Jesus Body and Blood

Saint Steven said:

Have you heard of the Last Supper? - lol

I thought that was where we got the bread and wine. (representations of his body and blood)

Click to expand...

Obviously you digest scripture to suit your own 'individual' beliefs. Interpreting it as you so wish my friend.

Like i said earlier, its amazing how some cherry pick what 'they' think Jesus meant as literal to other verses where they think He was just using a figure of speech.

For me, i truly believe what Jesus said. He said eat My body and Drink my blood. At the last supper He instructed us to do that. At the mass, the bread and wine turn into His body and blood.

This was also believed by the early church fathers who were taught by the Apostles.

Also, look at the many Eucharistic miracles that have been witnessed in the world where the host has actually changed into living flesh!

God bless you my friend.

Anthony2019 said:

I believe there is ample proof in the New Testament as well as the early church whose teaching was passed onto them by the apostles. Even Jesus said "Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:54).
Also, Paul appeared to support this view: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body" (1 Corinthians 11:23-29).
Through partaking in the Eucharist, if we do not discern his body, we are in danger of eating and drinking in judgement to ourselves.

Click to expand...

You are taking all the scriptures out of their context in order to put forward false interpretations:

1 Cor 11:27 "So that whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.".

The correct interpretation of the above verse is Paul's rebuke of that congregation which lead up to his statement, which is:

1 Cor 11:20-22 ""When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another drunken.

For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? I do not praise you!"

Some of those early Christians in that congregation had dishonored the sacrament by abusing the Lord's table, using it for gluttony and drunkenness. This is the rebuke that lead up to Paul's statement about drinking of the cup and partaking of the bread unworthily:

1 Cor 11:27 "So that whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.".

So in my opinion, those who abuse this scripture by taking it out of its context in order to change its meaning so that it can be used to bully the ignorant (who don't read the scriptures properly) into joining their abuse of the sacrament through their false doctrine of transubstantiation, are doing the same thing - partaking of wine and the bread unworthily - twice over - once by claiming falsely that the bread becomes "the actual body of Christ" and the wine His actual blood, and once more by taking 1 Cor 11:27 out of its context and changing its meaning in order to bully others into following them into their heresy.

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN BY "THIS IS MY BODY" AND "THIS IS MY BLOOD"?

I believe that the scriptures cannot be taken out of their context to support false doctrines. Jesus observed all the Biblical Holy Days known as "The Feasts of the Lord" that the Jews observed. When He said this regarding His flesh and His blood, He was eating the Passover meal with His disciples. The cup He took and blessed is (if I recall correctly) was the third cup, known as the cup of Redemption. The breaking of bread is also part of that meal. When Jesus said, "Take, eat, this is My body", and "This is My Blood of the New Covenant" He was telling them that He was the fulfillment of what the Passover meal was pointing to - the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and the prophets (Jer 31:31-33). In other words, He is the bread of Life whose body was to be broken, and His blood was about to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

When He said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) He was telling them that though they had always observed the Passover meal in remembrance of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt, yet the Passover meal ultimately pointed prophetically to Him, and now they were to do so in remembrance of Him. It wasn't a new observance He was giving them, it was a new interpretation (or at least an interpretation which had been inherent in the Passover meal all along, but was new to His disciples).

We have to read His statement below which He spoke to the Jews in the context of the above, and in the context of their naturally ignorant response when He told them His flesh (life) was to be sacrificed for them:

John 6:51-53 "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."
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
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."

It's clear by the context of the above and the meaning of the blood of the sacrificed Passover Lamb sprinkled on the doorposts of the people in Egypt causing the angel of death to pass over them, what He was talking about - the Jews and Jesus' disciples knew what the meaning of the Passover Lamb was.

Therefore Jesus was not saying that anyone would literally be eating His flesh:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63).

The Biblical context of what Jesus said is the Jewish culture which revolved around the ceremonial Law, of which the Passover Lamb and Passover meal formed an integral part - it was the first "appointed time" (which is called a mo'ed - "God's appointed time" in the Hebrew, and "Feast of the LORD" in the English Bibles) given by God to the Jews. It had been given for a (prophetic) reason, and it, like the Feasts of Firstfruits, Weeks, Pentecost etc had a prophetic meaning.

Therefore in saying, "This is My body given for you" and "This is My blood", Jesus was telling them that His life which He was about to give on the cross for the world, and His blood which He was about to shed, was the ultimate meaning in the details of the Passover meal that they were sharing with Him. He was saying that His disciples, whenever they eat this bread and drink this wine, are to forever remember (a) The Passover Lamb sprinkled on the doorposts which caused the angel of death to pass over God's elect; and (b) the deliverance of the people from bondage in Egypt (which is a Biblical type of deliverance from sin and death); and (c) the body and blood of Christ, our Passover Lamb, who was sacrificed for us on the cross and who sacrificed His life for us and shed His blood for us on the cross.

Jesus gave His body and shed His blood once for all (Heb 10:10).

Carl Emerson said:

Hi there,

My son has just finished a year of theology and is interested in my posting a couple of questions.

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus said it was.

Shouldn't that matter to a Bible-oriented Christian? Oh, I know...everything is taken literally except when it's more convenient to think that Jesus didn't mean what he said.

Is this through the faith of the partaker or the one who officiates?

Click to expand...

Neither. It's through the promise of the Lord, just like his promise to come again, that the Holy Spirit would guide the church into all truth, and so on. We believe all these things (although it would be a lot easier for us to say that they were not meant literally) because Christ promised as much!

By the way, it is certain that the first century church believed that the sacred meal was actually the body and blood--the real essence--of Christ, although not necessarily in the vulgar, carnal way that the Medieval Church turned it into.

While this information may not mean too much in itself to a Christian who goes strictly by the Scriptures for doctrine, it does show us that the first Christians themselves understood the words of Christ at the Last Supper to mean more than just symbolism.

Does this mean partaking in Christ in this way is necessary for salvation?

Click to expand...

No. However, that doesn't mean that it is not beneficial for those who partake of the meal.

prodromos said:

Except, it seems, for marriage (in the Catholic Church, Latin rite)

Click to expand...

That's different. The Latin rite view is, as I understand it, that the sacrament of marriage is performed by the couple on each other (CCC #1623: "According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church"). The logical implication of that view is that invalid consent leads to an invalid sacrament.

The Eastern rite Catholic view is more complex, and I don't quite understand it.

Lost4words said:

Like i said earlier, its amazing how some cherry pick what 'they' think Jesus meant as literal to other verses where they think He was just using a figure of speech.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Jesus never used a "figure of speech"?
"The kingdom of heaven is like..." Should we take all those as literal?

Saint Steven said:

Yes, of course.
Are you claiming that Jesus was a piece of bread? - lol

Click to expand...

No Christian church is saying that, so please let's not junk up the answers to a serious question Carl asked us by throwing in meaningless "what ifs"

Radagast said:

It's very much a live issue for Catholics at present. If a priest has done [insert name of serious sin], are the sacraments he administered still valid?

And the answer of the Church, since the Donatist controversy, has been "yes."

Click to expand...

Truly, I think most of the older churches have a much better understanding of faith. We see that "our" faith is purely a response to God's faith in us and His gift of His grace. Our faith is not based on something that is unreal, it is actual rooted in physical and spiritual reality. There truly exists a God and He truly wants to love and help us if we only choose to respond to Him.

If someone were to believe otherwise, then Communion becomes an empty ritual. It is always strange to me that the same people that accuse the liturgical churches of being too ritualistic are the ones that practice such empty rituals. Jesus accused the Pharisees, not of having rituals and performing them, but of performing them out of duty and not worshiping in the right spirit. The other oddity about this is that these vocal naysayers are in the minority, yet think the majority, historical understanding is corrupt.

I think it is elitist to think that you have somehow recovered true Christianity out of whole cloth while showing contempt for those who have the pattern passed down to them from the first Christians. Of course none of this is directed at you; but at those who we encounter, whose logic seems to be based more on bias than on historical or critical thought.

prodromos said:

Everyone who has read the Early Church Fathers would recognise the truth of his statement. All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of the same.

Some of them were taught directly by the Apostles. What makes you think you have a better understanding than them?

Click to expand...

What makes you think you have a better understanding than the apostles?

It's clear that this is not what the apostles believed. If you read the statements of the early post-aspotolic Church fathers it becomes obvious that they struggled to understand many scriptures and came up some truth and some heresy in the process. This heresy is one of them.

Jesus observed all the Biblical Holy Days known as "The Feasts of the Lord" that the Jews observed. When He said this regarding His flesh and His blood, He was eating the Passover meal with His disciples. The cup He took and blessed is (if I recall correctly) was the third cup, known as the cup of Redemption. The breaking of bread is also part of that meal. When Jesus said, "Take, eat, this is My body", and "This is My Blood of the New Covenant" He was telling them that He was the fulfillment of what the Passover meal was pointing to - the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and the prophets (Jer 31:31-33). In other words, He is the bread of Life whose body was to be broken, and His blood was about to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

When He said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) He was telling them that though they had always observed the Passover meal in remembrance of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt, yet the Passover meal ultimately pointed prophetically to Him, and now they were to do so in remembrance of Him. It wasn't a new observance He was giving them, it was a new interpretation (or at least an interpretation which had been inherent in the Passover meal all along, but was new to His disciples).

We have to read His statement below which He spoke to the Jews in the context of the above, and in the context of their naturally ignorant response when He told them His flesh (life) was to be sacrificed for them:

John 6:51-53 "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."
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
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."

It's clear by the context of the above and the meaning of the blood of the sacrificed Passover Lamb sprinkled on the doorposts of the people in Egypt causing the angel of death to pass over them, what He was talking about - the Jews and Jesus' disciples knew what the meaning of the Passover Lamb was.

Therefore Jesus was not saying that anyone would literally be eating His flesh:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63).

The Biblical context of what Jesus said is the Jewish culture which revolved around the ceremonial Law, of which the Passover Lamb and Passover meal formed an integral part - it was the first "appointed time" (which is called a mo'ed - "God's appointed time" in the Hebrew, and "Feast of the LORD" in the English Bibles) given by God to the Jews. It had been given for a (prophetic) reason, and it, like the Feasts of Firstfruits, Weeks, Pentecost etc had a prophetic meaning.

Therefore in saying, "This is My body given for you" and "This is My blood", Jesus was telling them that His life which He was about to give on the cross for the world, and His blood which He was about to shed, was the ultimate meaning in the details of the Passover meal that they were sharing with Him. He was saying that His disciples, whenever they eat this bread and drink this wine, are to forever remember (a) The Passover Lamb sprinkled on the doorposts which caused the angel of death to pass over God's elect; and (b) the deliverance of the people from bondage in Egypt (which is a Biblical type of deliverance from sin and death); and (c) the body and blood of Christ, our Passover Lamb, who was sacrificed for us on the cross and who sacrificed His life for us and shed His blood for us on the cross.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is, in my opinion, based on a complete and utter ripping of the words of Jesus out of their Biblical context , and from the context of the Jewish culture which revolved around the ceremonial Law and the meaning of it.

Personally, like most Protestants and Teachers in Protestant churches, I see the insistence that the bread turns into the body of Christ when blessed by the priest, and the insistence that the wine turns into the actual blood of Christ, as a lie and a blasphemous disgrace - as though the priests have the ability and authority to crucify Christ over and over and over again. Jesus gave His body and shed His blood once for all (Heb 10:10).

Lost4words said:

Also, look at the many Eucharistic miracles that have been witnessed in the world where the host has actually changed into living flesh!

Click to expand...

Hmm...
What does that say about every other Eucharist?
They DIDN'T actually change into living flesh!

Albion said:

No Christian church is saying that, so please let's not junk up the answers to a serious question Carl asked us by throwing in meaningless "what ifs"

Click to expand...

Would you mind if I returned the favor by calling your post "junk"?

Saint Steven said:

Are you claiming that Jesus never used a "figure of speech"?
"The kingdom of heaven is like..." Should we take all those as literal?

Click to expand...

When the wording tells you, flat out, that it's an analogy, then of course we understand it to be such.

When, however, the wording in Scripture is not obviously a figure of speech or anything else like that...and, in addition, Christ goes to some length to insist that it be taken at face value by his listeners...then of course we are to do so as well.

Albion said:

When, however, the wording in Scripture is not obviously a figure of speech or anything else like that...and, in addition, Christ goes to some length to insist that it be taken at face value by his listeners...then of course we are to do so as well.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

As I've pointed out, there are several different Christian views of what it means (Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.). But I don't think it's an option to say "it means nothing."

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

What makes you think you have a better understanding than the apostles?

It's clear that this is not what the apostles believed. If you read the statements of the early post-aspotolic Church fathers

Click to expand...

The first few generations of post-Apostolic church fathers got to ask the Apostles what it all meant. Polycarp (died 155) was taught by the Apostle John, for example.

Albion said:

When the wording tells you, flat out, that it's an analogy, then of course we understand it to be such.

When, however, the wording in Scripture is not obviously a figure of speech or anything else like that...and, in addition, Christ goes to some length to insist that it be taken at face value by his listeners...then of course we are to do so as well.

Click to expand...

I think the same is true here. (in a sense)

Even though Jesus presented the idea as if it was literal, it was most definitely figurative. The hearers had no idea what he was saying. Even the Twelve were baffled. Verse 66 reads: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. --- No one knew how to process what he was saying. The literal interpretation was UNTHINKABLE. He was asking them to cannibalize him. It was nonsense. (with all due respect)

I had this to say in post #20

Someone quoted John 6:51-58 in a post above.

We also need to consider the passage that followed. (pasted below) This shows the reaction to the teaching, as did verse 52 of that chapter. (quoted earlier) Which reads:
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” - vs 52
Nowhere in this passage do I see Jesus explaining his cannibalistic command.
We can understand the reference to the bread and wine in retrospect, but the hearers of this teaching had no idea what Jesus was referring to other than his ACTUAL flesh and blood. Nor did Jesus even explain it to the Twelve. Not until the Last Supper did he explained it. (as I recall) Holding up the bread, he announced, "This is my body..."

John 6:60-69
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Radagast said:

The first few generations of post-Apostolic church fathers got to ask the Apostles what it all meant. Polycarp (died 155) was taught by the Apostle John, for example.

Click to expand...

What's more, doing that was the objective. It wasn't just an extra benefit or something that might come in handy.

For people who do not know, this is where the idea of "Apostolic Succession" comes from--the Christians of the first century trusting priests/bishops/ministers who had learned from the Apostles directly rather than second hand or third hand.

Radagast said:

The first few generations of post-Apostolic church fathers got to ask the Apostles what it all meant. Polycarp (died 155) was taught by the Apostle John, for example.

Click to expand...

They understood all things, did they? Is that why they debated with one another so much and wrote long theses trying to hash out what they clearly did not understand?

Not everyone believes what you say about the early church fathers and what they believed, anyway. Whether wikepedia is always reliable or not, the fact is there has been a lot of dispute over time regarding this particular Catholic heresy:

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

wrote long theses trying to hash out what they clearly did not understand?

Click to expand...

I can't respond to that unless you give me some examples.

Polycarp, who I mentioned, has one surviving epistle. It's not very long.

Carl Emerson said:

Hi there,

My son has just finished a year of theology and is interested in my posting a couple of questions.

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Is this through the faith of the partaker or the one who officiates?

Does this mean partaking in Christ in this way is necessary for salvation?

Click to expand...

Scripture can be plausibly argued either way, if that's the only source we have to go with. As it is there was never a question about this in the past, in the ancient churches east and west, since they practiced the Real Presence by whatever name from the beginning. The testimony of early father's support this as well. The breaking of bread was always the center of the service or celebration, often done daily/weekly and always when they met in any case- and with much reverence, discerning the Body and Blood.

Partaking of Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation-as all Christian should agree. We must remain in Him and He in us.The Eucharist is simply the physical means we experience and remain conscientious about this need for His regular nourishment, for this free gift that we can only receive but still must accept and partake of. Its called the Eucharist because of the purely gratuitous nature of the gift-of Himself.

Carl Emerson said:

Hi there,

My son has just finished a year of theology and is interested in my posting a couple of questions.

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Is this through the faith of the partaker or the one who officiates?

Does this mean partaking in Christ in this way is necessary for salvation?

Click to expand...

There is no support other than the way we perceive scripture.

Neither ... to the question of who officiates, which in a way is like asking who sinned ...

To the last question no ... but yes spiritually speaking, as an inward truth; which over such a hard saying most of Jesus' disciples departed.

Saint Steven said:

I think the same is true here. (in a sense)

Even though Jesus presented the idea as if it was literal, it was most definitely figurative.

Click to expand...

So your contention is that, when he was instituting this important ceremony that he then instructed his Apostles to perpetuate, Jesus deliberately let them get the wrong idea about what it meant?? Really?

The hearers had no idea what he was saying. Even the Twelve were baffled. Verse 66 reads: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Click to expand...

Contrary what you have just argued, the fact that they did this owes to him having been insistent about his words being taken literally.

Had he instead soft-peddled them and assured the Jews that they shouldn't have any mistaken worries about cannibalism because it was all just figurative speech or symbolism...they would NOT have left him as they did.