It was already addressed since John 6 is the context for that statement and not the other way around.
dance a little side step, now you see me, now you don't...
Well yes we have noticed that the John 6 statements by Christ were made long before the statements in 1 Cor 11 and are the context for them.
So you're not going to address 1 Cor 11 at all. Perfectly understandable.
As well as irrelevant, unless evey word that St. Paul write is to be ignored, as they were written after out Lord had ascended.
John 6 states that Jesus is the bread that already came down from heaven.
1. Nobody denies that John 6 is not saying people were seeing bread fall from the sky
2. Nobody denies that Jesus did not look like bread to anyone standing there.
3. Nobody denies that Jesus was in fact not bread at all - as he stood there talking to the disciples in John 6.
That's nice. What we're talking about is that you deny that our Lord literally meant what He said: "
Take,
eat:
this is my body,
which is broken for you". Your sole theologically profound response being "Nobody bit Jesus". That doesn't even constitute a decent sidestep, but I reckon it that's all you've got, it's all you've got.
Jesus used bread as a symbol in John 6 just like He did in Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
1 Cor 11 does not say "He that fails to suppose that Christ is inside this bread is eating in an unworthy manner"
I notice that you're a at all interested in responding to what it
does in fact say, preferring the nearly infinite number of things that it
doesn't say. But there's the dance again, "Now you see me, now you don't".
The 1 Cor 11 statement is about the 1 Cor 11 fact "do this IN REMEMBRANCE of ME" -- literally true.
Ah, so you do believe
some of that Scripture as written. I'm frankly amazed.
It is a memorial service, not a new sacrifice.
The "new sacrifice" tack is a new one, points for creativity there. It may have some relevance to the Roman Catholic reference to the Mass, but not being Roman Catholic I can't speak to that. As an Anglican, we believe that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, as He said, and as you deny.
It is about remembering the crucifixion of Christ (the death of His body on the cross).
And sip of Welchade and a nibble of Kroger baguette. Upon the taking of which one may find that they've eaten and drunk damnation if they have failed to discern the Body of Christ, which you explicitly deny is present at all. Hmmmm...
As often as you eat this bread "you show the lord's death until He comes" - was not a claim that Christ "is dead".
You appear to be pulling stuff out of hyperspace there.
He is arguing that to come together for the Lord's Supper in an irreverant non-serious manner is to act as if this memorial service regarding the death of Christ - by disrespecting the symbols of the dead Christ, the crucified Christ' body slain for the sins of the world - is to disrespect it.
Following your lead, I notice the complete absence of the word "symbol" or any synonyms thereof in 1 Cor 11. (I wonder if anyone bit St Paul?)
At least we do agree on something.
I've begun to have my doubts about that.
