Jesus is saying what?

[mlepfitjw]

Hello you and welcome this text


“Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked. So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:52-58‬ ‭NLT‬‬


Is the flesh of Jesus living on off his words - the bread of life?

Is drinking of blood a metaphor for accepting of his death for all sins — ?

that is what I have personally come to accept and believe.

Curious of other peoples thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Anthony2019]

I am a firm believer in the real presence in the Eucharist and believe that Jesus was speaking literally and not metaphorically.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Okay Anthony thank you for your comment. Maybe someone else has another view point they are willing to share.

 

[Mr. M]

Curious of other peoples thoughts. Thank you.

This is His covenant, and those who are in covenant with Him (In Christ), are expected to have
fellowship with one another as His Body.
There is a personal relationship with Him, but the breaking of bread among the saints expresses
the relationship between Him and His Body.

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

The failure to comprehend this significance was the very point of this narrative.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Could we say living off of the Lord Jesus Christ (He is still the bread of life) - the words he spoke, and together in unity with others in acceptance with the life, and death (death would resemble blood) -- along with the resurrection -- of the Lord Jesus Christ ?

Because of all this and the conditions and manner that Jesus Christ is speaking makes me believe that would be a (doing in remembering).

Reading and consuming His words, as well as remembering the death of Him. (Along with fellowship with others).

What would you suppose Minister with responding in your own words without any scriptures? The ones you posted are helpful to this subject.

 

[Mr. M]

What would you suppose Minister with responding in your own words without any scriptures?

Words in blue are my words. My words are always supported by scriptures.

This is His covenant, and those who are in covenant with Him (In Christ), are expected to have fellowship with one another as His Body.
There is a personal relationship with Him, but the breaking of bread among the saints expresses
the relationship between Him and His Body.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Okay thank you for your helpful response sir Minster. Have a great day.

 

[Tigger45]

I vote for both a memorial and the Lord is present in the elements.

Its a memorial because we are to maintain doing it repetively when we come together until the Lord returns. And it is His body & blood because He says "this 'is' my body/blood" and His word shall not return void.

 

[Taodeching]

As said in post two Christ was being literal not metaphorical.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Thank you for your comment Tigger45. Thank you for your comment as well Taodeching!

Believe that sums up this topic! Have a good night everyone, and thank you for taking time to read and post your thoughts. Appreciate that. Take care!

 

[Anthony2019]

And it is His body & blood because He says "this 'is' my body/blood" and His word shall not return void.

I totally agree. Belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist was pretty much elementary Christian teaching right from the early church up to the Reformation and is still accepted by many today. It is also worth noting that St Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest church fathers passionately believed in the real presence, and he was taught directly by John.

 

[mlepfitjw]

That is very informative, Anthony. Remember going to a Church of Christ and on Sunday they would do grape juice, and bread. Respect them if that is what people desire to do, though in hindsight for the cause of what Yeshua had said.

Any who places Christ Yeshua at the center of their life, will remember and do the bread and wine thing ; just as having faith, remember the words Christ had spoke, and remember the death on the cross as well as resurrection -- in their spiritual walk hand and hand with God.

Thank you for that information friend and take care. God bless you all and enjoy your night.

 

[Tigger45]

I totally agree. Belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist was pretty much elementary Christian teaching right from the early church up to the Reformation and is still accepted by many today. It is also worth noting that St Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest church fathers passionately believed in the real presence, and he was taught directly by John.

True. When I see a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible (emphatic in the Greek) as you say and taught since the beginning as seen in the earliest church writings it’s a no brainer. And being Transfiguration Sunday on our liturgical calendar the Rector interwove Jesus’ unveiling on the Mount of Transfiguration with His divine nature to His real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[pescador]

I am a firm believer in the real presence in the Eucharist and believe that Jesus was speaking literally and not metaphorically.

How could Jesus (alive and in the flesh) say "this is my body"? If you're sitting at a table and hand somebody a piece of bread, saying "this is my body" it is obviously symbolic (unless you think that Jesus is actually bread, not human). Likewise, as a living human saying that the wine he held his hand was his blood, it also is obviously symbolic. When His blood was shed on the cross, He bled real blood. Clearly He was not speaking literally during His last Passover on Earth.

He directed His disciples (and us) to remember the sacrifice of His life whenever we eat bread and drink wine. But -- and this is critical -- the Lord is not bread and wine. He is a resurrected person sitting at the right hand of God, fully human.

 

[Anthony2019]

How could Jesus (alive and in the flesh) say "this is my body"? If you're sitting at a table and hand somebody a piece of bread, saying "this is my body" it is obviously symbolic (unless you think that Jesus is actually bread, not human). Likewise, as a living human saying that the wine he held his hand was his blood, it also is obviously symbolic. When His blood was shed on the cross, He bled real blood. Clearly He was not speaking literally during His last Passover on Earth.

He directed His disciples (and us) to remember the sacrifice of His life whenever we eat bread and drink wine. But -- and this is critical -- the Lord is not bread and wine. He is a resurrected person sitting at the right hand of God, fully human.

Having considered the relevant texts, I can see why many Christians view Holy Communion as being symbolic, but I believe that this view is inconsistent with what has traditionally been taught by the church, starting with the earliest Christians. If a student of John the Apostle, such as Ignatius, believed in the Real Presence, ie. that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament, then not only do I believe that doctrine must be correct, but it is also most likely the understanding of John who wrote the texts in John 6:51-58.

 

[Vanellus]

If the blood was meant to be understood as literal by Jesus' audience then how does one account for:

If anyone from the house of Israel or a foreigner living among them eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people. 11For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. 12Therefore I say to the Israelites, ‘None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner living among you eat blood.’13And if any Israelite or foreigner living among them hunts down a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, he must drain its blood and cover it with dirt. 14For the life of all flesh is its blood. Therefore I have told the Israelites, ‘You must not eat the blood of any living thing, because the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it must be cut off.’
Lev 17:10-14

 

[pescador]

Having considered the relevant texts, I can see why many Christians view Holy Communion as being symbolic, but I believe that this view is inconsistent with what has traditionally been taught by the church, starting with the earliest Christians. If a student of John the Apostle, such as Ignatius, believed in the Real Presence, ie. that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament, then not only do I believe that doctrine must be correct, but it is also most likely the understanding of John who wrote the texts in John 6:51-58.

Ignatius was just a man, no more and no less. He was not infallible.

The previous post is correct: blood belongs to God; it doesn't belong to humans.

Jesus could not have possibly meant that we were to literally eat His flesh and/or drink His blood. Christians are NOT CANNIBALS!

He handed those who were with him some bread and told them to eat it and to drink some of the wine He gave them -- and to remember Him when they ate/drank in the future. He established a ritual of remembrance of Him, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Anthony2019]

Ignatius was just a man, no more and no less. He was not infallible.

Tradition has it that Ignatius not only was a disciple of John the Apostle, it is also said that as a child he was personally held in Jesus's arms and blessed.

Perhaps he was not infallable (none of us is!) but for St Peter to appoint Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch and to become his second successor shows that his ministry and teaching was held in very high esteem by the Apostles.

Does this really matter? Yes I think that it does.

As Christians I think that we often ignore the fact that much of our theology is shaped by the people around us: our pastors, friends, evangelists, writers, musicians, even the sermons we hear preached at church on a Sunday. Even the most staunch advocates of Sola Scriptura use commentaries, lexicons, study aids and devotional books to help them unravel the meaning of the biblical texts.

If we want to understand the Word of God and the scriptures, I can think of no better friend and companion, disciple and teacher, than St Ignatius himself. I think that Christians everywhere would do well do listen to him, to read his epistles and heed his advice. I cannot think of anyone better to teach us about the love of Christ, the mysteries of God, than the very man who was held in the very arms of our Lord, the one who was taught directly by John, the beloved disciple, and the one who was commissioned by Peter, the rock upon whom Jesus built his church.

His writings show that he was a staunch believer in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And I believe that he was right.

 

[pescador]

Tradition has it that Ignatius not only was a disciple of John the Apostle, it is also said that as a child he was personally held in Jesus's arms and blessed.

Perhaps he was not infallable (none of us is!) but for St Peter to appoint Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch and to become his second successor shows that his ministry and teaching was held in very high esteem by the Apostles.

Does this really matter? Yes I think that it does.

As Christians I think that we often ignore the fact that much of our theology is shaped by the people around us: our pastors, friends, evangelists, writers, musicians, even the sermons we hear preached at church on a Sunday. Even the most staunch advocates of Sola Scriptura use commentaries, lexicons, study aids and devotional books to help them unravel the meaning of the biblical texts.

If we want to understand the Word of God and the scriptures, I can think of no better friend and companion, disciple and teacher, than St Ignatius himself. I think that Christians everywhere would do well do listen to him, to read his epistles and heed his advice. I cannot think of anyone better to teach us about the love of Christ, the mysteries of God, than the very man who was held in the very arms of our Lord, the one who was taught directly by John, the beloved disciple, and the one who was commissioned by Peter, the rock upon whom Jesus built his church.

His writings show that he was a staunch believer in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And I believe that he was right.

Perhaps he was not infallable (none of us is!) but for St Peter to appoint Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch and to become his second successor shows that his ministry and teaching was held in very high esteem by the Apostles. So?

Jesus Christ was/is the only infallible human. Jesus said to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. That's all that needs to be said on the matter. Some churches may teach otherwise, but that doesn't matter. Jesus is/was/is God.

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus didnt turn around to the people and state that he was only making a symbolic gesture. No.

The desciples went away from Jesus because they believed what he said.

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

"The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Many Protestants attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98)."