1 Cor 11 "this is my body" in communion vs Literal historic accounts

[Dkh587]

LOL. No, I think it is perfectly fine to eat blood, although it might not taste very good.

It may be fine according to you, but not to God, the Prophets or the Apostles...

 

[Swag365]

It may be fine according to you, but not to God, the Prophets or the Apostles...

It's OK to you too, apparently, my steak eating friend.

 

[Swag365]

he wasn’t literally saying the bread was his body.

No actually that is literally what he said. Let me recite it for you again:

"This is my body".

Have a nice day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

[


I appreciate and respect what you say but, for myself, I would feel exactly the same even if it was symbolic, i.e:

If this is done to remember Jesus Christ, then it demands the fullness of our honor and respect, for Christ came to command our praise and worship and to give us Himself fully

This seems strange to me. If one were to give the same honor to mere bread and wine as they would to Jesus Christ, that'd be idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope, you are not content to let God do the talking. You have to add your own clarificatory footnote hence your many dismissive posts

But it really is as simple as Jesus saying τοῦτό ἐστιν, "this is". Jesus said it, Jesus meant what He said, and that's really all there is to it. No need to complicate it with a lot of philosophy. The bread is His body, the wine is His blood. 'Nuff said.

That's the only thing we're saying.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Markie Boy]

Well in the dark ages Christians were being killed for all sorts of things including not praying to Mary or having a Bible in their own language that they could read. But that does not mean we should avoid reading our Bibles

I know this much - as soon as one group is killing the other like that - it's pretty clear who is not a Christian - as to be one means you actually follow Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Of course he meant what he said, but what did he mean?

What He said. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

This.
Is.
My.
Body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

But what is the difference practically then, (other than a difference of ideas)? Isn't the practical thing the remembrance of Jesus' life where death whereswhere je demonstrated God's totally good and self-sacrifical love? The issue of Real Presence etc. seems very abstract and divorced from our actual lives compared to that. I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about things but surely what wet think about should make some difference to our lives.

The practical difference is apparent in the reverence one sees directed towards the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharistic liturgy.

 

[AmigodeJesus]

I notice that 1 Cor 11 does not say anyone at that table tries to bite someone sitting at the table.

And no one in John 6 tries to bite someone either.

A NOMNOM de plume of such a religion might be called the deNOMNOMiNATION of Jesus.

Even so wouldn't Jesus have to drink His own blood, since he did state that he was going to drink the same fruit of the vine new with the disciples in the kingdom, even as he had done at the last supper?

This author seems to imply by the title of his own book that persons should just NOMNOM Jesus.

A problem arises when one considers that Jesus is resurrected and glorified, with an immortal body of "flesh and bones" (courtesy of Luke 24:39, the blood was poured out at Calvary), which doesn't ever see decay (courtesy Acts of the Apostles 2:31).

I wonder how those who see Jesus' body and blood as a buffet table think about those texts in combination with the others?

 

[AmigodeJesus]

What He said. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

This.
Is.
My.
Body.

-CryptoLutheran

Matthew 11:14

αυτος εστιν ηλιας

this.
is.
Elias.

John the Baptist was literally the Elijah? I would think that Elijah would find that strange, since he actually appeared on the Mt. of transfiguration with Moses in glory (courtesy of Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30)

Is it possible that Jesus referred to previous scripture in the OT to which they as so many others simply didn't understand because they were yet carnal, and unconverted?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthew 11:14

αυτος εστιν ηλιας

this.
is.
Elias.

John the Baptist was literally the Elijah? I would think that Elijah would find that strange, since he actually appeared on the Mt. of transfiguration with Moses in glory (courtesy of Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30)

Is it possible that Jesus referred to previous scripture in the OT to which they as so many others simply didn't understand because they were yet carnal, and unconverted?

John came, as the text says, "in the spirit and power" of Elijah. He is, literally, the fulfillment of that prophecy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AmigodeJesus]

John came, as the text says, "in the spirit and power" of Elijah. He is, literally, the fulfillment of that prophecy.

-CryptoLutheran

That sidesteps my question. I asked if John the Baptist was literally and actually the Elijah. Your answer indicates a clear, "No." It even refers to "spirit", not the natural as 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 refers to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That sidesteps my question. I asked if John the Baptist was literally and actually the Elijah. Your answer indicates a clear, "No." It even refers to "spirit", not the natural as 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 refers to.

But Scripture provides how John is Elijah, and that's that John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, fulfilling the prophecy of the coming of the Elijah. That's what Jesus says.

In the same way, what Jesus says is that the bread and wine are His body and blood.

The question is what is Jesus saying, what does the text say. Just straight up says.

If Jesus had provided an alternative view concerning the meaning of His Supper, maybe that it was only symbolic of His body and blood, then I would happily subscribe to that view. But He doesn't. He says it's His body and blood. Even as He says that John came in the power and spirit of Elijah, and thus John was the Elijah who was to come. That's what Jesus says.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hmm]

This seems strange to me. If one were to give the same honor to mere bread and wine as they would to Jesus Christ, that'd be idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

I wouldn't be honouring the bread and wine but Jesus' words, as I read them anyway, in how to remember him.

 

[Hmm]

The practical difference is apparent in the reverence one sees directed towards the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharistic liturgy.

Yes, I can see that that would make a difference, thanks.

 

[AmigodeJesus]

But Scripture provides how John is Elijah, and that's that John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, fulfilling the prophecy of the coming of the Elijah. That's what Jesus says.

See John 6:63.

"... the words ... are spirit ..."

That's what Jesus says.

 

[Markie Boy]

I have been in a Catholic church for some years now, but recently stepped back. I have seen a lot of people receive the Eucharist for years and yet remain unrepentant. I came from a good Baptist church with good preaching, and I saw myself and others changed by good preaching of the Word.

Consider this - if Transubstantiation is a real miracle like they say - it's the only miracle Jesus ever did that was not physically verifiable. All other miracles were done to show something and could bee seen.

I was told the Church Fathers all had a unified view of the Eucharist. But I found pope Gelasius teaching directly against transubstantiation in his view. And I recently saw how Irenaeus thought Jesus was 50 years old when he died, partially inserting his own reasoning why it should be that way. This shows that even the earliest fathers got stuff wrong and inserted their own opinions.

 

[Danthemailman]

The bread breaking was symbolic - the bread wasn’t literally his body.

Amen! Jesus is the bread of life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. In John 6:35, we read - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus is using figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of this passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The literal interpretation of eating flesh and drinking blood (cannibalism) is ridiculous! Through faith we partake of Christ, the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving eternal life. Eating and drinking is not literal cannibalism here, but the receiving of God’s grace by believing in Christ for salvation, as Jesus makes clear by repeating the same truths below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" and "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" ends in the same result, receiving eternal life. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him. Bread represents the "staff of life" - sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life. The source of physical life is blood - "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

 

[Dkh587]

What He said. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

This.
Is.
My.
Body.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes he said it, when referring to a piece of bread. He was speaking symbolically.

We know that bread is not literally his body, just like he is not literally a door.

 

[BobRyan]

John the Baptist was literally the Elijah? I would think that Elijah would find that strange, since he actually appeared on the Mt. of transfiguration with Moses in glory (courtesy of Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30)

Yeah Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in Matt 17 not "Moses and John the baptist" -- good point.