Why Jesus Said that Bread was His Body

childeye 2 said:

I testify that I receive from God, a knowledge of God, so as to offer to God a sincere thankfulness for His Spirit which He gives me in Christ. I therefore state we are partakers in the Divine nature. For this reason I carry my own cross and follow after him.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how any of this is at odds with Jesus' institution of the Eucharist.

-CryptoLutheran

GingerBeer said:

The grace of a lively mind or quick intelligence need not be a light that plays a role in faith leading to salvation nevertheless it is a grace.

Click to expand...

Those words sound like "beware of vanity". I did say that grace can be taken for granted. If wise men don't ever think they are wise, then are they thankful for wisdom? Perhaps I should have said that God's grace is always in some measure taken for granted.

ViaCrucis said:

I fail to see how any of this is at odds with Jesus' institution of the Eucharist.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that.

JIMINZ said:

Your right when Jesus said "This is My body" it was direct and clear, but everything people have added onto what He said so directly and clearly is ambiguous at least and supposition and assumption at most.

The point is, Jesus said "Do this in Resemblance of Me" not to Spiritualize it by turning it into something it was never intended to be.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be saying that Jesus didn't really mean that it was His body, but that it means something else be "spiritualizing" it?

And as it pertains to remembrance, perhaps we should understand what remembrance means in a Jewish context. The Greek word here is anamnesis, and it has a very important theological meaning in historic Christian thought which is tied to and connected with the Jewish Passover.

When the Jewish people celebrate Passover and have their Seder, they do so in an act of sacred remembrance. And during the Seder they read from the Haggadah, and they read this: "We were slaves in Egypt". Every Jew who partakes of the Passover Seder is engaging in an act of remembrance, but it is more than mere recollection of past events, it is a participation in those events. They don't say, "Our ancestors were slaves in Egypt" they say "We were slaves in Egypt", there is a union between the past and the present. God's deliverance from Egypt isn't merely some past thing that happened, but is a living reality that gives definition and identity to every Jewish person.

St. Paul writes, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" (1 Corinthians 10:18)

We aren't simply engaging in mental recollection, we are partaking of Christ and His sacrifice. That is what anamnesis means. That is what "Do this in remembrance of Me" means. Here in and under this bread and wine is Christ's body, broken for us, and Christ's blood, shed for you and for me. Here is Jesus Christ and all which He did for us, given to us; and we become sharers, partakers of this precious grace and gift: Jesus Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLuthearn

GingerBeer said:

The allusion to what Jesus said in the reply that you responded to is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I wish to point out that the allusion I was putting forth is that Jesus is talking about his being crucified the next day. I don't understand why you would see that as inaccurate. Perhaps you are commenting in a misunderstanding of my intent.

The passages in the gospels and in Paul's letter to the Corinthians do not say "which shall be broken for you" the words "shall be" are added by the author of the allusion. The passages all say something along the lines of "This is my body which is for you." I offer this comment as information rather than as a correction of the allusion because "which shall be" makes it appear as if the words of institution of the sacrament are about something that is yet to happen and that is not what the gospels nor Paul wrote.

Click to expand...

While I agree that "This is my body which is given for you" is the more accurate translation, which agrees with "the bread that I will give is my flesh", this does not negate that Jesus in both instances is talking about his crucifixion. This can be corroborated with "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you". For we know that his blood was shed the next day. It therefore is about something that is going to happen the next day.

I believe the food and drink we partake in is realized first and foremost, through contemplating the Christ crucified. That is the implication and forthright intention of my allusion. Please honestly and forthrightly explain your reason for finding that allusion inaccurate.

childeye 2 said:

I wish to point out that the allusion I was putting forth is that Jesus is talking about his being crucified the next day.

Click to expand...

The writer was writing the record of the sacrament using the words of the sacrament so he does not put future tenses into what Jesus said. It is your opinion that Jesus used future tenses. The text in the gospels does not use future tenses for what Jesus said in the last supper institution.

Dennis12 said:

I don't have any problem with this . . . except Jesus used the word "is". He didn't use the word "like" which he could have.

Click to expand...

To your point above, Jesus "could have" said many things. I think most people would agree that the hinge of the issue is "what did he mean when he said those words"? From my vantage point, I can see no internal biblical reasons to assume that Jesus meant that the bread literally was his body. The main passages offered seem to conflate the John 6 episode with the Last Supper.

On the other hand there are excellent reasons not to take his words literally. For example:

• Is figurative speech ever used in the Bible?
• Did Jesus use figurative speech during his earthly ministry?
• Did Jesus ever use "I am" language along with figures of speech about himself?
• Was bread ever symbolically used in the Old Testament?
• Does that symbolic use have anything to do with the context of the Last Supper?
• What is the context and interpretation that Jesus gives about himself being the "bread of life" in John 6?
• When does Paul say that Jesus first gave instructions about the bread and cup in 1 Corinthians 11? (Hint: it wasn't during the John 6 episode).
• Who told Paul this information according to Paul?
• What is Paul most concerned with in admonishing the Corinthians in this section?
• Do the apostolic writers indicate that the bread is an ongoing sacrifice that must be taken in order to have union with Jesus?
• Are there other things that they seem more interested and focused on? Things that come up repeatedly?

childeye 2 said:

Respectfully, Christ himself said the bread is his body and the wine is his blood. He is therefore the one who consecrated the bread and wine so as to represent his flesh and blood commemorating that he came as a man and sacrificed himself for us.

Click to expand...

It does not just represents but is Christ body and blood, even though the bread is bread and wine is wine. Your ideas are new and strange and does not come from the historic Christian Church but a new religion denying Christ real presence

ViaCrucis said:

We aren't simply engaging in mental recollection, we are partaking of Christ and His sacrifice. That is what anamnesis means. That is what "Do this in remembrance of Me" means. Here in and under this bread and wine is Christ's body, broken for us, and Christ's blood, shed for you and for me. Here is Jesus Christ and all which He did for us, given to us; and we become sharers, partakers of this precious grace and gift: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!

JIMINZ said:

I knew you didn't read my post.

Click to expand...

You asked what people called a sacrament before the word "sacrament" was used. People used the word Mysterion. It is a Koine Greek word. It's English equivalent is Mystery. It is the first word used as a name for what is called a sacrament. It is used in the new testament for sacraments.

charsan said:

It does not just represents but is Christ body and blood, even though the bread is bread and wine is wine. Your ideas are new and strange and does not come from the historic Christian Church but a new religion denying Christ real presence

Click to expand...

Respectfully, you are being unreasonable and unfair towards me at this point, your own brother in Christ. If these were my ideas and they were new and strange and not from the historic Christian church and denied the real presence; then how do you explain my producing valid documentation from the historic Christian Church stating exactly the same beliefs?

childeye 2 said:

Respectfully, you are being unreasonable and unfair towards me at this point, your own brother in Christ. If these were my ideas and they were new and strange and not from the historic Christian church and denied the real presence; then how do you explain my producing valid documentation from the historic Christian Church stating exactly the same beliefs?

Click to expand...

One quote taken out of context is not documentation. The Church from the beginning until the late 1500's believed in Christ Real Presence in the elements. Zwilligi stopped following Christ when he went against Historic Christianity and declared against everything that the bread and wine were symbols. He created a new religion that many not in line with Historic Churches calling themselves evangelicals, non denominational, baptist etc. still follow today

GingerBeer said:

The writer was writing the record of the sacrament using the words of the sacrament so he does not put future tenses into what Jesus said. It is your opinion that Jesus used future tenses. The text in the gospels does not use future tenses for what Jesus said in the last supper institution.

Click to expand...

Respectfully no, it is not my opinion that Jesus used future tenses, just as I stated on record where I said your translation was the more accurate. Moreover you did not originally say my quoting of text was inaccurate, you said my "allusion" was incorrect. My allusion is that Jesus is talking about his crucifixion when he says this is my body which is given for you and this my blood shed for you.

So again, what is inaccurate about my allusion?

childeye 2 said:

what is inaccurate about my allusion?

Click to expand...

Your allusion to the text included a future tense "will be" hence it was inaccurate because the text in the gospels and in first Corinthians uses present tense "is".

charsan said:

One quote taken out of context is not documentation. The Church from the beginning until the late 1500's believed in Christ Real Presence in the elements. Zwilligi stopped following Christ when he went against Historic Christianity and declared against everything that the bread and wine were symbols. He created a new religion that many not in line with Historic Churches calling themselves evangelicals, non denominational, baptist etc. still follow today

Click to expand...

I didn't produce one quote taken out of context. I produced the entire reading, and I stated that I believe exactly the same. The fact remains that St.Cyril called the bread and wine symbolic of Christ's body and blood just as many other early congregations did.

GingerBeer said:

Your allusion to the text included a future tense "will be" hence it was inaccurate because the text in the gospels and in first Corinthians uses present tense "is".

Click to expand...

Yes I know I included a future tense. I've already conceded that. That doesn't make wrong the allusion that Jesus is talking about the crucifixion. Let me ask you this way...Do you believe Jesus was talking about his crucifixion the next day?

childeye 2 said:

I didn't produce one quote taken out of context. I produced the entire reading, and I stated that I believe exactly the same. The fact remains that St.Cyril called the bread and wine symbolic of Christ's body and blood just as many other early congregations did.

Click to expand...

Yet they didn't believe in the heretical notion that Christ merely left a symbol. Yes that belief that the Blessed Eucharist is a mere symbol is nothing but heretical poppycock.

St. Ignatius who was taught by St. John the Apostle:


"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.


St. Justin Martyr:


"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."

"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]

childeye 2 said:

Do you believe Jesus was talking about his crucifixion the next day?

Click to expand...

No, I do not believe that Jesus was talking about the events of the next day. Jesus said "this is my body broken for you" and "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". The sacrament is present as he speaks and when Christians receive regardless of the century or the day in which they partake of his body and blood. It is one supper, the same supper, not many suppers.

GingerBeer said:

No, I do not believe that Jesus was talking about the events of the next day. Jesus said "this is my body broken for you" and "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". The sacrament is present as he speaks and when Christians receive regardless of the century or the day in which they partake of his body and blood. It is one supper, the same supper, not many suppers.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it boggles my mind how those who say they are Christians refuse to believe our Lord but as we see in John 6 people left him because they could not take His sayings that He is the bread. People still leave Christ today because of the same reason.

charsan said:

Yet they didn't believe in the heretical notion that Christ merely left a symbol.

Click to expand...

Christ gave us the bread and wine and said it is his body and blood. How I treat the symbol for Christ's body and blood is the same respect I show for his body and blood. There's no such thing as a mere body and blood.

Yes that belief that the Blessed Eucharist is a mere symbol is nothing but heretical poppycock.

Click to expand...

I agree with that, since the Eucharist is the thanksgiving we offer God for his son.