Eat of the Flesh of Jesus and Drink of His Blood

Calvin_1985 said:

Yes, We must eat of His Flesh, meaning His words that he spoke, The word of God. His words are Spirit and Life, it was gives us Life and all the things that comes with it, the good things, the blessings of Father. Just as we must eat physical food to live and function in this physical world, we must eat of His words to Live Spiritually and stand throughout this life. Think of it this way....each word you read is like your heart and mind and soul taking a bite.
Drinking of His blood is taking in His Life, his actions, His ways, His character, who Jesus was, the very express image of Father. The Blood is the Lifeflow. Just like we must have blood to Live physical, He is the blood, meaning Not only do we need to be washed by His blood, we cannot come to where life is, the Father. Also? His Lifeway is the way to and in The Spiritual Life of we all need and desire. From His Life, we gain that ability to walk as we weren't meant to walk, like we were created to live. Just like we need water to live in this physical world, we need His blood, His Lifeflow, who he was, to continue to Live with an abundance of life.

Jesus is much more than just the doorway to our Creator, He is also our example, and we we truly eat of His Flesh and drink of His blood, all will flow from it.

Many people were indeed confused by it when he said it, they were thinking it as a physical thing and had no understanding. But those that knew what he meant, stayed and continued to feast of the bread that Jesus gives. .

I hope this answers your question. ~~Shalom

Click to expand...

He went to a lot of trouble to express Himself in literal terms in St. John 6. Literal terms are how His words were interpreted for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

It's a bit much to think it required that much time for a doctrinal correction.

Calvin_1985 said:

Many people were indeed confused by it when he said it, they were thinking it as a physical thing and had no understanding. But those that knew what he meant, stayed and continued to feast of the bread that Jesus gives.

Click to expand...

The disciples who remained did not know what He meant, but they knew Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and trusted Him even if what He said sounded impossible.

I think some here are confusing orthodox Christianity with Orthodox Christianity. I think the OP was asking about the former.

Calvin_1985 said:

Hi, I am Cyrus. I have a simple question, but before I get into that, I was a silent reader for a while and just recently started responding to different topics. My question is, why is the appeal of so many Christians to "Orthodox Christianity" of the first century Church? Why is that they go to that model for all which a person will seek interpretations and doctrines?

Click to expand...

because they have been told to ,conditioned to .
but those that actually desire the truth -Do not turn to man but to God .. and find JESUS

Tigger45 said:

Well you need to understand that Orthodox can clearly demonstrate their clergy’s lineage all the way back to the apostles. And that the apostles were serious to the point of torture and death that they were, and still are, extremely careful who they ordain to pass that faith onto.

Click to expand...

this is an assumed stance that others are expected to take as fact simply because orthodoxy says so ? what you have in facts are writing of people who "claimed things" about other people (or themselves) using their supposed connection to an apostle .

But that's like saying "because i once met a guy everything i teach is validated by the fact i claim to have once met that guy .
or .. because i once met an apostle everything i tech is validated by my claim to have met an apostle .
but the problem arises when things that person then teached are in direct opposition to what an apostle taught . and we know that the apostles never taught anything that disagreed with any other apostle . we have their letters as proof of that .
yet these "claimers" then went on to teach thing that DOES disagree . thus , they cannot be trusted at any level .beginning with their claim to direct connection.

Calvin_1985 said:

why is the appeal of so many Christians to "Orthodox Christianity" of the first century Church? Why is that they go to that model for all which a person will seek interpretations and doctrines?

Click to expand...

You ask a valid question. To simplify your question I will restate it this way, How do we distinguish truth from error? Instead of answering from a bunch of present-day theories let's consult Tertullian.

In a confrontation with the Gnostics (distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis i.e. knowledge) of his day, who wanted to put their modern spin on the Gospel Tertullian (160-230), a gifted Christian writer and apologist, defended his claim of the true Gospel this way,

“I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as the error is a falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth, therefore, precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty, and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence….”

Returning to the source is always the best bet. First century Christians were familiar with the original writers.

Alithis said:

this is an assumed stance that others are expected to take as fact simply because orthodoxy says so ? what you have in facts are writing of people who "claimed things" about other people (or themselves) using their supposed connection to an apostle .

But that's like saying "because i once met a guy everything i teach is validated by the fact i claim to have once met that guy .
or .. because i once met an apostle everything i tech is validated by my claim to have met an apostle .
but the problem arises when things that person then teached are in direct opposition to what an apostle taught . and we know that the apostles never taught anything that disagreed with any other apostle . we have their letters as proof of that .
yet these "claimers" then went on to teach thing that DOES disagree . thus , they cannot be trusted at any level .beginning with their claim to direct connection.

Click to expand...

No its from examining the perponderance of the historic writings of people who not only spoke the original languages and had a real life experience of the culture it came from and being taught directly from the apostles and their predecessors who were willing to be tortured and die for it verses a the opinion of a guy who has none of that. Silly me.

Calvin_1985 said:

Hi, I am Cyrus. I have a simple question, but before I get into that, I was a silent reader for a while and just recently started responding to different topics. My question is, why is the appeal of so many Christians to "Orthodox Christianity" of the first century Church? Why is that they go to that model for all which a person will seek interpretations and doctrines?

Click to expand...

It seems natural that Christians would want to know how the early Church interpreted scripture and did things in their worship services.

So long as the actions of those early believers do

n't become requisite parts of the simple gospel message - I'm sure the Lord has no problem with it.

The simple message of the gospel is that any person who lays hold of the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary as his hope of salvation is justified before God is "saved". Not "being saved" - saved as of that instant - as per the testimony of that earliest Christian we can consult - the thief on the cross.

The living out of moral and church obedience as a way to "become saved" is a gospel of works and is under the curse of God.

When things like baptism and the taking of the Eucharist and the like are added to the simple gospel it becomes another gospel - what God views as no gospel at all.

At the point where adherence to the model of certain early believers becomes a prerequisite to salvation in the most basic sense - those requiring such have become a cult - albeit a large cult.

But then the Lord told us that the Kingdom of God would become, instead of the simple mustard plant it was meant to be, a huge monstrosity of a tree in who's branches the birds of the air would perch.

East and West - this prophetic truth has come to pass.

God will prune that tree good when the Lord returns in glory.

Many will say to Him in that day "Lord, Lord" and point to their exemplary Christian life and their traditions passed on from the early church as their hope of salvation. The Lord will have never known them because they believed a cultish lie and did not rest in the finished work of Christ at Calvary as their only hope of salvation.

Calvin_1985 said:

Hi, I am Cyrus. I have a simple question, but before I get into that, I was a silent reader for a while and just recently started responding to different topics. My question is, why is the appeal of so many Christians to "Orthodox Christianity" of the first century Church? Why is that they go to that model for all which a person will seek interpretations and doctrines?

Click to expand...

Luther and Calvin did not reduce the Eucharist to a memorial as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics would tell you. Calvin's teaching was in line with what the early church fathers taught: the real presence. Calvin quotes the church fathers extensively in the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper by Keith Mathison

I would recommend Mathison's book.



Yours in the Lord,

jm

Calvin_1985 said:

As far as eating the Flesh of Jesus and Drinking His blood, I'm talking about the reading and taking in His Life, His words(teachings), His character and who he is, not the Eucarist or any other religious sacrament.

Click to expand...

That's not what Jesus thought.

Calvin_1985 said:

Hi, I am Cyrus. I have a simple question, but before I get into that, I was a silent reader for a while and just recently started responding to different topics. My question is, why is the appeal of so many Christians to "Orthodox Christianity" of the first century Church? Why is that they go to that model for all which a person will seek interpretations and doctrines?

Click to expand...

I think there is a works based theology that has been promoted by man made churches. The True Christian is a member of The Spiritual Church in Christ. Until one is visited by Christ, they don’t see The Truth or Hear The Truth.

Calvin_1985 said:

I don't have anything to do with Calvinism since I left it.

Click to expand...

My point is still valid. Protestants historically believe in the real presence of Christ because it's taught in scripture and the church has always confessed it.

jm

1 Cor 11:
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Just a reminder that not all are worthy to eat the Lord's supper as even during the time of the Apostles men were weak, sick, or dead and damned from eating and drinking unworthily.

Why? Because the First Century Church (which was also the only Christian Church for the next 1,000 years) is the ONE Church founded by Jesus Christ, which He said was to remain ONE, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". All other Christian churches are unauthorized manmade denominations that abandoned the ONE Church Jesus founded, and which therefore never received these promises from Him. Which is why the beliefs/teachings of each such Protestant denomination conflict with the beliefs/teachings of the others. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so a great deal of untruth is being taught by these thousands of manmade churches. Meanwhile, the ONE Church Jesus founded remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

Tigger45 said:

No its from examining the perponderance of the historic writings of people who not only spoke the original languages and had a real life experience of the culture it came from and being taught directly from the apostles and their predecessors who were willing to be tortured and die for it verses a the opinion of a guy who has none of that. Silly me.

Click to expand...

Then either they ..or the apostles are lieing.. Because one of them teaches things opposed to the other
(And dont assume to much .the facts unknown to you may surprise you)

Calvin_1985 said:

As far as eating the Flesh of Jesus and Drinking His blood, I'm talking about the reading and taking in His Life, His words(teachings), His character and who he is, not the Eucarist or any other religious sacrament.

Click to expand...

O i agree it is this
And more...
To only eat a wafer and sip a cup
But not live as he lived and die as he died (die to self take up cross) is really an empty practice void of understanding and hypocritical in practice.

To be IN communion with him is to know him Both in the power of his resurrection AND the fellowship of his sufferings
To live as he lived, to die as he died, to be IN him ,to eat of his body broken to partake of his blood ..to live in his life .
To eat of the same life that he is, to drink of the same cup he drank of ..

Its nothing to do with bread turning into flesh or wine to blood.

PaulCyp1 said:

Truth cannot conflict with truth,

Click to expand...

And by this fact we know with absolute certainty that any church organisation that elevates the created woman to hail the womans spirit
.is NOT the Ekklesia headed by the Lord Jesus

Thanks for the clarification.