Christ—who sacrificially gave His body and blood for us on the Cross—when we eat the bread and wine of Holy Communion (the Lord’s Table). We aren’t just eating a mere visual aid of the sacrifice when we eat the bread and drink from the cup; we are partaking of the Sacrifice Himself.
(Continued)
Actually, Christ further explained the manner in which they must eat His body and drink His blood, and that was in the upper room when He declared the bread to be His body and the cup(wine) to be His blood.Eric B said:Regarding the disciples, the same thing basically happened with His death. They didn't understand, as they thought He was going to take over and put the Romans down. As He was being killed, they gave up hope, and abandoned Him. But after the resurrection, theyn they understood, and knew what their mission was. Likewise, they understood what "eating His flesh" meant, and no longer the carnal understanding.
I’m not getting them all mixed up at all. In fact Paul brings all three senses of Christ’s body together by saying that it’s by partaking of the (communion) bread that we are made one body (1 Corinthians 10:17). In other words, we are one body with each other and Christ by partaking of that one Bread which Christ called His body and Paul said was the participation in His body. We are one Body with the Incarnate Christ by partaking of His body and blood in the Holy Eucharist. There is a real union—with Christ and among believers--that’s affected, not a metaphorical one.And both are metaphorical. I point out we are the body, because you speak of a spiritual presence, and WE are the "body" that the Spirit resides in. The bread and wine is the "body" that is eaten. (and Christ's literal body was the one that hung on the cross, and was resurrected) You are getting them all mixed up. But that is how both plus the literal can all be "the body".
In response to my analysis of the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, showing these grammatically and in context support the realist view, and the resulting absurdities for the merely-memorialist view, you said this:
Well that’s an interesting “argument”. I’m pointing out that Scriptures, as it is actually written, grammatically support my arguments and is highly problematic and results in absurdities for the metaphorical position you espouse, and you respond by pointing out, in essence, that I’m indeed showing what Scriptures ”should say” if they were to, instead, actually support your position (Eureka!). But instead of actually specifically engaging with my arguments and the actual language as written, you merely and dismissively assert “It doesn’t follow”. I suppose you do have to resort to such a dismissal (and couch it in the form of an “argument”) if you can’t actually respond to the grammar and context of the Biblical language as written.Again, you're telling the Scripture what it should say, in order for your understanding to not be correct, and it to be a metaphor. It does n follow.
Again, I demonstrated (repeatedly now) how Paul specifically and grammatically identifies the bread and cup themselves with the communion of (participation in) the Body and Blood of Christ respectively, and how in context this was referring to the literal bread they were breaking and the literal cup they were drinking, and how likewise Christ referred to literal bread and literal wine as His body and blood. I then proceeded to show the absurdities that would result in the context of 1 Corinthians 10-11 if we were to hypothetically substitute the idea of “our gathering to eat in His name” for the word “bread” and “our gathering to drink in His name” for the word “cup”. The point was to show that the specific grammar and context point to the fact that the “bread” and “cup” were really… literal “bread” and “cup”, and not simply some metaphorical code for “our gathering to eat and drink”. To espouse the latter is to, therefore, disregard the actual biblical language in favor of eisigesis. The burden of proof is on you to show how you are not reading your view into the text in light of what is actually written in Scripture…not what you may wish Paul’s meaning was despite the actual grammar and context of the passages in question.
I also notice that, for whatever reason (whether you were in a rush or whatever), you didn’t respond to the point I made about how in verse 18, in which the partaking of OT sacrifices is apparently compared to our partaking of (participating in) Christ in communion (v.16), that the Israelites in the OT did not partake of a mere visual aid of the sacrifice, but they ate of the actual sacrifice itself. Paul’s words again:
“Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor 10:18)
This further strengthens the teaching that we in the NT actually partake of Christ—who sacrificially gave His body and blood for us on the Cross—when we eat the bread and wine of Holy Communion (the Lord’s Table). We aren’t just eating a mere visual aid of the sacrifice when we eat the bread and drink from the cup; we are partaking of the Sacrifice Himself.
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
Of course, your whole “copout” charge is double edged. There are others who accuse us--who describe Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead as “supernatural”--of making a ‘copout’ because we don’t accept that Christ’s ‘resurrection’ was merely a mythical metaphor, simply a spiritual (non-physical) truth (or something like that). To the modern naturalistic mind the idea of a physical resurrection makes no sense. Also, the idea of God Himself becoming Incarnate by hypostatically uniting Himself to humanity makes no sense either. When we describe this taking place “supernaturally” in regards to Jesus of Nazareth, we are told such appeals to the supernatural is another “copout” since Christ was merely an empirical man, and all the “son of God” language is metaphorical of a spiritual truth that we ALL are “sons of God”. Likewise with the Atonement, the more “sensible” interpretation of moderns is that the “spiritual truth” behind the events depicted in Scripture was that Christ was a good man whose death was simply an example of sacrifice for us to follow, and not some allegedly vicarious substitution of a God-man.
Your problem is that you want to be selective (excused ostensibly because of various a priori beliefs about how God can/does relate to matter, but ultimately perhaps because of your soteriological presuppositions) about which ‘supernatural’ truths you are willing to accept and which you are not based on the dictates of your particular tradition.
(Continued)
No I’m not. We’re spiritually partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in a supernatural manner when we physically eat the bread and wine, not by ripping flesh off His bones nor sucking His blood from His veins. The former is the REAL PRESENCE; the latter is cannibalism.Eric B said:But according to you, it really was cannibalism; only it looks like bread and wine. That's the only difference between your view and theirs. Otherwise, you are using the same line of thought.
It’s not a “copout”, especially when understood in light of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in fulfillment of the OT sacrificial types/ceremonies (and in His being the true Pascal lamb).Eric B said:It is not "synonymous with", meaning that "spirit [itself] IS symbol", but physical things being metaphors of spiriaul realities is "spiritual meaning". Just like all OT types. Taking it "literally" when it doesn't make any sense, is "carnally" (and claiming "well, it is just supernatural" again, is a copout, in that context).
Of course, your whole “copout” charge is double edged. There are others who accuse us--who describe Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead as “supernatural”--of making a ‘copout’ because we don’t accept that Christ’s ‘resurrection’ was merely a mythical metaphor, simply a spiritual (non-physical) truth (or something like that). To the modern naturalistic mind the idea of a physical resurrection makes no sense. Also, the idea of God Himself becoming Incarnate by hypostatically uniting Himself to humanity makes no sense either. When we describe this taking place “supernaturally” in regards to Jesus of Nazareth, we are told such appeals to the supernatural is another “copout” since Christ was merely an empirical man, and all the “son of God” language is metaphorical of a spiritual truth that we ALL are “sons of God”. Likewise with the Atonement, the more “sensible” interpretation of moderns is that the “spiritual truth” behind the events depicted in Scripture was that Christ was a good man whose death was simply an example of sacrifice for us to follow, and not some allegedly vicarious substitution of a God-man.
Your problem is that you want to be selective (excused ostensibly because of various a priori beliefs about how God can/does relate to matter, but ultimately perhaps because of your soteriological presuppositions) about which ‘supernatural’ truths you are willing to accept and which you are not based on the dictates of your particular tradition.
Yet you quoted Helen’s response approvingly (saying that I hadn’t “answered” it) and she does make that argument. (So if it actually doesn’t apply to you, forget about it.)I never used "the flesh profits nothing" argument, so that doesn't pertain to me. I know that "flesh" in that case is not literal anyway (it is our unfallen nature, or the Jews trusting in their physical heritage), so I don't use it in this argument about flesh being "literal".
But those earlier things merely by being physical are not “weak and beggarly”, but it’s because they are only types and shadow of what’s to come. However, they don’t point to a fulfillment in some non-physical manner, but to the Incarnate Christ—and His physical Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension—in which the physical is transfigured, not done away with. The Eucharist, as it is connected with the Incarnate Christ (and is indeed one of the chief manners in which we participate in the Incarnate Christ), is therefore not “weak and beggarly”.I think you still misunderstand what I said, or at least the context of it. I think that was more in answering your or someone else's justification of Catholic practice because the OT did it. Like the cherubim, the brass serpent, etc. Either the Eucharist is just like those things, and it is then another "weak and beggarly elelemt", or it is different (as you are claiming), and really stands on its own merit, and should not be justified based on those other things.
Except, one can describe Christ’s Body and Blood being supernaturally yet substantially present in the bread and wine without trying to overly define. Yet this truth (despite the various ways in which folks attempt to describe it or overly define it) is far different from the mere visual aid belief of Zwinglianism. It’s the REAL PRESENCE of the Body and Blood, not the REAL ABSENCE.You just explained it the way I and most would explain it, even though none understands "how". Yet again, with the Real presence, you can't even really explain it in any consistent fashion. It is a change, but it's not transubstantiation. It indwells unchanged bread and wine; no; actual flesh and blood that looks like bread and wine takes the place of the bread and wine. (this is at least what Agnus Dei last implied).
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
(Continued)
Yet the word for “remembrance”, anamnesis, in that day had a stronger connotation then simply a mere recollection for what happened in the past. It also conveyed the idea of making the past somehow present again. The larger point is that the Realist position can certainly accommodate the Scriptural language of “remembrance”, but the Zwinglian position cannot accommodate the realist language of Scripture without resulting in eisegesis.Eric B said:Simply restating what I have said, when I see how it is mistake for something else. "not other object in objects" is what I originally meant, but I did not know the best way to express it until your counterpoint. It is not "backing off". Because He gave us His flesh and blood on the Cross, and said to use the bread and wine in "reMEMbrance" of Me" (ie.e His giving us His flesh and blood on the cross)!
Granted, but there is nothing I’m aware of that’s keeping you from taking your time and being more deliberate with your responses. (Obviously, I’m just now getting around to making a reply)Like the last issue, it is a matter of finding the best way to phrase things. Especially with me having limited time, and being in a rush, and you do atomize my posts, so it is hard to think but so much at times.
It’s only “in question” for those who, for whatever reason, deny the grammatical, contextual language of what’s actually written in Scripture.What I am trying to say you're doing, is using "supermatural" to try to justify something you are arguing that is in question.
Again, this argument applies to your sect as well, believing as you purportedly do in the supernatural truths of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. There are others who argue that all three are ‘in question’ and that we should re-evaluate Christianity (or “Christianities”), and these skeptics would say that you are simply slapping ‘supernatural’ on these things when you can’t refute their “reason” to the contrary.IT is easy to slap "it's supernatural" on anything; such as people's answer to your claim as to how to know all the truth, with "God tells us". So there are hundreds of sects of people claiming that; how do you know what God is telling anyone? Yet, that appeal to the supernatural makes people feel like they have refuted the skeptics reason, and answered the questioner's questions.
And of course skeptics and heretics of all stripes can just as easily say that you haven’t proven that anything “supernatural” is actually involved in the alleged ‘incarnation’ and ‘resurrection’ of Jesus of Nazareth—let alone explaining how such could take place--and that you are finally dodging the issue whether such standard orthodox interpretations are really necessary in this age of reason.So likewise, you have a claim that something is "happening" to bread and wine, but it is not a transubstantiation; you admit there is no empirical change, so what is it? "Well; it's a supernatural change; see, there, our Church is right". Sorry; but you have not proven anything. You have just made a hypothesis and tossed it up into the air as "just is" because it's "supernatural". That just doesn't prove anything, and it is the final dodging of the initial issue of whether that is really a necessary interpretation of the scriptures in question in the first place.
That’s not a tautology at all, and it’s a gross oversimplification and mischaracterization of the arguments I’ve been making."This is the true interpretation because those scriptures cannot be metaphorical, and they really are eating flesh and blood, but it doesn't look like flesh and blood because it is just supernatural". That is a tautology.
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
((PUFF) Another straw man is blown down…..)
That doesn’t follow at all, because it’s the same hypostasis of the Son that’s present, not some alleged “new” one.Eric B said:I guess it is Agnus Dei who claims "all His divinity" lies in it. That would make it "a deity", but if you claim it is the one God, then it must be like a new hypostasis of the Trinity (or quaternity).
((PUFF) Another straw man is blown down…..)
Why? That wouldn’t even make any sense because God had not become incarnate in the flesh yet. (Doh!)He still could have said something like "His flesh present in the bush". Or used some other thing that would amount to your "real Presence" concept.
Oh, so now you are saying that if the Person is not audibly speaking to us, then the Person is not present which of course doesn’t logically follow at all. You are really grasping at straws at this point. Just because a person can speak doesn’t mean he actually has to do so at any particular point in time.the point was, it was a Person in the bush, not an object. And you now say that a person is in the bread and wine, but a "person" is someone who can speak to us. The Spirit in us speaks to us (from Heaven), just as God in the burning bush spoke to Moses, and God in the flesh of Christ spoke to those of His day.
No, but that’s a non sequitur. Christ is present in the bread and wine to spiritually nourish us by His body and blood, not to audibly speak to us.Do you claim Christ "speaks" (in any perceivable way) from the bread and wine?
I was “convinced out of [my] previous beliefs” by allowing Scriptures to mean what they say—on salvation, baptism, and the real presence—rather than to be content with the Southern Baptist spin on things that I had been taught for close to 30 years. I didn’t have any other “dog in the fight” other than to let the Scriptures speak plainly on the issues that I for so long had to “explain away”. (In fact, it would have been a whole lot easier for me to stay put.) The soteriological suppositions I now have come from the plain grammatical meaning of the Scriptures in their context.I think that is the issue, as well, which is why I said that. On the flipside of what you said about my view; your soteriological suppositions (however you may have been convinced out of your previous beliefs) are what will not allow you [any longer] to see all of this as spiritual metaphors.
(just like the Jews with their "literal interpretation" of it). And Catholicism is a lot like Judaism in these respects! If salvation and even "ongoing living in Christ" is by the works of doing some deeds to supposedly "receive" Christ over and over, then turning baptism and communion into supposed metaphysical acts of actually "washing" something, and "literally eating Christ's flesh" as a way of physically "receiving Christ", then it makes sense to turn these ordinances into "sacraments" (by which one is continuously saved), and read it into scripture as "plain meaning" (i.e. the literal understanding like the Jews), even though it is really not.
It’s your view, in reading your a priori theological assumptions into the texts, that turns: (1) Christ’s salvation into a grand, fire insurance policy (irrespective of any actual ongoing dependent life in Christ) obtained once-for-all by a one time intellectual assent to some propositional truths about the Gospel, and (2) reduces Christ’s sacramental ordinances into mere superfluous visual aids. The Bible, plainly understood, actually supports neither. Zwinglianism and OSAS both arrived late on the scene, and it’s the proponents of both (again, with both views often going hand-in-hand in the contemporary theological landscape) that read their views back into Scripture. I suppose we could delve into the soteriological issue (again) in another thread, but for now I agree there is generally a connection in how one view’s salvation and how one views Christ’s sacramental ordinances.
(Continued)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(Cont’d)
If you find my questions absurd then you perhaps you’ll see the absurdity of your mischaracterization of my view as expressed in your questions. Salvation (Eternal Life) in Christ, and we must abide in Him to continue to have life. If one doesn’t continue to abide in Christ—if one persists in unrepentant disobedience and continues to neglect prayer, Scripture, and the Lord’s Table—then one will ultimately wither and die and be cast out from Christ as branches (John 15) therefore no longer have eternal life.
Christ wasn’t “added” to “it”, but was the whole point of it (OT). Christ fulfilled the OT, and offers real forgiveness and salvation by His Sacrifice for us and His life in us. (This is something the OT law and sacrifices couldn’t actually do.) However, this forgiveness is not limited to a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior, nor is our life in Christ reducible to a one time decision to follow Him.
Second, my view is not “salvation by works”---it’s “no salvation without works”. This is BIBLICAL, not Gnostic. Though some Gnostic sects stressed extreme asceticism, others were basically antinomian doing whatever they wanted with the body (since the physical body didn’t matter anyway).
Third, one of the main definitions of “mystical” is: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding (WordNet). By this definition, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement are also “mystical”, as none of these are apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence. These, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, are revealed truths, and though they can be all expressed in an intellectual way, they all must ultimately be received by faith. Again, you yourself want to accept some mystical, biblical Christian truths but not others.
Until later
DT
More non-sequiturs. Let me ask you some questions: Are you still physically alive if you aren’t physically born more than once? Do you physically die between meals—has your physical life “left” you in the interim between meals before you receive your life back again when you eat?(When you have the communion service, has salvation "worn off". Has Christ "left" you in the interim period, so you have to "receive Him" again? Why then isn't the "washing" of baptism repeated as well, since that was also a form of "Receiving Christ"?)
If you find my questions absurd then you perhaps you’ll see the absurdity of your mischaracterization of my view as expressed in your questions. Salvation (Eternal Life) in Christ, and we must abide in Him to continue to have life. If one doesn’t continue to abide in Christ—if one persists in unrepentant disobedience and continues to neglect prayer, Scripture, and the Lord’s Table—then one will ultimately wither and die and be cast out from Christ as branches (John 15) therefore no longer have eternal life.
But merely appealing to the “wine/wineskin” passage doesn’t prove your point.This is the reason why I earlier called it "weak and beggarly elements", and others say "the flesh profits nothing". All you have done is repackage Judaism up in new garb, and added "Christ" to it, and changed the days of worship. But Jesus had said "old wine cannot be put into new wineskins".
Christ wasn’t “added” to “it”, but was the whole point of it (OT). Christ fulfilled the OT, and offers real forgiveness and salvation by His Sacrifice for us and His life in us. (This is something the OT law and sacrifices couldn’t actually do.) However, this forgiveness is not limited to a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior, nor is our life in Christ reducible to a one time decision to follow Him.
First, the view that salvation consists in some sort of saving “knowledge” irrespective of works is much closer to gnosticism than is historic orthodox Christianity (my view).And this mystical view, for the purpose of teaching salvation by works is really what is closer to the gnostic concepts that were coming in, even if some of the details of their doctrines (such as rejecting physical things) may be different from what the later Church accepted, and rejected by its councils.
Second, my view is not “salvation by works”---it’s “no salvation without works”. This is BIBLICAL, not Gnostic. Though some Gnostic sects stressed extreme asceticism, others were basically antinomian doing whatever they wanted with the body (since the physical body didn’t matter anyway).
Third, one of the main definitions of “mystical” is: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding (WordNet). By this definition, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement are also “mystical”, as none of these are apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence. These, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, are revealed truths, and though they can be all expressed in an intellectual way, they all must ultimately be received by faith. Again, you yourself want to accept some mystical, biblical Christian truths but not others.
Until later
DT
[FONT=r_ansi]The "straw man" key is the use of the term "mere memorialism". That makes it sound like it has less meaning than what we claim. Your argument is that it is all [what you say] or nothing.Well, it’s not a "straw man", because the existence of mere memorialism, when one looks at the plain meaning of the text (as well as the rest of that early historical record), is simply that---imaginary.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]There was no "debate". You take isolated references to the Communion from the ECF's, and think that your whole ritual and all its philosophy was present, and demand that we produce someone (other than the gnostics) who denies that in order for your view to be disproven. But there was no debate, because your whole ritual and all of its philosophy was not present, but was being developed slowly. Again, all or nothing.[/FONT]
Actually, it was that ‘clear cut’. The only ones recorded to have denied the "Real Presence" (the realist belief regarding the actual Body and Blood of Christ present in the forms of bread and wine during Communion) were the docetist Gnostics. Among the orthodox there was no ‘debate’. (What you are doing is taking this ‘modern debate’ and trying desperately to find evidence of your view point among orthodox catholic Christians of that period, but to no avail.)
However, if you can produce a "Zwinglian" from this time period, then we can talk.
[FONT=r_ansi]
[FONT=r_ansi]It's only "proceeding to more and more specific and literal" in your view. [/FONT]Except that in this verse Christ is speaking generally and metaphorically, before proceeding to the more and more specific and literal later in the discourse. Parallelisms, such as those found in Psalms and Proverbs, are poetic in nature and are typically found within the same verse (or within two adjacent verses). The only parallelism in play here is perhaps within verse 35 ("he who comes…never hungers", and "he who believes…never thirsts")
But since you brought up this idea of "believing", as did Eliyahu, that should be addressed, because it seems that the idea of biblical faith ("believing in") needs to be clarified to see whether or not the alleged contradiction between simply "believing in" Christ (for salvation) and the necessity of partaking of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist is a real contradiction or an imaginary one. Is Biblical faith merely intellectual assent to some prepositional truth? There does seem to be a way in which the Bible uses this more limited understanding of faith. However, when "faith" is used in this way, as intellectual assent, then the Scriptures say that such faith in and of itself is not enough, as James wrote: "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17)". And this is consistent with Paul who wrote that the only thing that avails is a "faith working
through love" (Gal 5:6). So the more complete biblical "saving" faith involves more than just intellectual assent to doctrinal truths (although such assent is necessary…it’s just not sufficient)—it involves the idea of "trust" and "reliance"...
So before proceeding to see whether the idea partaking of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is inconsistent with biblical saving faith ("believing in"), perhaps an old familiar illustration is warranted. There is an old story of a man who used to tightrope across the Niagara falls (or something like that), and after going across a few times (at times with additional weight), he would ask the astonished crowds whether they believed he could carry someone across on his back. The story goes that everyone answered "yes", that they believed he was capable of such a feat. However, when he asked for volunteers, everyone fell silent. This illustrates, perhaps, the difference between belief in terms of intellectual assent, and real faith involving trustful action.
Likewise, if we acknowledge that full Biblical saving faith falls into (or at the very least includes) this latter category (trustful action), then there is no contradiction at all in "believing in Christ" and necessarily "coming to" Him to partake of His precious Body and Blood (that He sacrificially gave for us on the Cross) in the Holy Eucharist. In partaking in the Eucharist one faithfully demonstrates his belief in the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ and is demonstrating his reliance (faith) on that sacrifice. Rather than just expressing an intellectual belief that Christ’s sacrifice was/is necessary for salvation, the one who believes (correctly) that he is partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist is acting on his belief (in the necessity of the Passion) by partaking of that New Testament Sacrifice (cf 1 Cor 10:16-18).
So, Biblically there is no contradiction in the general notion that one must "come to" Christ, the bread of Life, in faith, and in the specific manner of faithfully coming to Him in Holy Communion (eating His flesh and drinking His blood), in which we are relying on His sacrificial giving of His body(flesh) and blood for our Life and the Life of the world which we receive in the forms of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment and salvation.
[FONT=r_ansi]"trust and reliance" means that you are depending on Him for salvation, not your own deeds. Unfortunately, even among those Protestant Evangelicals who believe in mental assent at an altar call, and stuff like that, "Trust and "reliance" have been turned into other things, like "If something bad happens, know that God is in control, and has done it for your own good, so don't get angry or sad". And they all use that same illustration. So if you don't have a good enough attitude when bad things happem, you are not "trusting God". (We had a whole debate on suicide last winter, with the more "conservative" saying such a person is automatically lost because they did not "trust God"). Trusting God is turned into a philosophy of positive thinking, with some unknown "good" being what we trust Him form rather than salvation. But the scriptures used to teach this are taken out of context. Most of them involve OT figures God was directly doing something in (like raising and guiding the nation of Israel, leading to the coming of the Messiah), and should not be projected to us. http://members.aol.com/etb700/abundant.html So for salvation, yes, we "trust" and get into the wheelbarrow. What you and others teach is that the stunt man simply shows us the way, and we then "follow Him" by getting wheelbarrows and pushing ourselves across. (with mman follwing behind saying "that's not work, it's faith").
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]This we agree with. We love Him "because He first loved us" (James 4:19. Also, previous verse, There is no fear in love...he who fears is not made perfect in love", showing that other passages telling us to "fear" mean "respect", and not not to fear losing salvation, as you and Campbellists like mman, who I see is back, seem to advocate). But your view removes the "first loved us" part of it, and has Him "keep loving us because we keep showing Him love through our deeds".and demonstrates itself in "loving obedience".
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]What He "explained" was not your doctrine. He stated that, metaphorically, and the Church then made something totally different out of it.Actually, Christ further explained the manner in which they must eat His body and drink His blood, and that was in the upper room when He declared the bread to be His body and the cup(wine) to be His blood.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Again, we see it all stems here from your view of our being "In Christ" as something we renew by our own acts. We see being in Christ as spiritual, and the Communion (which actually means fellowship and unity, and thankfulness) represents or marks this. It doesn't create it.I’m not getting them all mixed up at all. In fact Paul brings all three senses of Christ’s body together by saying that it’s by partaking of the (communion) bread that we are made one body (1 Corinthians 10:17). In other words, we are one body with each other and Christ by partaking of that one Bread which Christ called His body and Paul said was the participation in His body. We are one Body with the Incarnate Christ by partaking of His body and blood in the Holy Eucharist. There is a real union—with Christ and among believers--that’s affected, not a metaphorical one.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Actually, my statements on John 6 in the earlier post (from a couple of weeks ago) indirectly addressed Helen’s post, and my words above on Biblical faith/belief above also adds more by way an indirect answer to her post, but I will now address it more directly…
Quote:
[Helen]In the meantime, if anyone should look at little earlier in John 6, Jesus has already explained what He means by the 'flesh and blood' -- and the comment about the flesh profiting nothing simply wraps it up.
He did explain what He meant by His "flesh": it was the "flesh" He was giving for the life of the world (v.51). He certainly did not mean that His physical "flesh profited nothing" in that regard! The "flesh profited nothing" refers to a carnal sense of understanding as opposed to a spiritual sense—not to His material flesh that He was literally going to give for the life of the world. (Or else He’d be saying in essence: "the bread is My flesh I’m giving for the life of the world, but that flesh is really profitless")
I had glossed over that, not even realizing she was arguing that there, and was focusing more on the rest of her answer.Yet you quoted Helen’s response approvingly (saying that I hadn’t "answered" it) and she does make that argument. (So if it actually doesn’t apply to you, forget about it.)
So you're saying the "Coming to Him" is specifically eating the bread? But you know it is much more than just that in your view; else you would be condoning all the "Catholics" who take Mass/Eastern Communion, etc. and still live however they want. (more on this below) For one thin, it sounds like a one time event, not something that you keep on doing. So it obviously does not mean what you are saying, and it again is tied to your soteriological presuppositionsQuote:
[Helen]"Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." (John 6:35)
Yes, he started generally and metaphorically (as I’ve pointed out several times already), stating that He Himself was the bread and that those who "come to" Him will never go hungry—but, again, what specifically does it mean to "come to" Christ? (And what does "believing in" mean—intellectual assent to propositional truths, or something more? [see above].) Christ specifies the manner of this "coming"--and the way in which we must demonstrate our "believing in--later in the passage…
Quote:
[Helen]Bible explains Bible. Jesus explains exactly what He is about to talk about.
"Bible does explain Bible", but I think Helen has it the wrong way around. As I’ve said, the specific way of "coming to" Christ and of demonstrating one’s "believing in" Him is spelled out in more detail as the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood that He was giving for the life of the world. We are to express our faith/trust in Christ and His sacrifice by "coming to" Him in order to partake of that sacrifice—the true Passover Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And we partake of that sacrifice by partaking of the bread and wine which is the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).
But this "become more literal" is just your own interpretation. He is reiterating His statement with more emphasis. It does not mean "more literal". Both the spiritual birth and the eating of the bread and wine are "spiritual" (and both actually mean the same thing, with two ordinances representing both the initial and ongoping aspects of it).Quote:
[Helen]You will also notice that when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is very calm. That's because Nicodemus honestly wants to know.
I’m not sure his (Nicodemus) questions are that different from the crowd in John 6. He wants to know how a grown man can get back in his mother’s womb and be born again; they want to know: (1)what does Christ mean when He says He comes down from Heaven; and (2) how can He give them His flesh to eat. In the case of Nicodemus, Christ informs him that He is speaking of a spiritual rebirth (of water and the spirit); in the case of the murmuring crowd, Christ proceeds to become more literal by reiterating that His flesh is "food indeed" and His blood is "drink indeed" and that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to abide in Him and have life. The only caveat was that they must understand this spiritually and not carnally. Christ never said He was just introducing a new metaphor. (In fact, the only other time that Christ talks about eating His body and His blood is in the context of the last supper). Christ is the true Bread from Heaven because He is the true Sacrifice—literally, not metaphorically—as He is the true Passover lamb who gives Life and takes away the sin of the world.
You put a little twist on it by adding the word "the same". That's not what He said. He uses parallel language "Your fathers ate manna---If anyone eat of this bread---The Bread that I give [on the Cross], is the my flesh, which I will give for the whole world"Quote:
[Helen] However in John 6, the attitude of the crowd is different. They are grumbling and challenging -- they liked the food they were fed earlier in the chapter, but this business about believing in Jesus "whose father and mother we know" -- that's pushing it just a bit too far! And so rather than honestly questioning Him, they simply argue among themselves (v.52).
Yes, they don’t understand how this Man, this empirical human being, could have come down from heaven to give His flesh for the life of the world. They don’t understand His heavenly origin or His sacrificial mission.
Quote:
[Helen]So Jesus responds to them in a very Jewish way, turning their arguments on their ears. It has nothing to do with eating His actual flesh or drinking His actual blood!
Of course she hasn’t demonstrated that at all. Jesus became more specific by stating the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world was the same that was true food that must be eaten. Just as those in the OT ate of the OT sacrifices, we in the NT partake of the Body and Blood of Christ—the NT sacrifice—by partaking of the bread and wine. The John 6 discourse anticipates the Lord’s Supper, the only other time Christ is recorded to be talking about His body being eaten and His blood being drunk, and this is in the context of His pending Sacrifice. Paul’s statements in Corinthians shed even more light on the sacrificial nature of Communion.
What he's saying there, is that this translation is not organizing the words in the way they appear in English sentence structure, but rather the original language. That is often helpful in understanding what the text means. You are insisting on the way you read it translated into English, but that is not always the "clear[est]" reading of it.Quote:
[Gerhard Ebersoehn]:Can the bread then, be taught anything? (Eph1:4:12) How are WE, the Body of Christ but don't eat ourselves? (1Cor12:27)
Of course, as I’ve said repeatedly, "body of Christ" is used in more than one sense in the Scriptures.
Quote:
[GE]: As for Lk22:19. A perfectly legitimate translation (and literal at that), would be: "Then taking a loaf having given thanks, He broke (it) then gave to them saying: This the body of mine is for you being given; unto my memory do (eat) ye!" The reference clearly is not to the bread as the body of Christ; but to the body of Christ Himself being broken for the disciples; eating the bread, they should remember that!
Just because a translation may be allegedly "legitimate", doesn’t mean it’s correct. This is especially true in this case when we compare this passage to parallel passages the other synoptic gospels:
"And as they were eating Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to them and said: ‘Take eat; this is My Body’." (Mark 14:22)
Here, there is no wiggle room—the passage teaches that Christ is identifying the bread with His body. Likewise He also identifies the cup (from which they literally drank) with His blood (v.24). And of course, as I’ve demonstrated, Paul identifies the bread and wine as the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.
So what the both of them say (apart fro "Flesh profits nothing") still stands.Y our way is not necessarily the "plain meaning", but rather an overly literal misunderstanding (just like the Jews), tied to your belief of salvation. From now on, that's what I'm focusing on, because as we both established, that's the real issue.Except that we’re not debating Calvinism or Sabbatarianism. My point was that if the plain meaning of the Scriptural passages in question meant what they said (ie, that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ; that the cup is the communion of the blood of Christ; that the "bread" Christ was going to give was His flesh—for the life of the world—and that the same flesh was food indeed that we must munch/chew, and that His blood was drink indeed that we must drink; and that He called the literal bread in the upper room "His body" that was to be eaten, and the literal cup of wine "His blood" that was to be drunk), then the lack of one word ("change" or "changing") shouldn’t be problematic given that such a change would be implied based on the realism of the other passages (or else all bread and wine would already be the flesh and blood of Christ).
(But if you want to divert the issue by bringing up Calvinism or Sabbatarianism go right ahead…I think this thread is long enough without debating the Scriptural and historical merits or demerits of those other two ideas)
[FONT=r_ansi]What is this, some sort of bait and switch tactic? You're the one saying they "should day" something in order for your view to be incorrect, and my view to be correct. I'm saying I don't belive they have to say that, but can say what they actually say, without any particular philosophical presupposition placed on it. So that's on you, not on me.
In response to my analysis of the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, showing these grammatically and in context support the realist view, and the resulting absurdities for the merely-memorialist view, you said this:
Quote:
Again, you're telling the Scripture what it should say, in order for your understanding to not be correct, and it to be a metaphor. It does n follow.
Well that’s an interesting "argument". I’m pointing out that Scriptures, as it is actually written, grammatically support my arguments and is highly problematic and results in absurdities for the metaphorical position you espouse, and you respond by pointing out, in essence, that I’m indeed showing what Scriptures "should say" if they were to, instead, actually support your position (Eureka!).
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]And that was why. I had no time that day to get hung up in that confusion, as you were aiming to refute my view using solely what the scripture should say if it were true; so I just pointed out it does not follow. Between literal or metaphor, it's not the grammar or language that will change, it's the context. You're presupposing that "the plain meaning of the language is literal", but the only "context" you can base that on, is your Church tradition (including yopur interpretation of the Fathers, and the Church's concept of salvation). Meanwhile, the real context is "Do this in reMEMbrance of me". Now, you want to talk ablut "plain grammatical meaning, then go by that statement, as it is even more clear than the other statement, and we interpret the uncler by the clear.But instead of actually specifically engaging with my arguments and the actual language as written, you merely and dismissively assert "It doesn’t follow". I suppose you do have to resort to such a dismissal (and couch it in the form of an "argument") if you can’t actually respond to the grammar and context of the Biblical language as written.
[/FONT]
Again, I demonstrated (repeatedly now) how Paul specifically and grammatically identifies the bread and cup themselves with the communion of (participation in) the Body and Blood of Christ respectively, and how in context this was referring to the literal bread they were breaking and the literal cup they were drinking, and how likewise Christ referred to literal bread and literal wine as His body and blood. I then proceeded to show the absurdities that would result in the context of 1 Corinthians 10-11 if we were to hypothetically substitute the idea of "our gathering to eat in His name" for the word "bread" and "our gathering to drink in His name" for the word "cup". The point was to show that the specific grammar and context point to the fact that the "bread" and "cup" were really… literal "bread" and "cup", and not simply some metaphorical code for "our gathering to eat and drink". To espouse the latter is to, therefore, disregard the actual biblical language in favor of eisigesis. The burden of proof is on you to show how you are not reading your view into the text in light of what is actually written in Scripture…not what you may wish Paul’s meaning was despite the actual grammar and context of the passages in question.
I also notice that, for whatever reason (whether you were in a rush or whatever), you didn’t respond to the point I made about how in verse 18, in which the partaking of OT sacrifices is apparently compared to our partaking of (participating in) Christ in communion (v.16), that the Israelites in the OT did not partake of a mere visual aid of the sacrifice, but they ate of the actual sacrifice itself. Paul’s words again:
"Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18)
This further strengthens the teaching that we in the NT actually partake of Christ—who sacrificially gave His body and blood for us on the Cross—when we eat the bread and wine of Holy Communion (the Lord’s Table). We aren’t just eating a mere visual aid of the sacrifice when we eat the bread and drink from the cup; we are partaking of the Sacrifice Himself.
[FONT=r_ansi]Yeah, I remember seeing that, and had to think on it, but as I was witing the responses, I forgot about it. I really was crunched for time that day (I'm on vacation this week).
Still, note that they literally ate the actual sacrifice, not some other object or substance that they had to say changed into the sacrifice, or some spiritual presence resided in it.
Today, the sacrifice is applied to us spiritually, and to "reMEMber" that, we are given a physical represention of it. I see no reason we, PAul, the ECF's, etc. couldn't say "This bread IS the Body, and this wine IS the blood", without having to go through all of these philosophcal somersaults to try to get the bread and wine to be something else, somehow (either changing into it, or some invisible "presence"). Again, that is misunderstanding the whole concept, and basicall trying to salvage the misunderstanding of the Jews. But again, it all ties into your belief that the sacrifice is not applied to us one time, spiritually, but rather physically through our own continuous actions. This is why people keep quoting "the flesh profits nothing". Not Christ's actual flesh, but rather our own physical deeds. So you're the one bending it into what you wish it means.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]I could for the most part go along with that. Yet you still insist there's somethign about the bread and wine, and you have argued that it really "is" flesh and blood, only it doesn't look like it. You can't have it both ways. You are making a big issue of the "literal meaning", but a literal meaning is cannibalism (Just like the Jews thought!)No I’m not. We’re spiritually partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in a supernatural manner when we physically eat the bread and wine, not by ripping flesh off His bones nor sucking His blood from His veins. The former is the REAL PRESENCE; the latter is cannibalism.
[/FONT]
It’s not a "copout", especially when understood in light of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in fulfillment of the OT sacrificial types/ceremonies (and in His being the true Pascal lamb).
Of course, your whole "copout" charge is double edged. There are others who accuse us--who describe Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead as "supernatural"--of making a ‘copout’ because we don’t accept that Christ’s ‘resurrection’ was merely a mythical metaphor, simply a spiritual (non-physical) truth (or something like that). To the modern naturalistic mind the idea of a physical resurrection makes no sense. Also, the idea of God Himself becoming Incarnate by hypostatically uniting Himself to humanity makes no sense either. When we describe this taking place "supernaturally" in regards to Jesus of Nazareth, we are told such appeals to the supernatural is another "copout" since Christ was merely an empirical man, and all the "son of God" language is metaphorical of a spiritual truth that we ALL are "sons of God". Likewise with the Atonement, the more "sensible" interpretation of moderns is that the "spiritual truth" behind the events depicted in Scripture was that Christ was a good man whose death was simply an example of sacrifice for us to follow, and not some allegedly vicarious substitution of a God-man.
Your problem is that you want to be selective (excused ostensibly because of various a priori beliefs about how God can/does relate to matter, but ultimately perhaps because of your soteriological presuppositions) about which ‘supernatural’ truths you are willing to accept and which you are not based on the dictates of your particular tradition.
[FONT=r_ansi]Just because some things are spiritual and defy reason doesn't mean we can take anything that defies reason and think it is autimatically truth. This is what Calvinists do with salvation, for example, and you don't believe that. If someone want to use the same argument with us and challenge those other doctrines, then we will debate those issues, and the scriptural support for either side. But I try to avoid using that as the last answer when all else fails. (Though many others use that tactic as well).
Again, this argument applies to your sect as well, believing as you purportedly do in the supernatural truths of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. There are others who argue that all three are ‘in question’ and that we should re-evaluate Christianity (or "Christianities"), and these skeptics would say that you are simply slapping ‘supernatural’ on these things when you can’t refute their "reason" to the contrary.
And of course skeptics and heretics of all stripes can just as easily say that you haven’t proven that anything "supernatural" is actually involved in the alleged ‘incarnation’ and ‘resurrection’ of Jesus of Nazareth—let alone explaining how such could take place--and that you are finally dodging the issue whether such standard orthodox interpretations are really necessary in this age of reason.
[/FONT]
But those earlier things merely by being physical are not "weak and beggarly", but it’s because they are only types and shadow of what’s to come. However, they don’t point to a fulfillment in some non-physical manner, but to the Incarnate Christ—and His physical Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension—in which the physical is transfigured, not done away with. The Eucharist, as it is connected with the Incarnate Christ (and is indeed one of the chief manners in which we participate in the Incarnate Christ), is therefore not "weak and beggarly".
[FONT=r_ansi]The Incarnation is physical, but it's the application of what those things pointed through the physical Christ, that is spiritual. It's trying to reproduce the physical application that makes it weak and beggarly, because remember, those original physical applications did not really take away sin, but pointed to Christ and the spiritual application.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Again, you keep seeing our view that way because of your soteriological presuppositions.Except, one can describe Christ’s Body and Blood being supernaturally yet substantially present in the bread and wine without trying to overly define. Yet this truth (despite the various ways in which folks attempt to describe it or overly define it) is far different from the mere visual aid belief of Zwinglianism. It’s the REAL PRESENCE of the Body and Blood, not the REAL ABSENCE.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Again, most of us hold it as more than a "mere recollection". You are coloring it in your own exaggerated words as a a straw man. So in truth, our view does accomodate the language, and yours adds to it a whole soteriological premise.Yet the word for "remembrance", anamnesis, in that day had a stronger connotation then simply a mere recollection for what happened in the past. It also conveyed the idea of making the past somehow present again. The larger point is that the Realist position can certainly accommodate the Scriptural language of "remembrance", but the Zwinglian position cannot accommodate the realist language of Scripture without resulting in eisegesis.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]And the grammatical contextual language is a metaphor. Your view is a soteriological bias projected onto it.It’s only "in question" for those who, for whatever reason, deny the grammatical, contextual language of what’s actually written in Scripture.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Sorry, but I do a lot of things on the computer, plus a demanding work schedule (that often leaves me tired). I just cannot take weeks to make a response, so I do the best I can right then.Granted, but there is nothing I’m aware of that’s keeping you from taking your time and being more deliberate with your responses. (Obviously, I’m just now getting around to making a reply)
[/FONT]
That doesn’t follow at all, because it’s the same hypostasis of the Son that’s present, not some alleged "new" one.
((PUFF) Another straw man is blown down…..)
[FONT=r_ansi] But then the original point is, that if this IS the "Same HYPOSTASIS", and the Hypostasis is God, and compared to the physical body the Hypostasis resided in, then the elements can be worshiped as God! (e.g. "a deity")
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]So? God could do anything at any time. (Isn't that what you have been using to argue a "new kind of spiritual presence"?)
Quote:
He still could have said something like "His flesh present in the bush". Or used some other thing that would amount to your "real Presence" concept.
Why? That wouldn’t even make any sense because God had not become incarnate in the flesh yet. (Doh!)
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Well, you believe this person is communicating through the elements, or being communicated, or something like that. But again, if this is grasping at straws, it is because the real issue is the soteriological premise of being salvation by "receiving Christ continuously" for "nourishment" (as the second quote says). That actually helps me understand what your "real presence" is about better, (So I basically rescind all these metaphysical questions, now) but it still doesn't answer whether that is the clearest meaning of scripture.
Oh, so now you are saying that if the Person is not audibly speaking to us, then the Person is not present which of course doesn’t logically follow at all. You are really grasping at straws at this point. Just because a person can speak doesn’t mean he actually has to do so at any particular point in time.
No, but that’s a non sequitur. Christ is present in the bread and wine to spiritually nourish us by His body and blood, not to audibly speak to us.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]Everybody says that, incuding those converting from your position. I began at a point where I was questioning everything everyone taught, and have challenged many things (Such as the popular "abundant life=good attitude" premise of the million dollar Christian teaching industry). And I never saw anything inthe text to suggest anything other than metaphorical language regarding the communion. I did not know much of the Catholic teaching and had no reason to be biased against it.I was "convinced out of [my] previous beliefs" by allowing Scriptures to mean what they say—on salvation, baptism, and the real presence—rather than to be content with the Southern Baptist spin on things that I had been taught for close to 30 years. I didn’t have any other "dog in the fight" other than to let the Scriptures speak plainly on the issues that I for so long had to "explain away". (In fact, it would have been a whole lot easier for me to stay put.) The soteriological suppositions I now have come from the plain grammatical meaning of the Scriptures in their context.
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]But you cannot always generalize. In your case, this is true. But last time, I should have clarified my final answer, that my view of Communion is not shaped by my soteriological views. I do not sit and say "No, The bread and wine cannot be the flesh and blood, BEACUSE that would mean we are not finally saved, but are being saved by continual physical application of Christ's sacrifice". It was not until the last few correspondences that it even sunk in that this was the real issue. All that time before, I did not even realize soteriology had anything to do with it, and did not even think of it. I opposed the doctrine, because I saw it as an addition to the plain meaning of "reMEMbrance". IT is you who have it tied to the whole soteriological issue, a propri.It’s your view, in reading your a priori theological assumptions into the texts, that turns: (1) Christ’s salvation into a grand, fire insurance policy (irrespective of any actual ongoing dependent life in Christ) obtained once-for-all by a one time intellectual assent to some propositional truths about the Gospel, and (2) reduces Christ’s sacramental ordinances into mere superfluous visual aids. The Bible, plainly understood, actually supports neither. Zwinglianism and OSAS both arrived late on the scene, and it’s the proponents of both (again, with both views often going hand-in-hand in the contemporary theological landscape) that read their views back into Scripture. I suppose we could delve into the soteriological issue (again) in another thread, but for now I agree there is generally a connection in how one view’s salvation and how one views Christ’s sacramental ordinances.
Just like slanting our views on the ordinances into a "mere..." something (or "nothing", really), you acuse with this "mere mental assent", and "fire insurance" concept. That is basically the language of someone who is more focused with avoiding the fire (and debates on how to do it) than they are with the Savior. There are two paths people take what that: legalism and licentism. The licentists are theones your ctiticism would apply more to. They just go down to an altar, and make other "Christian" gestures, perhaps even some works (and there are plenty of nominal Catholics/Orthodox who fit this bill), but are not really believing or trusting Christ; meaning it was just some empty act they were doing, and they really think nothign of Him, perhaps as some sentimental nostalgic thing (like holiday observations, etc). But they do think thei "profesiion" is like a fire insurance. By reducing our beliefs down to "just mental assent for a fire assurance", you are accusing us of condoning that, but everyone from the Calvinists to the fundemantalists condemns that. If we were just buying some fire insurance, then why do you think any of us obey anything? Again, our answer, is "we love Him, because He first loved us". If my sins cause God so much grief, yet He forgave me and saved me regardless, then I would not want to keep sinning, though I might still fall into certain habits). That is the motive for our "ongoing dependant life in Christ", not:
The second way, is legalism, where we try to be our own fire insurance, by constantly hosing down the house to not give a fire the chance to start, and doing all sorts of other preventive measures, constantly. (Then, looking down on those other people not working like they, accusing both the true believers and licentists together of "fire insurance"). The utter irony, is that many in this camp will find that their efforts are still not working, and then give up, and actually fall into the "fire insurance" camp, right under the noses of their Church leaders (as they visit for the holidays, weddings and funerals), and while still "officially" nodding to the Church doctrine that works save. Only they scale down the works required (to the sacraments, because all they have to do is go and participate; and maybe some kind deeds as extras), because they know they can't really do all God would require for one to merit salvation.
But both approaches are still focused on the fire and avoiding it their own way. Again, "He who fears is not made perfect in love". You either believe and trust Christ to avoid the fire, or you are the one not depending on Him, and it is so ironic that "dependenace on Christ" is changed into something that is really depending in our own efforts!
So it is quite clear that it is your views shaped by a priori theological assumptions, (and with salvation apparently constantly hanging on the line until you do good works or physically receive a periodic "dosage" of Christ), it makes sense why you do.
I don't think Zwingli and the rest of those who followed him were motivated by trying to justify licence; looking for some easy "fire insurance" either. (Many of them back then, were still in practice, legalistic). I don't know much about Zwingli. Can you show that he even believed in our view of salvation? Even Luther and Calvin's views, while on paper setting the stage for our views, were in practice, more legalistic (because if one did not work hard enough, he was proven to never be "elect" in the first place. All it was, is reversion to the Augustinian spin on Catholic soteriology). So this charge of blaming our doctrine, and "the conptemprary theological landscape" on each other, doesn't fly. It's just after centuries of religious oppression, the Church basically got too big for its breeches, and fell apart, leading everyone to question everything. And the Eucharist doctrine was found to not have the scriptural or even absolute historical support the Church was claiming it had.
[/FONT][FONT=r_ansi]
[/FONT]
More non-sequiturs. Let me ask you some questions: Are you still physically alive if you aren’t physically born more than once? Do you physically die between meals—has your physical life "left" you in the interim between meals before you receive your life back again when you eat?
[FONT=r_ansi]And that's a common mistake. Comparing these spiritual things to physical eating. And the modern Protestant (of all stripes) Church does the same thing with prayer and Bible study. It amazes me how some condemn not reading the Bible every night or morning and "forcing yourself to make time", and all that, yet they are teaching it wrong in various areas (and this includes the most heretical cults), so what really are they getting out of their daily reading? I's just making them feel like a good Christian, and something to judge others over, basically. Salvation and spiritual life, again, becones something we cultivate in ourselves. But those scriptures such as John 15 do not spell, out "you must do this and this, and this, and this daily, {weekly, monthly, etc} in order to keep your spiritual life". To abide in Him is t continue to rtrust in Him for salvation (and not "draw back" into trying to do it yourself).If you find my questions absurd then you perhaps you’ll see the absurdity of your mischaracterization of my view as expressed in your questions. Salvation (Eternal Life) in Christ, and we must abide in Him to continue to have life. If one doesn’t continue to abide in Christ—if one persists in unrepentant disobedience and continues to neglect prayer, Scripture, and the Lord’s Table—then one will ultimately wither and die and be cast out from Christ as branches (John 15) therefore no longer have eternal life.
[/FONT]
But merely appealing to the "wine/wineskin" passage doesn’t prove your point.
[FONT=r_ansi]If you forgive someone for an offense, but only if they not only do something to make up for it, but keep on doing things, then is that real forgiveness? However, if you forgive me, and this motivates me to not offend you again, then I maty still be doing the same works, but the motivation is totally different. Again, the reason they had to keep doing things in the OT was for the very fact that those were shadows, that pointed to something else. To copy that pattern is to put the new wine into old wineskinsChrist wasn’t "added" to "it", but was the whole point of it (OT). Christ fulfilled the OT, and offers real forgiveness and salvation by His Sacrifice for us and His life in us. (This is something the OT law and sacrifices couldn’t actually do.) However, this forgiveness is not limited to a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior, nor is our life in Christ reducible to a one time decision to follow Him.
[/FONT]
First, the view that salvation consists in some sort of saving "knowledge" irrespective of works is much closer to gnosticism than is historic orthodox Christianity (my view).
[FONT=r_ansi]So we're tossing the word "gnostic" back and forth, and you think you have my belief pinned as the true "gnostic" one, but gnosticism was very diverse, as you admit it had both legalist and licentistic factions. But mystical meanings of scripture are what seem to be common throughout them all, and that would apply to your views on the sacraments (which is where I first used it, and you keep trying to turn it back on me in different ways), but not to our views of salvation, properly understood. We are having something spiritually applied to ourselves by faith, not saving ourselves with some "knowledge".Though some Gnostic sects stressed extreme asceticism, others were basically antinomian doing whatever they wanted with the body (since the physical body didn’t matter anyway).
[/FONT]
[FONT=r_ansi]The same thing, in practice. In the end, it was your own deeds that merited your "making it". Again, the issue is the motivation, and clearly the motivation you have expressed for doing works is to be saved.[/FONT]Second, my view is not "salvation by works"---it’s "no salvation without works". This is BIBLICAL, not Gnostic.
I thought this was ended if one reasonably look at the Bible verses.
The Blood was not for human beings to drink, but for God to see.
Exodus 12:23
23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
The Blood of Jesus was not shed for us to drink, but for God to see.
The blood mentioned in John 6 meant the keen Relationship between God and us, and the Words which is the life ( John 6:53-63)
. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend F14 you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
If Jesus wanted us to drink His blood, disciples and the believers should have sucked the feet of Jesus so that they could drink the blood of Jesus at the Cross.
I told you guys to read Leviticus 17:11-14.
The Blood was not for human beings to drink, but for God to see.
Exodus 12:23
23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
The Blood of Jesus was not shed for us to drink, but for God to see.
The blood mentioned in John 6 meant the keen Relationship between God and us, and the Words which is the life ( John 6:53-63)
. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend F14 you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
If Jesus wanted us to drink His blood, disciples and the believers should have sucked the feet of Jesus so that they could drink the blood of Jesus at the Cross.
I told you guys to read Leviticus 17:11-14.
I can't speak for anybody else but I read the Leviticus passage. I also realized that it has little to do with the events of holy communion. Why? Jesus changed the dynamic when he made the sacrifice and gave his blood to us. In giving us his blood he is giving us his life and with it the forgiveness of sins.
Whereas, the Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood because it was given to them to make the sacrifices and they were to give the blood back to God as payment. Because as it notes the blood is life and in the sacrificial system they were giving a life in exchange for their own.
In regards to the passage of John 6, Jesus is not referring to his own flesh for his flesh profits us everything. Otherwise, one would have to ask why did he take on flesh and make it his own. Second, as a general rule when spirit and flesh are placed in juxtaposition in the manner of John 6 they are in regards to faith and works. Faith equals spirit and works equal flesh.
Whereas, the Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood because it was given to them to make the sacrifices and they were to give the blood back to God as payment. Because as it notes the blood is life and in the sacrificial system they were giving a life in exchange for their own.
In regards to the passage of John 6, Jesus is not referring to his own flesh for his flesh profits us everything. Otherwise, one would have to ask why did he take on flesh and make it his own. Second, as a general rule when spirit and flesh are placed in juxtaposition in the manner of John 6 they are in regards to faith and works. Faith equals spirit and works equal flesh.