The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[Standing Up]

Interesting.

Zwingli credited the Dutch humanist, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), for first suggesting the "is" in the institution words "This is my body" meant "signifies".[11] Hoen sent a letter to Zwingli in 1524 with this interpretation along with biblical examples to support it. It is impossible to say how the letter impacted Zwingli's theology although Zwingli claimed that he already held the symbolic view when he read the letter. He first mentioned the "signifies" interpretation in a letter to Matthäus Alber, an associate of Luther. Zwingli denies transubstantiation using John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail", as support.[12] He commended Andreas Karlstadt's understanding of the significance of faith, but rejected Karlstadt’s view that the word "this" refers to Christ’s body rather than the bread. Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the "signifies" interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.[13]

...

The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts “the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ”. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwingli’s view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. Zwingli also appealed to several passages of scripture with John 6:63 in particular. He saw Luther’s view as denying Christ’s humanity and asserted that Christ’s body is only at one place and that is at the right hand of God.[17] The Marburg Colloquy did not produce anything new in the debate between the two reformers. Neither changed their positions, but it did produce some further developments in their own views. Zwingli, for example, noted that the bread was not mere bread and affirmed terms such as “presence”, “true”, and “sacramental”. However, it was Zwingli's and Luther’s differences in their understanding of faith, their Christology, their approach and use of scripture that ultimately made any agreement impossible.[18]
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[virgilio]

We Zwinglians are consistent in our hermeneutic concerning the bread and wine. When Jesus took the bread and said, "Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you." the bread did not become his body in any physical sense or "spiritual" sense, however that word might be defined. He used a metaphor which would have been clearly understood by the disciples and, indeed, is understood in the Jewish Passover seder. The bread symbolizes the physical body of Jesus even as the wine symbolizes the physical blood of Jesus. All Christian agree on the symbolic understanding of the bread and the wine but some have chosen to add additional meanings to them which were never intended by our Lord.

Hello bbbbbbb & simonthezealot greetings,
It's my honor that you had given me a chance to share our view with each other in my side hoping that this will bring us harmony and understanding about the words of God. I decide to answer you combo knowing you both believed in Zwinglians doctrine.

I would like to introduce to you that I'm non denomination or a non sectarian believer but my faith is in accordance with the Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I don't have human Pastor and my theology is not mine but from the Lord which is our great Pastor Psalm 23:1

In regards with our topic "doctrine of Wine and bread" as much as possible it's unlikely for me to comment or criticize others belief in due respect that we are all brothers and sister and knowing each of us is given according to measurements of our faith. Romans 12:3

In my personal belief that was given to me by God the doctrine of eating the body (flesh or bread) and drinking of Jesus blood (wine) was taught in John 6:50-58 Here there are no literal bread used but doctrine of words so, this is considered as spiritual body as been affirmed later in John 6:63
His audience here are his disciples, follower/believer and Jews. All those who heard his teaching didn't understand the meaning, and they said, "This is hard saying; who can hear it. John 6:60 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walk no more with him. except the twelve John 6:66-67.

Second event that Jesus teaches "wine and bread" was in the night of Passover where a feast of "Seder" was being observe. As a traditional belief of Jews they must offer a Lamb but Jesus made a radical substitution using bread and wine in place of Lamb and blood of animals. This is were the sacrament of "Holy Eucharist" was born implied from the words of Jesus after giving thanks "This is my body (bread) braken for you, take it, eat, and after same manner, give thanks, supped and say this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22:19-20
Luke 22:22 For the Son of Man is to go just as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!”

Paul gave a doctrine which manifested the importance of "eating the flesh and drinking of blood of Jesus. Let's take note why did Jesus give this ordinances on the night Jesus was betrayed or before his prosecution? answer is;Jesus is knowledgeable of Jewish and God's law,
Galatians 3:15 Brethren I speak after the manner of man, Though it be a man's covenant, yet it be confirmed, no man disannuleth, or added thereto. He give this ordinances while he was alive or before he die to be a new law in he new covenant.(emphasis mine)
Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength while the testator liveth.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. and this is the word that Paul heard from the mouth of Jesus in Acts 22:14

Conclusion John 6:63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.
In literal our body needs food to sustain a better health and it is parallel in spiritual that we need spiritual food for regeneration of our spirit.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[virgilio]

Interesting.

Zwingli credited the Dutch humanist, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), for first suggesting the "is" in the institution words "This is my body" meant "signifies".[11] Hoen sent a letter to Zwingli in 1524 with this interpretation along with biblical examples to support it. It is impossible to say how the letter impacted Zwingli's theology although Zwingli claimed that he already held the symbolic view when he read the letter. He first mentioned the "signifies" interpretation in a letter to Matthäus Alber, an associate of Luther. Zwingli denies transubstantiation using John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail", as support.[12] He commended Andreas Karlstadt's understanding of the significance of faith, but rejected Karlstadt’s view that the word "this" refers to Christ’s body rather than the bread. Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the "signifies" interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.[13]

...

The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts “the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ”. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwingli’s view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. Zwingli also appealed to several passages of scripture with John 6:63 in particular. He saw Luther’s view as denying Christ’s humanity and asserted that Christ’s body is only at one place and that is at the right hand of God.[17] The Marburg Colloquy did not produce anything new in the debate between the two reformers. Neither changed their positions, but it did produce some further developments in their own views. Zwingli, for example, noted that the bread was not mere bread and affirmed terms such as “presence”, “true”, and “sacramental”. However, it was Zwingli's and Luther’s differences in their understanding of faith, their Christology, their approach and use of scripture that ultimately made any agreement impossible.[18]
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Standing Up greetings,
Sorry, for not including you in post with bbbbbbb and simonthezealot because I don't know if you have same belief or theology with them.
I'll not give any commentaries about theology of other and instead I'll share my opinion about the metaphor of bread and wine which signify the body of Christ.
As what you said "Interesting" and it will be more interesting and significant if we do understand the true meaning and spirit of this doctrine of Jesus because these were the spiritual and imperishable bread that endure to everlasting life that the Son of man shall give us because he was the sealed by God.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[Rick Otto]

Interesting.

Zwingli credited the Dutch humanist, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), for first suggesting the "is" in the institution words "This is my body" meant "signifies".[11] Hoen sent a letter to Zwingli in 1524 with this interpretation along with biblical examples to support it. It is impossible to say how the letter impacted Zwingli's theology although Zwingli claimed that he already held the symbolic view when he read the letter. He first mentioned the "signifies" interpretation in a letter to Matthäus Alber, an associate of Luther. Zwingli denies transubstantiation using John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail", as support.[12] He commended Andreas Karlstadt's understanding of the significance of faith, but rejected Karlstadt’s view that the word "this" refers to Christ’s body rather than the bread. Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the "signifies" interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.[13]

...

The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts “the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ”. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwingli’s view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. Zwingli also appealed to several passages of scripture with John 6:63 in particular. He saw Luther’s view as denying Christ’s humanity and asserted that Christ’s body is only at one place and that is at the right hand of God.[17] The Marburg Colloquy did not produce anything new in the debate between the two reformers. Neither changed their positions, but it did produce some further developments in their own views. Zwingli, for example, noted that the bread was not mere bread and affirmed terms such as “presence”, “true”, and “sacramental”. However, it was Zwingli's and Luther’s differences in their understanding of faith, their Christology, their approach and use of scripture that ultimately made any agreement impossible.[18]
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also of interest may be the fact that the Protestant acceptance of doctrinal diversity allowed the secularization of knowlege, allowing social advances we enjoy today.
Quibbling over the definition of "is" doesn't have a good history.

 

[virgilio]

Also of interest may be the fact that the Protestant acceptance of doctrinal diversity allowed the secularization of knowlege, allowing social advances we enjoy today.
Quibbling over the definition of "is" doesn't have a good history.

Hello Rick Otto greetings,
In due respect to our brothers and sisters faith I shall not give comment about their belief.
1 Corinthians 6:12 “All things are lawful for me” but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be controlled by anything.

Proverbs 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern and running water from your own well.

We need not judge the works of others because Romans 14:11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 14:12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[Rick Otto]

Hello Rick Otto greetings,
In due respect to our brothers and sisters faith I shall not give comment about their belief.
1 Corinthians 6:12 “All things are lawful for me” but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be controlled by anything.

Proverbs 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern and running water from your own well.

We need not judge the works of others because Romans 14:11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 14:12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

Sounds like you've made a judgement call on that.
"No comment comments" I am especialy entertained by.
...and I say that with all due respect.

 

[virgilio]

Sounds like you've made a judgement call on that.
"No comment comments" I am especialy entertained by.
...and I say that with all due respect.

Hello Rick Otto greetings.
Yes. truly I made judgements unto myself and not to others; because according to our judgement we shall be judge. Pertaining to metaphor of eating bread and drinking of wine herewith is my testimony in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:28-31 A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.
11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.
11:30 That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.
11:31 But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[Rick Otto]

Hello Rick Otto greetings.
Yes. truly I made judgements unto myself and not to others; because according to our judgement we shall be judge. Pertaining to metaphor of eating bread and drinking of wine herewith is my testimony in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:28-31 A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.
11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.
11:30 That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.
11:31 But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

Thanks for that, friend I'm feeling a lot better unto myself now.
I would add that careful regard for the rules of grammar help us discern metaphors & other figures of speech like "I am the vine" & "He is the Lamb"
It is also my great pleasure to inform you of my good health & expectations of longevity.
Cheers.

 

[Standing Up]

" The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts “the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ”. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwingli’s view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. "
-cite above post-

Isn't that also the RC and EO POV? IOW, the efficacy of the cross is found at the eucharist, the priest presiding over the bread/wine.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes. The flesh profiteth everything.

 

[virgilio]

Thanks for that, friend I'm feeling a lot better unto myself now.
I would add that careful regard for the rules of grammar help us discern metaphors & other figures of speech like "I am the vine" & "He is the Lamb"
It is also my great pleasure to inform you of my good health & expectations of longevity.
Cheers.

Hello Rick Otto greetings,
I'm glad that you are in good health and I wish more years for you to come.
I would also like to inform you that being an Asian, English is only my second language and pardon me if sometimes we have language barrier.
Here are some quote that I would like to share with you. This is something that was very long and I request some patience in reading these.

Ecclesiastes 6:2-6 one to whom God giveth riches, wealth, and honour, and he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and a sore evil.
v.6 If a man beget a hundred [sons], and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, but his soul be not filled with good, and also he have no burial, I say an untimely birth is better than he.
v.4 For it cometh in vanity, and departeth in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness;
v.5 moreover it hath not seen nor known the sun: this hath rest rather than the other.
v.6 Yea, though he live twice a thousand years, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Ecclesiastes 5:15 As he came forth from his mother's womb, naked shall he go away again as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.

Here are quote about a rich man who thinks that all his possesion is enough for him to have happy life.
Luke 12:16-21 And he spoke a parable to them, saying, The land of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly.
and he reasoned within himself saying, What shall I do? for I have not [a place] where I shall lay up my fruits. and he said, This will I do: I will take away my granaries and build greater, and there I will lay up all my produce and my good things;
19 and I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much good things laid by for many years; repose thyself, eat, drink, be merry.
20 But God said to him, Fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; and whose shall be what thou hast prepared?
21 Thus is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Our physical body needs food and nutrients to sustain better health, a happy and longevity of life and in spiritual our spirit also is in need of spiritual food and clothing reason why Jesus offered his body for meat and his blood for drink for regeneration of our spirit and to clothed with white raiment so that our nakedness do not appear Revelation 3:18
[FONT=&quot]John 6:52-58 The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, How can he give us this flesh to eat?
53 Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves.
54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day:
55 for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.
56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him.
57 As the living Father has sent me and I live on account of the Father, *he* also who eats me shall live also on account of me. Clothed with white raiment
58 This is the bread which has come down out of heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died: he that eat shall live forever.

Hope you may learn something from here.
Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio
[/FONT]

 

[Rick Otto]

Sweet! Yes indeed. Learning that you are Asian informs a bit perhaps, of the reason for your formality. I appreciate the effort you have gone to to be here for me, brother.
For myself, the hardest part of dispensing with the notion of free will was in fact the issue of personal responsibility in the face of predestined choices.

Rom9:19:Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

I for a long time found Paul's answer dissatisfying until I began to define & differintiate the notions of guilt & responsibility and how they related to the concept of jurisdiction.

[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This perspective of total sovereignity is the context, or background if you will, to His specific purposes.

It is a pleasure to share this concern with you sir. Take your time. I'm not goin' anywhere far too soon, brother.

 

[Schroeder]

Our physical body needs food and nutrients to sustain better health, a happy and longevity of life and in spiritual our spirit also is in need of spiritual food and clothing reason why Jesus offered his body for meat and his blood for drink for regeneration of our spirit and to clothed with white raiment so that our nakedness do not appear Revelation 3:18
[FONT=&quot]John 6:52-58 The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, How can he give us this flesh to eat? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]53 Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]55 for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]57 As the living Father has sent me and I live on account of the Father, *he* also who eats me shall live also on account of me. Clothed with white raiment[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]58 This is the bread which has come down out of heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died: he that eat shall live forever.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hope you may learn something from here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you and God bless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]your brother in Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]virgilio[/FONT]

you need to read the FIRST part and finish as well to get the right context which you dont see. read verse 25-33 and then 59-69 the first part tells us Christ is the FOOD to give us strength. the Son of Man gave us the SPirit. which is what her says in the last part. He even states the FLESH counts for nothing, which is what yuour basing your theology on, our need of the Flesh to understand. read the first part with john 7:38-39. Bread is broken in the passover meal Christ goes through this in his sacrifice. thats what he was speaking of here and the passover meal. That they understand the passover and what it REALLY was FOR. To 'reveal HIMSELF to them. this passage has not a thing to do with the "euchurest" or communion rite. it was Him saying he is the passover meal the bread broken the new wine the drink to releave the thirst. CONTEXT. scripture interprets scripture. cant say this enough

 

[virgilio]

Sweet! Yes indeed. Learning that you are Asian informs a bit perhaps, of the reason for your formality. I appreciate the effort you have gone to to be here for me, brother.
For myself, the hardest part of dispensing with the notion of free will was in fact the issue of personal responsibility in the face of predestined choices.
virgilio wrote:
Hello Rick greetings,
I'm also glad to meet and share with you and others as an act of fellowship for our farther spiritual growth and regeneration.

Rom9:19:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

I for a long time found Paul's answer dissatisfying until I began to define & differintiate the notions of guilt & responsibility and how they related to the concept of jurisdiction.

[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This perspective of total sovereignity is the context, or background if you will, to His specific purposes.

It is a pleasure to share this concern with you sir. Take your time. I'm not goin' anywhere far too soon, brother.

virgilio wrote:
This is very complicated topic which is really very hard to comprehend and it depend on one theology.
Let me begin with a simple definition. Predestination means that God freely choces some people to be the special subject of his grace and thus to receive eternal salvation.

Romans 8:28-30 But we *do* know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to purpose.

v.29 Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be [the] firstborn among many brethren.

v.30 But whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified.
In this verse we can say that the predestination is a "sovereign will" of God to predestined any chosen believers not looking to work of man but by his own sovereign power as a potter to clay to be molded as he wishes.

But I think we can make it even simpler than that: The word predestination is composed to two parts: “Pre” meaning “before” and “destination” meaning “point of final arrival.” To predestine something is to determine beforehand where it will end up. If I take a package to the post office, I don’t tell the people, “Send this wherever you like.” They wouldn’t know what to do with it. So,I write on the front, “Manila Philippines.” I have predestined my package to travel from Osaka Japan to Manila Philippines. By writing the address, I have predetermined its final arrival.

[FONT=&quot]
Predestination [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in this sense takes on a very literal meaning: pre- (before) and destiny, in a straightforward way indicating that some events seem bound to happen. The term, however, is often used to describe relationships instead of all events in general.
[/FONT]
Romans 9:11 [the children] indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls),

Here we can notice that God made an election not of works but by God's own purpose and God was doing the callings. We can easy conclude that predestination purposes was for Jews, but the other election are for Gentiles as we can read in following verse.
24 us, whom he has also called, not only from amongst [the] Jews, but also from amongst [the] nations?

25 As he says also in Hosea, I will call not-my-people My people; and the-not-beloved Beloved.

26 And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, *Ye* [are] not my people, there shall they be called Sons of [the] living God.

27 But Esaias cries concerning Israel, Should the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved:

28 for [he] is bringing the matter to an end, and [cutting [it] short in righteousness; because] a cutting short of the matter will [the] Lord accomplish upon the earth.

29 And according as Esaias said before, Unless [the] Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and made like even as Gomorrha.

Romans 9:8 That is, [they that are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned as seed.

Galatians 3:29 but if *ye* [are] of Christ, then ye are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

Jesus said that a man must be born again to see kingdom of heaven John 3:3 by incorruptible seed or by the word of God, which liveth forever.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[virgilio]

you need to read the FIRST part and finish as well to get the right context which you dont see. read verse 25-33 and then 59-69 the first part tells us Christ is the FOOD to give us strength. the Son of Man gave us the SPirit. which is what her says in the last part. He even states the FLESH counts for nothing, which is what yuour basing your theology on, our need of the Flesh to understand. read the first part with john 7:38-39. Bread is broken in the passover meal Christ goes through this in his sacrifice. thats what he was speaking of here and the passover meal. That they understand the passover and what it REALLY was FOR. To 'reveal HIMSELF to them. this passage has not a thing to do with the "euchurest" or communion rite. it was Him saying he is the passover meal the bread broken the new wine the drink to releave the thirst. CONTEXT. scripture interprets scripture. cant say this enough

Hello Schroeder greetings,
Thank you for your reply and it's a great pleasure to have dliscussion with you. First of all as what I had been saying in my past quote here and in other thread as much as possible I try not to make comments that may hurt other and out of due respect to other's belief.
So, i shall give only my own thoughts and understanding of the scripture and not in other way as an assertive provocation on your belief.

Earlier passage in John 6:25-33 refer to manna that the Jews ate in wilderness, and are dead. In later part of John 6 48-58 is the bread of life or the flesh of the Son of man.

The flesh of Jesus is not actually braken in Last Supper in the night of Passover but he used literal bread as a metaphor to signify his body. He first gave thanks and pick up bread, brake it and said, Take it, eat it, this is my body which is braken for you.

Schroeder wrote:
this passage has not a thing to do with the "euchurest" or communion rite. it was Him saying he is the passover meal the bread broken the new wine the drink to releave the thirst. CONTEXT. scripture interprets scripture. cant say this enough.

virgilio wrote;
I agree with you that this is nothing to do with "Eucharist or communion rite"
because this two words are out of context and not biblical.

Pertaining to John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
This refer to receiving gifts of Holy Ghost as we can read in Acts 2 during Pentecost.

Hope this help.
Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[steve_bakr]

Hello Schroeder greetings,
Thank you for your reply and it's a great pleasure to have dliscussion with you. First of all as what I had been saying in my past quote here and in other thread as much as possible I try not to make comments that may hurt other and out of due respect to other's belief.
So, i shall give only my own thoughts and understanding of the scripture and not in other way as an assertive provocation on your belief.

Earlier passage in John 6:25-33 refer to manna that the Jews ate in wilderness, and are dead. In later part of John 6 48-58 is the bread of life or the flesh of the Son of man.

The flesh of Jesus is not actually braken in Last Supper in the night of Passover but he used literal bread as a metaphor to signify his body. He first gave thanks and pick up bread, brake it and said, Take it, eat it, this is my body which is braken for you.

Schroeder wrote:
this passage has not a thing to do with the "euchurest" or communion rite. it was Him saying he is the passover meal the bread broken the new wine the drink to releave the thirst. CONTEXT. scripture interprets scripture. cant say this enough.

Hello virgilio,

Before you get the wrong impression, I will tell you that I am Catholic, so I believe that Christ is Real and Present in the Eucharist.

Having said that, I believe it was Augustine who wrote that Chapter 6 of John's Gospel was not talking about the Eucharistic species but of Christ as the Word of God. It is very common to use John 6 in Eucharistic apologetics, but I think it is misapplied to that context.

Now, this does not give Protestants the victory in the Symbolic vs. Real Presence debate, but I think that an apologetic for the Eucharist is more subtle than this.

Paul does refer to Christ's Real Presence in a couple of his epistles and we do know that the early Church believed in the Real Presence. The evidence is there in the writings of the Church Fathers and this is why Protestants won't admit them into evidence (aka sola scriptura).

But honestly, I think we need to leave off tweaking John 6 into our apologetics for Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Mostly I would like to invite Protestants to Mass so they can "Come and see."

Peace

 

[virgilio]

Hello virgilio,

Before you get the wrong impression, I will tell you that I am Catholic, so I believe that Christ is Real and Present in the Eucharist.

Hello steve,
nice to meet you and glad to tell you almost all my relatives were also RCC except my family.

Having said that, I believe it was Augustine who wrote that Chapter 6 of John's Gospel was not talking about the Eucharistic species but of Christ as the Word of God. It is very common to use John 6 in Eucharistic apologetics, but I think it is misapplied to that context.

virgilio wrote:
I agree that that John 6 and other verse 1 Corinthians 11:24-26, Luke22:18-20, Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25 all pertain to Christ as the "Word of God" which incarnate as a living bread that came down from heaven, so that any man who eateth it will have everlasting life.
Yes, i agree that religion has misapplied it as transubstantiation on which different sectarians debated on whom was correct.

Now, this does not give Protestants the victory in the Symbolic vs. Real Presence debate, but I think that an apologetic for the Eucharist is more subtle than this.

Paul does refer to Christ's Real Presence in a couple of his epistles and we do know that the early Church believed in the Real Presence. The evidence is there in the writings of the Church Fathers and this is why Protestants won't admit them into evidence (aka sola scriptura).

virgilio wrote:
As what I had said earlier, no comment.

But honestly, I think we need to leave off tweaking John 6 into our apologetics for Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.[/qoute]

virgilio wrote:
I have answered this above.
[qoute]Mostly I would like to invite Protestants to Mass so they can "Come and see."

Peace

virgilio wrote:
nice

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[Erose]

Hello virgilio,

Before you get the wrong impression, I will tell you that I am Catholic, so I believe that Christ is Real and Present in the Eucharist.

Having said that, I believe it was Augustine who wrote that Chapter 6 of John's Gospel was not talking about the Eucharistic species but of Christ as the Word of God. It is very common to use John 6 in Eucharistic apologetics, but I think it is misapplied to that context.

Now, this does not give Protestants the victory in the Symbolic vs. Real Presence debate, but I think that an apologetic for the Eucharist is more subtle than this.

Paul does refer to Christ's Real Presence in a couple of his epistles and we do know that the early Church believed in the Real Presence. The evidence is there in the writings of the Church Fathers and this is why Protestants won't admit them into evidence (aka sola scriptura).

But honestly, I think we need to leave off tweaking John 6 into our apologetics for Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Mostly I would like to invite Protestants to Mass so they can "Come and see."

Peace

Steve, I think you have to be careful making comments like that. St Augustine never said that John 6 had nothing to do with the Eucharist and could not be used to teach that point. No, St. Augustine interpreted in a different way to get another message across to his church. Scripture is much like a multi layered onion and as such one or more people can use a passage to make a differing point. There are other church fathers that used John 6 in reference to teaching the Eucharist and these cannot be ignored. st john chrysostom interpreted both ways in the very same writing.

What I am saying be careful.

 

[Schroeder]

Hello Schroeder greetings,
Thank you for your reply and it's a great pleasure to have dliscussion with you. First of all as what I had been saying in my past quote here and in other thread as much as possible I try not to make comments that may hurt other and out of due respect to other's belief.
So, i shall give only my own thoughts and understanding of the scripture and not in other way as an assertive provocation on your belief.

thanks and i try to be neutral and not attack others beliefs. but dont always succed. I try to stick to scripture and interpretation.

Earlier passage in John 6:25-33 refer to manna that the Jews ate in wilderness, and are dead. In later part of John 6 48-58 is the bread of life or the flesh of the Son of man.

yes to me this indicates that the flesh or wordly fleshly things count for nothing. auch as rites and ordances that deal with our fleshly desires. It is spirtual now not physical.

The flesh of Jesus is not actually braken in Last Supper in the night of Passover but he used literal bread as a metaphor to signify his body. He first gave thanks and pick up bread, brake it and said, Take it, eat it, this is my body which is braken for you.

so this meal was the passover not the institution of a new rite correct. the do this is about them doing it at that moment. there is no other place in scripture thats states it was the start of a rite or sacrament for the Church seeing how the church wasnt even around and the Church isnt an organized group but those who have placed their heart in christ and have been given the Spirit.

Schroeder wrote:
this passage has not a thing to do with the "euchurest" or communion rite. it was Him saying he is the passover meal the bread broken the new wine the drink to releave the thirst. CONTEXT. scripture interprets scripture. cant say this enough.
virgilio wrote;
I agree with you that this is nothing to do with "Eucharist or communion rite"
because this two words are out of context and not biblical.

So why try to use it to say the eurcharist or communion are commanded for the Church.

Pertaining to John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
This refer to receiving gifts of Holy Ghost as we can read in Acts 2 during Pentecost.

Hope this help.
Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

Prove this interpretation with other scripture. becasue i dont find this to be correct. this passages goes with gal 3:2,14,22 and eph 1:13-14 1 cor 12:13. and many others. when we believe we recieve the Spirit. this is Chirst baptism with the Spirit that JTB spoke about. mark 16:16 Jesus says this. if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. Why because. you will not receive the saving Spirit unless you truelly believe in Christ. thats why he emphesis on the BELIEF part when he says but if you do not BELIEVE you will not be saved. This is also why he says repeatly if you believe on me you will be saved. I could go on and on. the Gifts of the Spirit are from the SPirit yes but they come after you are spirit baptized.

 

[virgilio]

thanks and i try to be neutral and not attack others beliefs. but dont always succed. I try to stick to scripture and interpretation.

virgilio wrote:
Good, we have same desire to share and not to teach.

yes to me this indicates that the flesh or wordly fleshly things count for nothing. auch as rites and ordances that deal with our fleshly desires. It is spirtual now not physical.

virgilio wrote:
agree, that rites and ordinances dealing with fleshly desire is right, but if the Spirit lives in flesh it is very profitable for it is the purpose of God that He made us to be his temple in Spirit. A body without Spirit is dead.

so this meal was the passover not the institution of a new rite correct.

virgilio wrote:
right/wrong, right the passover is a thanks giving meal,wrong, but the passover Jesus and his apostle which was held on the night before he was prosecuted became a commandment when he say do this in remembrance of me.

the do this is about them doing it at that moment.

virgilio wrote:
the "do this in remembrance of me" was said to them on that moment, but in Luke 11:25-26 In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come.

often=means-frequently; many times; repeatedly.
so, it was not say once or on that moment only but to repeat it every time
we shall praise or remember him.

there is no other place in scripture thats states it was the start of a rite or sacrament for the Church seeing how the church wasnt even around

virgilio wrote:
this is not for me to answer.

and the Church isnt an organized group but those have placed their heart in christ and have been given the Spirit.

virgilio wrote:
This is in contrary with my belief, I did not placed my heart in Christ but I let Christ dwelt in my heart and mind. As what I know all men has the Spirit of God in them but the sad truth they do not know that the Spirit of truth was within them. John 14:17

So why try to use it to say the eurcharist or communion are commanded for the Church.
Prove this interpretation with other scripture. becasue i dont find this to be correct. this passages goes with gal 3:2,14,22 and eph 1:13-14 1 cor 12:13. and many others. when we believe we recieve the Spirit. this is Chirst baptism with the Spirit that JTB spoke about. mark 16:16 Jesus says this. if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. Why because. you will not receive the saving Spirit unless you truelly believe in Christ. thats why he emphesis on the BELIEF part when he says but if you do not BELIEVE you will not be saved. This is also why he says repeatly if you believe on me you will be saved. I could go on and on. the Gifts of the Spirit are from the SPirit yes but they come after you are spirit baptized.

virgilio wrote:
This is for the church and not mine.
Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio