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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Literally "what He said"

John 10: 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep

John 15: 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.



No actually that is literally what he said. Let me recite it for you again:
"This is my body".
Have a nice day.

You're absolutely certain that "This is my body" prior to being crucified - is the crucified body of someone who had not been crucified?

I appeal to "my fellow branches" :) to look at these texts and consider whether it is ok to just ignore context.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.

Amen ... "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 and in Matthew 22 (and in Rom 13) - is the rule for the Christian.

Christian groups that get into the idea of torturing, robbing, killing other Christians who differ with them on some doctrinal POV - are getting way off track.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You're absolutely certain that "This is my body" prior to being crucified - is the crucified body of someone who had not been crucified?
I said no such thing. Now let me repeat it for you again:

"This is my body".

You need only believe what our Lord said.

Have a nice day.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Daniel9v9
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.
Nonsense. When the Jews asked our Lord if he was speaking literally, he responded by saying "Truly, truly" I say to you. Then he calls his flesh "true food" and his blood "true drink".

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Everyone there knew exactly what he was saying, and many of them left as a result.

How much more literal does our Lord need to get? You tell me what else he should have said if he wanted to convince people that he was speaking literally. Did our Lord need to say a fourth time "No, but seriously. Please believe me. Even though I said "Truly Truly" 10 seconds ago, for all of you who are dense, let me reiterate, I am not kidding about this"?

Does he need to take a lie detector test in order for you to believe him?

There is literally nothing that our Lord could have said that would convince you that he was speaking literally if "Truly, Truly" is not sufficient.

Have a nice day.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,948
1,725
38
London
Visit site
✟403,021.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Oh, man. There is a lot I can say about this.

I used to hold to Memorialism, but, the more I read Scripture the more I find that position problematic.

Here's a very brief summary of what won me over to an understanding of the Real Presence (a holy mystery, expressed in the Lutheran Church as the Sacramental Union):

- God throughout Scriptures often works through means. One of these means is a sacrificial meal. We see this idea in the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life, and of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in the Passover, and in the Eucharist.

- Consider who instituted the Eucharist. It's not made by man, but by God.

- Consider when it was instituted. Namely, on the night before Christ was betrayed. This makes the Eucharist a testament and the culmination of the Passover. That is, to the Church is given the true Passover meal, which is Christ's body and blood given to us.

- Consider the great promise attached to the Eucharist, and the stern warning against its abuse.

- If we look at early Church history, the idea of a mere memorial rite is entirely alien to how they understood the Eucharist.

- Grammatically, the sentence "This is my body" cannot be "This represents my body". I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it's worth noting that at the Reformation, even the radical reformers championed by Zwingli admitted that grammatically speaking, it cannot be a symbol. Many different ideas were proposed, but in the end, they concluded that even if they cannot make it fit grammatically, they still opposed the orthodox understanding. This is why no (at least to my knowledge) Bible translation translates "is" to "symbolises".

- The argument that "This is my body" is comparable to "I Am the Door" etc, is false. The first reason for this is the grammatical reason mentioned above, and the other reason is that "I Am the Door", is not an expression, but literal. Christ is not saying that He is like a door, but that He truly IS the Way (that is, not "like the way"). So, in other words, they have different grammatical forms, and neither statements are symbolic.

- Perhaps the most important thing is that, when we talk about God's means of grace, namely, His Word, Baptism, and the Eucharist (we can also include Absolution), they are not things we do for God, but what God does for us. The Eucharist is simply the same Gospel message for our comfort, in a tangible form.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Literally "what He said"

John 10: 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep

John 15: 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.



No actually that is literally what he said. Let me recite it for you again:
"This is my body".
Have a nice day.

You're absolutely certain that "This is my body" prior to being crucified - is the crucified body of someone who had not been crucified?

I appeal to "my fellow branches" :) to look at these texts and consider whether it is ok to just ignore context.

I said no such thing. Now let me repeat it for you again:

"This is my body".
You need only believe what our Lord said.

Have a nice day.

more words to show how you actually address the point raised please. Because I also have the "literally what He said" statement in my post.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
3. 1 Cor 11 "do this in remembrance of Me" makes it a memorial does it not?

1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
.



Oh, man. There is a lot I can say about this.

I used to hold to Memorialism, but, the more I read Scripture the more I find that position problematic.

Is Paul using the terms you wold have used in "memorialism"??

He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,948
1,725
38
London
Visit site
✟403,021.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Is Paul using the terms you wold have used in "memorialism"??

He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Yes, but that does not equate to mere Memorialism - for all the reasons mentioned above. :)

We certainly do remember Christ through gathering, prayer, contemplation, praise and thanksgiving, but that's not all there is to it and that's not the main purpose for its institution - it's much more! It's God's grace! It's Christ's body and blood given to us. That is, it's normal bread and wine, but it has a divine promise attached to it, and this promise is the Gospel message of the forgiveness of sins, which is apprehended through faith in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Literally "what He said"







You're absolutely certain that "This is my body" prior to being crucified - is the crucified body of someone who had not been crucified?

I appeal to "my fellow branches" :) to look at these texts and consider whether it is ok to just ignore context.



more words to show how you actually address the point raised please. Because I also have the "literally what He said" statement in my post.
I never said that I am "absolutely certain that 'This is my body' prior to being crucified - is the crucified body of someone who had not been crucified" so there is no point for me to address. I am not going to address a straw man.

Have a nice day.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,188
5,709
49
The Wild West
✟475,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
hmm. German, French, English etc seem to be missing from your list and the Bible was on list of "forbidden books" in Europe.

No it wasn’t, as I addressed in my prior reply. I beg your pardon, but it would be greatly appreciated if you were to avoid reposting, in replies to me, verbatim statements which I have already addressed; if you have something new to say or evidence that contradicts my earlier assertion, I would be happy to read and address it, but when you just repost precisely the same sentence I responded to, it is somewhat frustrating, because it feels like you are ignoring my post, and that’s kind of hurtful.

I am pretty sure there were plenty of English, German and French peasants that could not read latin books.

Literacy among peasants was virtually non-existant prior to the Renaissance, and even after the renaissance, literacy among the peasant populations of much of Europe remained extremely low into the late 19th and early 20th century, with the implementation of compulsory schooling, et cetera. There were of course exceptions, some on a national level, others on the level of certain ethnoreligious minorities such as the Mennonites, and of course in the US and Canada, given that the key driver of emigration to North America tended to be the desire of religious minorities for greater freedom, these religious communities, such as the Puritans of New England, the Mennonites of Pennsylvania, and others, ensured that from the start the rural population of North America was remarkably literate compared to many parts of Europe.

But we are also talking about a period of time long after the end of the Middle Ages. During the actual Middle Ages, European peasants were illiterate, but not only peasants: many members of the landed nobility were either illiterate or barely literate. The most literate communities in Western Europe at that time were the Benedictine and especially the Carthusian monasteries, with their vast libraries and a focus on manuscript production. And indeed elsewhere in Europe, Asia and Africa during the same era, it was Christian monasteries which functioned as veritable storehouses of knowledge; for example, the works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers were preserved by Syriac speaking monks in Egypt*, Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, and these monks in turn, on the request of Islamic scholars, translated the classics of Greek philosophy into Arabic. Then, as the impressive achievements of Islamic intellectuals such as Avveroes, Avicenna, and others, at the turn of the last millenium, became widely known, these works were then translated into Latin, sparking the Renaissance.

And other Christian monasteries elsewhere stored, and continue to store, reams of priceless information; the rich treasure of historical manuscripts in the monasteries of Ethiopia, Mount Athos in Greece, and the recently catalogued collection of the severely threatened St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai, is priceless, and this vital heritage of humanity has been tirelessly preserved over the centuries thanks to the institution of Christian monasticism in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches (there also used to be Assyrian monasteries but sadly these were all destroyed by the genocidal warlord Tamerlane).

In fact, Oxford, Cambridge, and other secular universities did start out life as collections of monasteries. A very large number of the great colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were, in the past, either Benedictine monasteries or friaries, homes to the British operations and seminaries of mendicant orders like the Dominicans, Fransiscans, Carmelites and so on. Even today, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Coptic Orthodox monastic orders remain heavily involved in education.

* The famed “Syrian Monastery” is a Coptic Orthodox monastery in Egypt which in antiquity was populated by Syriac speaking monks who hailed from the Syriac Orthodox Church, which has always been extremely closely related to the Coptic church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,188
5,709
49
The Wild West
✟475,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So nobody could read their own native language until they learned to read Latin?

I never said that. Rather, what I did say was that Latin was, particularly during the Middle Ages, but really, as late as the 18th century, after which time it was displaced by French, English and German, the prevailing language among scholars. Consider as an example the proliferation of Latin terminology in the field of British and American common law - Latin phrases which in many cases had no historical antecedents among the jargon of Roman civil law, which was an entirely different system. When scholars began to document English common law, they did so in Latin, creating a new terminology to describe concepts specific to the common law system that did not exist in the Corpus Juris Civillis or other civil law systems derived from the laws of the Roman Empire.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I never said that. Rather, what I did say was that Latin was, particularly during the Middle Ages, but really, as late as the 18th century, after which time it was displaced by French, English and German, the prevailing language among scholars.

You are talking about Latin Bibles that the churh scholars had access to (and could read once trained in Latin) inside their church universities, monasteries and churches -- I am talking about the forbidden books - where Bibles in the native tongue of the people who were spanish, french, german, english, dutch etc. were not allowed.

IF one is trying to avoid the whole "sola scriptura" thing because they think it is bad - what better way than to ban the Bible in the native tongue of the people.
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No actually that is literally what he said. Let me recite it for you again:

"This is my body".

Have a nice day.
He also said I am the door. what kind of wood he is made of? Or is he a metal door?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,222
916
Visit site
✟97,471.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I find it interesting that so few people recognize how God works with man.

Here's an example from the OT.

Judges 7: 2 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink wate

Jesus didn't restrain people from walking away from Him while He lived here on earth for the same reason He had Gideon get rid of so many of the people who turned out to fight the Midianites.

He did this for two reasons:

1.He wanted only a very few people to turn the world upside down so that no one could claim it was because the strength of numbers of those on His side that the battle was won. Human pride always likes to take the credit for God's working and power.

2. Those who claim to be followers of Christ but yet don't want to believe what He says He turns away for faithless people inside the church always have the effect of destroying faith within the church. Sin in the camp always has a highly negative effect upon God's church. Read the story of Achan. His sin alone caused the death of thousands of Israelites.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have no reason to think he was speaking literally, and to repeat myself, the people who stopped following him thought he was speaking literally.
Yep, and IMO the 12 thought so as well. When the Lor asked "Will ye also go away?".they in't say, 'No, we're cool, we know what you really meant.' St. Peter said " Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." This was more like "we don't really unerstand it either, but we're sticking with you."

we are forbidden to eat/drink blood, and the Messiah did not teach his followers to sin, so even more reason to view his teaching as metaphorical.
So He was just using a metaphor that was certain to be offensive to them, right? Interesting notion, anyway. Yeah, but your lot has trouble with Acts 11:10-16 on that basis as well, don't you? You have to dance a little sidestep around verses 13 and 15 especially. Lot of "oh, that was a metaphor" shuck and jive there, too.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He also said I am the door. what kind of wood he is made of? Or is he a metal door?
How many of His followers turned away that time? Let's not be intentionally obtuse, shall we?
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The bread breaking was symbolic - the bread wasn’t literally his body.
So you're said. You trust your word, I'll trust His. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul. If I'm right... well, I'm better off for it. 'Nuf said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,411
3,707
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟221,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's not what the Bible says. Let me recite it again for you: "This is my body".If our Lord pointed to his chest and said "This is my body" you would not say that his words were symbolic.The only reason why you think it is symbolic is because your mind cannot fathom that what he pointed to was in fact his body.y.
They can't accept what He said because it viloates their modern-day empirical view of the world. It's an "even Jesus can't do that!" kind of mindset.
 
Upvote 0