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

[Jipsah]

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

You mean it's not just a sip and a nibble an on to the next item on the program? "For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves." No need to worry about that; St Paul was wrong, the blood and body of the Lord aren't really there.

 

[Dkh587]

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."

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.

the Messiah indeed spoke about eating his flesh & blood, albeit in a metaphorical way, to shoo off the people following him who were not interested in following him as the Messiah, but instead were looking for free lunch. That’s what you call carnal minded.

 

[Dkh587]

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.

I trust his word, too. You’re just farting into the wind at this point...

 

[Dkh587]

How many of His followers turned away that time? Let's not be intentionally obtuse, shall we?

It’s no more intentionally obtuse than thinking and suggesting he was referring to a piece of bread as his literal body.

 

[Jipsah]

I trust his word, too. You’re just farting into the wind at this point...

I think it' actually referred to as "casting pearls before swine".

 

[Jipsah]

It’s no more intentionally obtuse than thinking and suggesting he was referring to a piece of bread as his literal body.

Hard saying, innit? Who can believe that?

 

[Swag365]

He also said I am the door. what kind of wood he is made of? Or is he a metal door?

That's pretty weak.

He is neither wood, nor is he metal. But he is the door, the entryway to Heaven.

Have a nice day.

 

[Swag365]

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.

I think it just conflicts with their theology. They don't have it is part of their worship, so of course it cannot be correct.

 

[concretecamper]

That's pretty weak.

He is neither wood, nor is he metal. But he is the door, the entryway to Heaven.

Have a nice day.

How many people left Him becasue He said He was the door? How many people left Him when He said He was the vine?

It seems the Jews listening to Jesus understood Him better than the protestants today do.

 

[Markie Boy]

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.

Yup - and the Apostolic Succession churches have done plenty of this - even justifying it theologically via Thomas Aquinas

 

[AmigodeJesus]

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

When one also considers that Jesus said, in John 17:11, that he was no longer "in the world", because He was soon to leave it, courtesy of Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11 and Revelation 12:5, one comes to the conclusion that Jesus would not physically be present with the disciples any longer upon the earth (until His return later), as He returned unto the Father, from which He came out from, having been sent from the Father originally, and sat down on the right hand of God the Father.

For those of the "trans" mindset (which is prevalent today in more ways than one), turning the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness (something of fleshly desire or appetite), how can they reconcile that Jesus stated that He would no longer be physically present upon the earth after His leaving the disciples at Mt. Olivet and ascending, courtesy of Psalms 24, with their theological position, which states contrarily, that Jesus is physically present and touching the earth in their mystagogy?

Some might attempt to cite John 14:18, but the context refers to the representative Person, the Holy Ghost, who is not the Person of Jesus, but His personal Representative, courtesy of John 14:16-17, 16:13.

 

[AmigodeJesus]

Yup - and the Apostolic Succession churches have done plenty of this - even justifying it theologically via Thomas Aquinas

Yes, true, but though a murderer (or one who agrees with murder) self-justifies their murdering, or rationalizes it unto sanctification thereof, does not make the murderer a non-murderer, it simply makes them an all the more corrupt and insidious murderer. In effect, such persons, have seared their own conscience, or in other words, murdered their conscience, in effect, murdering themselves first.

 

[AmigodeJesus]

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.

It's more of a mindset of "Jesus didn't sin, or teach others to do so." Human flesh eating and blood drinking of any sort is forbidden in the strictest terms through all of the OT and NT texts. It is even more forbidden to eat dead human flesh and dead human blood in actuality or by faith, as those of the mystagogical camp, state it is the representation (re-presenting) of the actual "sacrifice" or "death" of Jesus.

So it is not a matter of "can't", but "didn't".

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

This is a very good argument, eloquently expressed.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's more of a mindset of "Jesus didn't sin, or teach others to do so." Human flesh eating and blood drinking of any sort is forbidden in the strictest terms through all of the OT and NT texts. It is even more forbidden to eat dead human flesh and dead human blood in actuality or by faith, as those of the mystagogical camp, state it is the representation (re-presenting) of the actual "sacrifice" or "death" of Jesus.

So it is not a matter of "can't", but "didn't".

The Body and Blood of our Lord is not dead, nor is it merely human; rather, His human and divine natures are hypostatically united according to Chalcedon; St. Cyril and the Oriental Orthodox say they are united in one nature, and both agree that this is a union without change, confusion or separation. Therefore (and this point becomes especially clear when we view the question using the very helpful Christological model of communicatio idiomatum), when we partake of the Eucharist we are partaking of the divinity of our Lord as well as His glorified Humanity.

The ancient prohibitions against cannibalism do not apply in any sense to the Eucharist because partaking of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord is not devouring a fellow man, but rather feeding off of the bread of immortality and the cup of the New Covenant so as to physically and mystically unite ourselves with Jesus Christ our God and Savior.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Jesus Christ is literally a door: there is no access to Salvation without passing through Him. I would note that He did not say that he had hinges; in the first century AD the definition of what constituted a door was somewhat looser compared to contemporary standards.

He is also the True Vine; our salvation comes from being grafted onto Him. As a thought experiment, consider what human beings look like if time is visualized as a physical dimension, and you will note that we would look very much like vines, with our children becoming new branches.

 

[AmigodeJesus]

The Body and Blood of our Lord is not ... merely human ... when we partake of the Eucharist we are partaking of the ... glorified Humanity.

Not possible for you to partake (eat/drink) of glorified humanity (as it does not decay, cannot be broken down), as the Last Supper was before His (Jesus') glorification, and before His death, and the last supper to memorialize His death (not His resurrection), courtesy of 1 Corinthians 11:26. It is indeed a dead body (flesh), spilled blood as it is said a re-presenting the sacrifice, which dies. The so-called 'priest' raises the sacrifice and "breaks it". Dead. Not living. The blood/alcoholic wine, is even separated from the body/bread in a cup.

You, by so saying, then agree that it is also "human". Then you turn around and say this:

The ancient prohibitions against cannibalism do not apply in any sense to the Eucharist because partaking of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord is not devouring a fellow man ...

Contradiction to your previous statement. A "fellow man" is a "human", to which you just stated it was also.

 

[prodromos]

It's more of a mindset of "Jesus didn't sin, or teach others to do so." Human flesh eating and blood drinking of any sort is forbidden in the strictest terms through all of the OT and NT texts. It is even more forbidden to eat dead human flesh and dead human blood in actuality or by faith, as those of the mystagogical camp, state it is the representation (re-presenting) of the actual "sacrifice" or "death" of Jesus.

So it is not a matter of "can't", but "didn't".

The Jews were forbidden to eat blood because "the life of the flesh is in the blood".
Jesus told His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood precisely because His life is in the blood.

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;​

It is also noteworthy that in Hebrew literature, the figurative meaning of "eating someone's flesh" means to destroy that person. Thus if Jesus was speaking figuratively about His followers eating His flesh, He is telling us that we must destroy Him to have life. I don't for one moment believe that to be the case, therefore He was not speaking figuratively.

 

[Swag365]

The Jews were forbidden to eat blood because "the life of the flesh is in the blood".
Jesus told His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood precisely because His life is in the blood.

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​

​

That's a good explanation. It seems to make sense in light of "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus Christ is literally a door: .

interesting POV..

and literally a vine?
and we are literally branches?