What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[JulieB67]

I am talking about a "physical meeting space" and while being with like minded people would be nice, what about those who are stumbling or spirtually confused and even lost; all "Churches" have them. Should we not try to edify, lift up, strengthen and encourage those who are weak?

Again, the Church itself is the many membered/community of believers founded by Christ.

And of course the body of Christ should edify, lift up and encourage one another when possible- that goes without saying.

But how are we helping those in churches that are confused and lost? That's the big question. Indoctrinating them in traditions that were not brought forth by the prophets/Christ's ministry which the disciples/apostles taught? I think that would do far more damage.

Of course not all churches are bad but the good ones are few and far between. Churches that you can walk in and get straight up biblical teaching, chapter by chapter verse by verse.
Personal sermons that have nothing to do with the word of God would serve no one, especially the lost. And only cause more confusion. We need to hear Gods' Word, not man's. Not men's traditions that make void the word of God. That kind of "meeting place" is hard to come by. I know, I've been to many churches before. The only thing I hope and pray for is that those who are lost and confused in these many churches will seek out the truths for themselves. So in that way walking in a church might be good for them. Those in the early churches certainly searched the scriptures, etc.

And if anyone is not lost in that church, you shouldn't as Paul states keep laying the same principles and foundations of Christ, you need to move on to maturing as a Christian. Once you've learned the foundation for repentance which is Christ you don't have to keep learning it over and over. That's basically just receiving milk over and over.

Hebrews 6:1 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection (maturing); not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Hebrews 6:2 "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."


But telling a person they have to go to a certain church once a week or they are sinning against God is another thing entirely. Especially if certain churches are far removed from traditions that the early churches brought forth. No offense, I don't personally see those as real churches.

What you describe sounds like a very narcissistic and selfish faith.

If that was the case I wouldn't even be on the Christian Forums.

But I'm always hopeful there's a lurker out there that is lost and confused...

 

[WilliamC]

Then what is the metaphor?
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."
If it is a requirement for abiding in Him, it must be important.

It is no different than the metaphor in Jn.4:13,14- "But whoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Or, Jn.10:9 "I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved; and shall go in and out, and be nourished".
There are many verses about abiding in Him, "Anyone who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son". IIJn. 9 This must be just as important then. "If you keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fathers commandments and abide in His love". Jn.15:10

If as Paul teaches in 1 Co 11, breaking bread and partaking of the Cup
of Salvation is a necessity for the fellowship of the saints at the Lord's
table,

No mention of a cup of salvation. It doesn't even mention it is a necessity for anything. Christ stated that eating the bread and drinking the wine was done simply in a remembrance 11:24,25. The communion represented the new covenant in Christ's blood vs.25, and Paul elaborates in saying that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's DEATH till He come". vs.26.
As I recall, the text in Lk.22:20 says it was to be blood that was SHED, as does Mk.14:24 and Mt.26:28.
Christ's blood was not shed at the Last Supper...it happened at the cross. So the New Covenant did not take take affect until Christ died. See Heb. 9:15,16,17 "And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first agreement they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, For where a covenant is, there MUST also be of necessity be the DEATH of the testator. For a covenant is of force AFTER men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives". Your idea of bread and wine being Christ's real flesh and blood as being salvific...does not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

then "eat my flesh and drink my blood" must demand the fellowship
of the Spirit in the breaking of bread from house to house, as we find in
the first century church in Acts.

Acts 2:46 says that they continued daily in one accord in the temple, and broke bread from house to house, did eat their meat (meals) with gladness and singleness of heart.
And Acts 20::7 says that upon the first day of the week (Sat. night) the disciples came together to break bread (doesn't say a service here) because Paul was leaving in the morning and preached till midnight, that Eutychus fell out of a window and died. Paul fell on him and revived him and he broke bread (eaten a meal) talked till the morrow. Nothing here but a simple meal being eaten. It was such, or it would have been partaken in an
unworthy fashion otherwise.

Philippians 2:
1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ,
if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit,
if any affection and mercy,
2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love,
being of one accord, of one mind.

Amen
Amen

 

[WilliamC]

"The flesh" means things of the flesh, NOT the Body of Jesus. When Jesus faced questioning such as yours He used a different word for "eat," making it clear they were to eat His Body. Study the Greek text. That word means to "masticate" or to "gnaw." Realize that the three leaders of the reformation call came up with new and different ideas of the Holy Eucharist and it got worse from there.

To eats Christ's flesh is to symbolically eat Him up, be satisfied...accept His sacrifice.
I Cor.11:24-26 -Christ stated that eating the bread and drinking the wine was done simply in a remembrance 11:24,25. The communion represented the new covenant in Christ's blood vs.25, and Paul elaborates in saying that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's DEATH till He come". vs.26.
As I recall, the text in Lk.22:20 says it was to be blood that was SHED, as does Mk.14:24 and Mt.26:28.
Christ's blood was NOT shed at the Last Supper...it happened at the cross. So the New Covenant did not take affect until Christ died. See Heb. 9:15,16,17 "And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of DEATH, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first agreement they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, For where a covenant is, there MUST also be of necessity be the DEATH of the testator. For a covenant is of force AFTER men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives". Your idea of bread and wine being Christ's real flesh and blood as being salvific in any shape, form ,matter, or even a covenant...does not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.
I focus on the first century disciples and apostles, (Scriptures) not on any of the reformers really. Maybe a historicist of sorts. Blessings

 

[Valletta]

The Bible is full of things that are not repeated in other books of the Bible, the Book of John is still the Word of God. In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic (as you are saying, to be symbolically sacrificed) does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. There were a number of disciples who just could not believe Jesus and such a new concept for them, it was shocking and new enough that many disciples of Jesus left him. The consequences spelled out in the last sentence of 1 Cor 11 below can hardly be accepted as your explanation of remembrance:

1 Cor 11:23-29 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

John 6:53-56 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. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. RSVCE

Christ commands us to "do this" in remembrance of Him. Thus priests in the East and West bless the bread and wine, say the words of consecration, and give the Body and Blood of Jesus to the people.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You dont need crackers and grape juice for that. You receive Jesus when your willing to hear the real truth...the word, believe what your hear about Him, and accept Him as your Savior.
<Snip>

You know, numerically, most Christians world wide take our Lord at His Word; and consider this Blasphemy.

 

[concretecamper]

I think it is more fun sitting back and watching so called christians argue about what scripture teaches rather than trying to teach them the truth.

This thread is a prime example of what happens when you get rid of the teaching authority of Christ and His Church.

Everyone claims to be led by the spirit and there is such division. Division is not from The Holy Spirit. It seems many have fallen hook, line, and sinker into The Evil One's trap.

 

[RileyG]

You know, numerically, most Christians world wide take our Lord at His Word; and consider this Blasphemy.

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

You dont need crackers and grape juice for that. You receive Jesus when your willing to hear the real truth...the word, believe what your hear about Him, and accept Him as your Savior.
Its easy. "In whom ye also trusted (In Christ vs. 12) after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest (arabbon= down payment) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory". Eph. 1:13,14
Friend, that is as close and personal as it gets.

That is a metaphor. Its not really flesh and blood. They are not life. Jesus also said in Jn.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".
Jesus also said in Jn. 6:40 "And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day". This verse says believes on Him, which is different from the verse above.
Friend,
we reconcile Scripture, and be able to see that it all boils down to belief in Jesus...what He did on the cross for us..and what He is doing in heaven for us now, mediating and reconciling us into His kingdom in heaven. Blessings

That's your proof text. Not what ancient Christianity or apostolic Christians have taught.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think it is more fun sitting back and watching so called christians argue about what scripture teaches rather than trying to teach them the truth.

It's the fruit of sola scriptura. Every person has an interpretation, and every person says his is as good as yours. There's no Church to teach them, no bishop to shepherd them, no curia to examine complex matters, and no pope to decide disputes. It's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.

This thread is a prime example of what happens when you get rid of the teaching authority of Christ and His Church.

Amen, so it is.

Everyone claims to be led by the spirit and there is such division. Division is not from The Holy Spirit. It seems many have fallen hook, line, and sinker into The Evil One's trap.

They had a former monk, a lawyer, and various others to "lead them". It truly is the blind leading the blind.

 

[WilliamC]

You know, numerically, most Christians world wide take our Lord at His Word; and consider this Blasphemy.

Well, mostly Catholics and Orthodoxy anyway. Blasphemy is to claim a prerogative that ONLY God has.

 

[WilliamC]

That's your proof text. Not what ancient Christianity or apostolic Christians have taught.

From Acts to Revelation, you cant find where the early church pushed the idea that the bread and the wine were really the transformed flesh and blood of Jesus. You never hear of transubstantiation. There was no reason for it. The new covenant was enacted at the cross with Christ's death.

 

[WilliamC]

I think it is more fun sitting back and watching so called christians argue about what scripture teaches rather than trying to teach them the truth.

Pretty judgy arent cha? You guys have to align with the truth first before you can teach it. You cant make it up as you go.
And yes it is kinda head shaking watching you guys appear to be all smug, warming by the fire and still not be able to show by the Scriptures your so called tradition.

This thread is a prime example of what happens when you get rid of the teaching authority of Christ and His Church.

It is an example of an organization who tries to get rid of the real teaching authority that Christ appointed...the Holy Spirit.

Everyone claims to be led by the spirit and there is such division. Division is not from The Holy Spirit. It seems many have fallen hook, line, and sinker into The Evil One's trap.

What division? Most on here are trying to find real truth, so it can be applied to their lives... to close the gaps. They simply do not want to take mere sinner men's word for it that they have all truth. They want to follow the Holy Spirits guiding into all truth, whatever Jesus had said. If Scripture and your tradition do not line up... there is where the Evil One's trap comes into play.
Blessings.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, mostly Catholics and Orthodoxy anyway. Blasphemy is to claim a prerogative that ONLY God has.

Lutherans and Anglicans as well; which is the vast majority of Christians; maybe not in the block where you live.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From Acts to Revelation, you cant find where the early church pushed the idea that the bread and the wine were really the transformed flesh and blood of Jesus. You never hear of transubstantiation. There was no reason for it. The new covenant was enacted at the cross with Christ's death.

Well, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did, and He did it in very plane language.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's the fruit of sola scriptura. Every person has an interpretation, and every person says his is as good as yours. There's no Church to teach them, no bishop to shepherd them, no curia to examine complex matters, and no pope to decide disputes. It's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.

Amen, so it is.

They had a former monk, a lawyer, and various others to "lead them". It truly is the blind leading the blind.

Don't be too hard on us Lutherans; Sola Scriptura is only one of the the five Solas; we value apostolic tradition very highly which is why we Confessional Lutherans have retained the use of the western form of the Mass; just not the traditions of men so much. Likewise holding to the real presence.

 

[RileyG]

From Acts to Revelation, you cant find where the early church pushed the idea that the bread and the wine were really the transformed flesh and blood of Jesus. You never hear of transubstantiation. There was no reason for it. The new covenant was enacted at the cross with Christ's death.

It’s literally what the early Church taught since the beginning. No one believed it was “symbolic” until the reformation.

He said this IS my body. Not “like my body.”

 

[WilliamC]

The Bible is full of things that are not repeated in other books of the Bible, the Book of John is still the Word of God. In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic (as you are saying, to be symbolically sacrificed) does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

Good day Valletta. Hope you are well.
To your point, they were there for a handout...to get something to eat. Whatever it took to get another free meal they were willing to tolerate. Christ taught through symbols even in this chapter. From 31-33 it was about a bread the Father gave the COI from heaven while in the desert. He then makes an effort to get them to understand that the bread Moses received was bread from heaven, just not the true bread from heaven, "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven. and giveth life to the world". vs.33. Their response is the tell all..."Lord, evermore give us this bread". 34. They are not interested in anything but eating at this point, and Christ knows this, and tries to give a teaching moment through symbolism. He then tells them that He is the true bread of life and he that comes to Him shall never HUNGER , and he that believeth on me shall never THIRST. Christ knows they are hungry and wanting to eat, so the analogy is made that they should be more interested in ingesting Him as a source of life. It is reinforced in vs. 40 when Christ says...."that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day". Seeth the Son and believeth on Him.. this does very little in propping up the idea that eating bread turned to flesh, or wine into blood is needed for salvation! 51... "the bread that I will give is my flesh which i will give for the life of the world". (This would be the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.)
How can this man give us his flesh to EAT? They are still interested in their next meal.

There were a number of disciples who just could not believe Jesus and such a new concept for them, it was shocking and new enough that many disciples of Jesus left him.

Christ's plan of salvation was always from the perspective of dying on a tree for the forgiveness of sins. The Scriptures allude to this plan Ps.22:16; Is. 53:5-12 .This is the New Covenant, its what the sacrifices of the old covenant pointed to. It was His death that delivered them, made reconciliation for the sins of the people. Heb. 2:14-17.
There is no earthly priesthood that offers any sacrifice in the New Covenant nor mediation for sins. Heb. 9:12, 22,26,28; 10:9,10,12,14 Heb. 7:24-27; 9:15
You cant institute the New Covenant from the Last Supper eating bread and drinking wine.

The consequences spelled out in the last sentence of 1 Cor 11 below can hardly be accepted as your explanation of remembrance:

1 Cor 11:23-29 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The Corinthians were coming together in one place for communion, being hungry and eating more than a share of bread and wine, before eating their supper, or simply to drink wine. Paul scolds them that the bread and wine were supposed to symbolize. more than food, and they simply were not respecting the ceremony. He finally told them to eat at home if they were hungry.

John 6:53-56 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. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. RSVCE

Christ commands us to "do this" in remembrance of Him.

Not in John 6 He doesn't.

Thus priests in the East and West bless the bread and wine, say the words of consecration, and give the Body and Blood of Jesus to the people.

I believe they do it in vain. It is a ceremony that is not needed. Blessings!

 

[WilliamC]

Well, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did, and He did it in very plane language.

I would be interested my friend, in seeing where Christ spoke plainly about this transubstantiation. Blessings!

 

[WilliamC]

It’s literally what the early Church taught since the beginning. No one believed it was “symbolic” until the reformation.

He said this IS my body. Not “like my body.”

He said He was a door as well.

 

[Valletta]

He said He was a door as well.

And did his disciples ask, "How can this man be made of wood?" As I said, In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. Jesus Himself, His Body and His Blood, is the "New Covenant" or "New Testament." As the new books of the Bible were being chosen by the Catholic Church, those books began to be called "books of the New Testament." The first High Priest, Melchizedek, offered mere bread and wine. This prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus.