Jesus is saying what?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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)."

You wrote, "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." So... That is just Catholic doctrine. If you want to go along with that, fine. But I'm not a Catholic, son I don't go along with it. Here is what the Bible says...

Matthew 26:26-28, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus, a human, took bread and broke it, then said “Take, eat, this is my body.” Now obviously something needs to be examined more closely. Jesus held up a piece of bread in His hand! Then He said "...this is my body" while holding the bread in His hand!! So it may represent His body, but if it is His actual body, who is holding the bread?? Then He said to drink from the cup. Did the cup contain His blood? If so, how did the person holding the cup stay alive without blood?

It makes me sad that you and others can't just accept the symbolism of what Jesus was teaching. After He died and was resurrected He left us a ritual by which to remember His sacrifice. Now, think about this: Jesus was resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of God. He is there; His body is there. It's not on Earth disguised as bread; the bread is symbolic, as is the wine.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
9,688
10,852
Neath
✟799,859.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You wrote, "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." So... That is just Catholic doctrine. If you want to go along with that, fine. But I'm not a Catholic, son I don't go along with it. Here is what the Bible says...

Matthew 26:26-28, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus, a human, took bread and broke it, then said “Take, eat, this is my body.” Now obviously something needs to be examined more closely. Jesus held up a piece of bread in His hand! Then He said "...this is my body" while holding the bread in His hand!! So it may represent His body, but if it is His actual body, who is holding the bread?? Then He said to drink from the cup. Did the cup contain His blood? If so, how did the person holding the cup stay alive without blood?

It makes me sad that you and others can't just accept the symbolism of what Jesus was teaching. After He died and was resurrected He left us a ritual by which to remember His sacrifice. Now, think about this: Jesus was resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of God. He is there; His body is there. It's not on Earth disguised as bread; the bread is symbolic, as is the wine.

Jesus did not say that the eating of his Body and Blood is symbolic.

God bless you
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
9,688
10,852
Neath
✟799,859.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
John 6:53-55

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 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Where does Jesus say it is symbolic? :scratch:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
692
315
✟65,427.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
So Jesus was telling his audience to disobey God's law?
That's going to be hard to justify apart from avoiding the question and citing "tradition".

Jesus said "I am the vine". Did that mean one would have expected to be able to pick grapes from him? I think not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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)."

Cutting-and-pasting some Catholic doctrine doesn't mean a thing to those of us who are Protestant.

Jesus, reclining at a table, handed the bread and wine to His disciples. He was alive, well, and real. What He was not -- and is not -- is bread and wine. He was, is, and always will be human. If I drink a toast at a wedding, does that mean that the wine and cake become the bride and groom?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vanellus
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
John 6:53-55

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 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Where does Jesus say it is symbolic? :scratch:

So you think that Jesus was telling His followers to be cannibals? Do you really think that He is not talking about symbolism? If anyone practices cannibalism there isn't a court in the entire world that wouldn't convict them.

Jesus is not bread and not wine. He was, is, and always will be fully human. To reduce our Lord to everyday food and drink is truly bizarre -- unless it is symbolic. Do you really think that sitting at the right hand of God is a loaf of bread and a glass of wine?
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
9,688
10,852
Neath
✟799,859.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So you think that Jesus was telling His followers to be cannibals? Do you really think that He is not talking about symbolism? If anyone practices cannibalism there isn't a court in the entire world that wouldn't convict them.

Jesus is not bread and not wine. He was, is, and always will be fully human. To reduce our Lord to everyday food and drink is truly bizarre -- unless it is symbolic. Do you really think that sitting at the right hand of God is a loaf of bread and a glass of wine?

As you said in your last text, you are a protestant. You dont like anything 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox'.

It is only since 'protestantism' was born that people didnt believe in the real presence.

Martin Luther, who brought in the protestant 'religion' believed in the real presence.

The early church fathers, the whole early church, believed in the real presence.

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

You, my dear friend, are looking at it as if it is cannibalism. You need to look into it a bit more deeply and thoughtfully. Look up 'Transubstantiation'. But, i am sure you will dismiss that truth too.

God bless you
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

What is the connection with these texts?

  1. Revelation 5:8
    And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
    In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
  2. Revelation 8:3
    And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
    In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
  3. Revelation 8:4
    And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As you said in your last text, you are a protestant. You dont like anything 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox'.

It is only since 'protestantism' was born that people didnt believe in the real presence.

Martin Luther, who brought in the protestant 'religion' believed in the real presence.

The early church fathers, the whole early church, believed in the real presence.

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

You, my dear friend, are looking at it as if it is cannibalism. You need to look into it a bit more deeply and thoughtfully. Look up 'Transubstantiation'. But, i am sure you will dismiss that truth too.

God bless you

You're right in saying that I don't like anything 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox' -- speaking doctrinally that is. I have nothing against Catholics or Orthodox people.

You adhere to a doctrine created by the early "church fathers", but I believe the Bible, the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Sola Scriptura. I know exactly what the Bible says, or more properly, what Jesus said, and that's what I believe. I don't look at it as if it is cannibalism -- you do! You are the one saying it's the actual body and blood of Christ, not me.

I have celebrated the life, death, and life of our Lord Jesus Christ many times while sharing wine and bread with my friends, as we are instructed to do by the Lord. If you want to turn it into some denominational tradition, go ahead. Maybe that's why, as a Protestant, I have my own way of celebrating the Lord's death and resurrection; I don't have to turn it into an official ritual.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You wrote, "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." So... That is just Catholic doctrine. If you want to go along with that, fine. But I'm not a Catholic, son I don't go along with it. Here is what the Bible says...

Matthew 26:26-28, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus, a human, took bread and broke it, then said “Take, eat, this is my body.” Now obviously something needs to be examined more closely. Jesus held up a piece of bread in His hand! Then He said "...this is my body" while holding the bread in His hand!! So it may represent His body, but if it is His actual body, who is holding the bread?? Then He said to drink from the cup. Did the cup contain His blood? If so, how did the person holding the cup stay alive without blood?

It makes me sad that you and others can't just accept the symbolism of what Jesus was teaching. After He died and was resurrected He left us a ritual by which to remember His sacrifice. Now, think about this: Jesus was resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of God. He is there; His body is there. It's not on Earth disguised as bread; the bread is symbolic, as is the wine.

"
But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. The nutriment is the milk of the Father, by which alone we infants are nourished. The Word Himself, then, the beloved One, and our nourisher, has shed His own blood for us, to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, the care-soothing breast of the Father. And He alone, as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those only are truly blessed who suck this breast. Wherefore also Peter says: Laying therefore aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisy, and envy, and evil speaking, as new-born babes, desire the milk of the word, that you may grow by it to salvation; if you have tasted that the Lord is Christ. And were one to concede to them that the meat was something different from the milk, then how shall they avoid being transfixed on their own spit, through want of consideration of nature? For in winter, when the air is condensed, and prevents the escape of the heat enclosed within, the food, transmuted and digested and changed into blood, passes into the veins, and these, in the absence of exhalation, are greatly distended, and exhibit strong pulsations; consequently also nurses are then fullest of milk. And we have shown a little above, that on pregnancy blood passes into milk by a change which does not affect its substance, just as in old people yellow hair changes to grey. But again in summer, the body, having its pores more open, affords greater facility for diaphoretic action in the case of the food, and the milk is least abundant, since neither is the blood full, nor is the whole nutriment retained. If, then, the digestion of the food results in the production of blood, and the blood becomes milk, then blood is a preparation for milk, as blood is for a human beings, and the grape for the vine. With milk, then, the Lord's nutriment, we are nursed directly we are born; and as soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest, even the Jerusalem above, in which it is written that milk and honey fall in showers, receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. For meats are done away with, 1 Corinthians 6:13 as the apostle himself says; but this nourishment on milk leads to the heavens, rearing up citizens of heaven, and members of the angelic choirs. And since the Word is the gushing fountain of life, and has been called a river of olive oil, Paul, using appropriate figurative language, and calling Him milk, adds: I have given you to drink; 1 Corinthians 3:2 for we drink in the word, the nutriment of the truth. In truth, also liquid food is called drink; and the same thing may somehow be both meat and drink, according to the different aspects in which it is considered, just as cheese is the solidification of milk or milk solidified; for I am not concerned here to make a nice selection of an expression, only to say that one substance supplies both articles of food. Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices; it serves both for meat and drink. I, says the Lord, have meat to eat that you know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me. John 4:32-34 You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically a cup, when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father's will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father's breasts of love supply milk.

Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. For Moses, He says, gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, And the bread which I will give is My flesh, and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

And that the blood is the Word, is testified by the blood of Abel, the righteous interceding with God. For the blood would never have uttered a voice, had it not been regarded as the Word: for the righteous man of old is the type of the new righteous one; and the blood of old that interceded, intercedes in the place of the new blood. And the blood that is the Word cries to God, since it intimated that the Word was to suffer." CHURCH FATHERS: The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria)
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"In the case of figurative signs we need to guard against two mistakes:--i. The interpreting literal expressions figuratively; 2. The interpreting figurative expressions literally. The author lays down rules by which we may decide whether an expression is literal or figurative; the general rule being, that whatever can be shown to be in its literal sense inconsistent either with purity of life or correctness of doctrine must be taken figuratively. He then goes on to lay down rules for the interpretation of expressions which have been proved to be figurative; the general principle being, that no interpretation can be true which does not promote the love of God and the love of man. The author then proceeds to expound and illustrate the seven rules of Tichonius the Donatist, which he commends to the attention of the student of Holy Scripture." CHURCH FATHERS: On Christian Doctrine (St. Augustine)

Chapter 10.— How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.
14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor. Now all these matters have been spoken of in the first book.

15. But as men are prone to estimate sins, not by reference to their inherent sinfulness, but rather by reference to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man will think nothing blameable except what the men of his own country and time are accustomed to condemn, and nothing worthy of praise or approval except what is sanctioned by the custom of his companions; and thus it comes to pass, that if Scripture either enjoins what is opposed to the customs of the hearers, or condemns what is not so opposed, and if at the same time the authority of the word has a hold upon their minds, they think that the expression is figurative. Now Scripture enjoins nothing except charity, and condemns nothing except lust, and in that way fashions the lives of men. In the same way, if an erroneous opinion has taken possession of the mind, men think that whatever Scripture asserts contrary to this must be figurative. Now Scripture asserts nothing but the Catholic faith, in regard to things past, future, and present. It is a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present. But all these tend to nourish and strengthen charity, and to overcome and root out lust.

16. I mean by charity that affection of the mind which aims at the enjoyment of God for His own sake, and the enjoyment of one's self and one's neighbor in subordination to God; by lust I mean that affection of the mind which aims at enjoying one's self and one's neighbor, and other corporeal things, without reference to God. Again, what lust, when unsubdued, does towards corrupting one's own soul and body, is called vice; but what it does to injure another is called crime. And these are the two classes into which all sins may be divided. But the vices come first; for when these have exhausted the soul, and reduced it to a kind of poverty, it easily slides into crimes, in order to remove hindrances to, or to find assistance in, its vices. In the same way, what charity does with a view to one's own advantage is prudence; but what it does with a view to a neighbor's advantage is called benevolence. And here prudence comes first; because no one can confer an advantage on another which he does not himself possess. Now in proportion as the dominion of lust is pulled down, in the same proportion is that of charity built up.
CHURCH FATHERS: On Christian Doctrine, Book III (St. Augustine)
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So Jesus was telling his audience to disobey God's law?
That's going to be hard to justify apart from avoiding the question and citing "tradition".

Jesus said "I am the vine". Did that mean one would have expected to be able to pick grapes from him? I think not.

Philemon 1:20
Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9)
Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,429
2,509
Livingston County, MI, US
✟175,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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)."

Given the possibility that Real Presence is real. At what point does the Real Presence leave the after consumption?
 
Upvote 0

mlepfitjw

May you be blessed!
Jun 23, 2020
1,632
1,096
Alabama
✟29,877.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello there not interested in what the early church believed.

All that is being said by Jesus Christ is telling us to remember his death, and to remember his words.

We are going to die here on this planet.

It is good to remember that one day we are going to be resurrected like Jesus Christ explained himself and go on to God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"
But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. The nutriment is the milk of the Father, by which alone we infants are nourished. The Word Himself, then, the beloved One, and our nourisher, has shed His own blood for us, to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, the care-soothing breast of the Father. And He alone, as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those only are truly blessed who suck this breast. Wherefore also Peter says: Laying therefore aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisy, and envy, and evil speaking, as new-born babes, desire the milk of the word, that you may grow by it to salvation; if you have tasted that the Lord is Christ. And were one to concede to them that the meat was something different from the milk, then how shall they avoid being transfixed on their own spit, through want of consideration of nature? For in winter, when the air is condensed, and prevents the escape of the heat enclosed within, the food, transmuted and digested and changed into blood, passes into the veins, and these, in the absence of exhalation, are greatly distended, and exhibit strong pulsations; consequently also nurses are then fullest of milk. And we have shown a little above, that on pregnancy blood passes into milk by a change which does not affect its substance, just as in old people yellow hair changes to grey. But again in summer, the body, having its pores more open, affords greater facility for diaphoretic action in the case of the food, and the milk is least abundant, since neither is the blood full, nor is the whole nutriment retained. If, then, the digestion of the food results in the production of blood, and the blood becomes milk, then blood is a preparation for milk, as blood is for a human beings, and the grape for the vine. With milk, then, the Lord's nutriment, we are nursed directly we are born; and as soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest, even the Jerusalem above, in which it is written that milk and honey fall in showers, receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. For meats are done away with, 1 Corinthians 6:13 as the apostle himself says; but this nourishment on milk leads to the heavens, rearing up citizens of heaven, and members of the angelic choirs. And since the Word is the gushing fountain of life, and has been called a river of olive oil, Paul, using appropriate figurative language, and calling Him milk, adds: I have given you to drink; 1 Corinthians 3:2 for we drink in the word, the nutriment of the truth. In truth, also liquid food is called drink; and the same thing may somehow be both meat and drink, according to the different aspects in which it is considered, just as cheese is the solidification of milk or milk solidified; for I am not concerned here to make a nice selection of an expression, only to say that one substance supplies both articles of food. Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices; it serves both for meat and drink. I, says the Lord, have meat to eat that you know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me. John 4:32-34 You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically a cup, when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father's will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father's breasts of love supply milk.

Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. For Moses, He says, gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, And the bread which I will give is My flesh, and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

And that the blood is the Word, is testified by the blood of Abel, the righteous interceding with God. For the blood would never have uttered a voice, had it not been regarded as the Word: for the righteous man of old is the type of the new righteous one; and the blood of old that interceded, intercedes in the place of the new blood. And the blood that is the Word cries to God, since it intimated that the Word was to suffer." CHURCH FATHERS: The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria)

I don't know where this (prerecorded) message is from but I'm glad that you posted it. It's clearly the reason that I am a non-denominational Protestant.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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)."

Sola scriptura. I am not a Catholic, so the above doesn't resonate with me nor with what the Bible says.

Ignatius didn't write any of the canon of Scripture.

J. N. D. Kelly wrote "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”. So? Because the Eucharistic teaching was "in general unquestioningly realist" doesn't mean it's true. It's nothing more than a comment about the observance of a ritual.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,535
4,769
✟498,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
John 6:53-55

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 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Where does Jesus say it is symbolic? :scratch:

Where does it say that we're supposed to be literal cannibals?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.