The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

First, I haven't ignored it. The Scripture never says that the bread was anything but bread. Second, Paul said it was a memorial. That's good enough for me. Combined with the rest of the teaching of Scripture, it seems patently obvious that there was no "real presence" in it.

Fair enough.

And the door was symbolic. Jesus is not a door. It is symbol or illlustration of what he is.

What do you think the "body and blood" were about? It was, according to the text, a body broken for you and blood shed for you. That is the death that he is referring to. So there is no stretch. You simply have to read the text without the presuppositions of trying to prove something.

 

My argument is that JESUS THE PERSON is being referenced in the case of "I AM the vine" -- Jesus does not say "I AM BREAD" - so in the case of the VINE we have an even STRONGER claim than "my blood is drink" for it is a claim to the ENTIRE PRESON.

The same holds for "THE DOOR".

It is a claim BEYOND simply "my blood is drink" it is a claim about the ENTIRE PERSON.

If you are going to take wooden applications to these references as in the case of John 6 - then you need to step up to the plate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is a preference not a fact from the text.

We know this because when Jesus says "This is my body" we know that he is talking about HIS body.

When Jesus says "I AM the vine" we KNOW which PERSON is being identified as the VINE.

In both cases there is no ambiguity as to what is being referenced under another symbol.

Furthermore - nobody bites Christ in John 6.

Nobody bites Christ at the last supper - NEITHER does Christ cry out in pain when they eat bread at the last supper.

The edit that is attempted for the last supper by "some" is "SOMEDAY in the FUTURE my body will become bread - or else bread will become my body. But this is only true after I am sacrificed on the cross".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Er...because He doesn't use the same words?

 

No, my friend, you are the one who is simply wrong here. Jesus indeed proceeds from metaphor to more specific, concrete, reality, and in that progression He doesn't stop at simply "coming to" or "believing in" Him, but proceeds to clarify in a more specific way how we are to come to Him. I wonder if you assume that "coming to" Him must mean something like 'accepting Christ' as Saviour in the modern 20th century neo-evangelical sense--in that all we need to do to "come to" Him is to 'walk an aisle', make a 'personal decision' to follow Him, or to say a 'sinner's prayer' or something to that effect. (Or if, on the other hand, you might respond by trotting out the proof texts Calvinist's use to support monergism in the "coming to" and "believing in" Christ). However, Jesus's declarations to these disciples (who were already physically following Him) was that they must specifically do something else in their 'coming to' Him, and that was to eat His flesh--the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world and that Christ declared was 'food indeed'--and drink His blood which Christ declared was 'drink indeed'.

The early Christians, of course, believed there was more to "coming to" Christ than making a one-time-decision to follow him. They believed that coming to Christ in faith included being buried with Him in the waters of baptism as well as approaching the Lord's Table to partake of His precious Body and Blood. There was no false dichotomy between 'faith' (as in intellectual assent to certain facts) and 'trust' (as in obedient action) as there is sadly among some modern Protestant doctrinal systems today.

No, you have not dealt seriously with this, because you continue to ignore Christ's plain explication that the bread He's about to give is HIS FLESH, the same that He was going to "give for the life of the world". In context, and grammatically, the same flesh that He identifies the bread as being, is the same flesh He was going to give for the life of the world, and is the same flesh that one must eat to have eternal life and to abide in Christ. If one explains away the "eating" and "drinking" statements as being only metaphor, then to be consistent one must explain away the "giving" of the same flesh (which Christ declares we are to eat) "for the life as a world" as only metaphor as well, something that Christ meant not to be taken literally. In fact the one group in the early history of the Church who consistently interpreted both as metaphorical was the gnostic docetists, who denied both Christ's bodily death in the atonement and the real communion of His flesh and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Well you would "figure" wrong then, Larry. I grew up being taught and believing exactly as you regarding this passage, so I "always believed" the interpretation you are expounding. (Perhaps you didn't notice I said is much in my last post, or else just chose to ignore it) However, when I decided to take the passage at face value, and to stop submitting to the novel traditions of men (ie Zwinglian memorialism), that was when I became willing to submit to the SCRIPTURE, not to some Baptistic misinterpretation of the same.

Sadly, it is you who is arguing against the plain meaning of Christ's words here. (There's really no other way of putting it)

Actually, nowhere in the passage does Christ (or anyone else) declare that "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood" is reducible to (or is merely a metaphor for) simply "believing". You have invented a 'declaration' in the passage that isn't there. That's called reading one's views into the text.

Wrong. In fact, the Jews of the time were already familiar with the metaphorical use of "eating flesh" as such is found is Scripture. For example, in Micah 3:2-3 it says: "You who hate good and love evil; who strip the skin form My people, and the flesh from their bones; Who also eat the flesh of My people..."
In other words, "eating" one's "flesh" was a metaphor for violently oppressing that one (or in similar scriptures, 'reviling' one). So it would make no sense for Jesus to speaking metaphorically here, as the disciples would have heard him saying: "In order to come to me you must revile or oppress me," or "he who reviles Me will have life". They realized then that the common metaphorical use of "eating one's flesh" didn't apply here which is why they asked how Christ could give His flesh to them to eat--they understood that He was getting more literal in His discourse. In answer to their query, Christ didn't retreat into back metaphor, but continued to be more literal in His identification of the bread He was giving with His own flesh, the self-same He was giving for the life of the world, the self-same He declared "food indeed", and the self-same He said we must eat (even using the Greek word for "munch") to have life.

And I urge you to do the same. The argument I am making here is supported by the text (not to mention the consensus of orthodox interpretation up until the 1500s), while yours seeks to distort the text to support your own private interpretation.

 

Not true. Christ Himself calls the bread "His body", and likewise calls the cup "His blood".

But he doesn't say that it's only a memorial, something devoid of real connection to the thing remembered. On the contrary, Paul also said that the bread was the communion of (or participation in) the Body of Christ, and that the cup was the communion of (or participation in) the Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). That's good enough for me.

From the combined testimony of Scripture, it is patently obviously the mere memorialism of Zwingli in his followers is not the Biblical teaching, especially when its adherents have to go to such lengths to ignore the plain statements of Scripture.

 

Well, I've said just about I all I care to say on this topic (often more than once), but before I leave this discusion I want to visit yet again the similarities and differences to the "metaphorical" self-descriptions of Jesus--"I am the door", "I am the vine", "I am the bread", etc.

Yes, these are similar in that they are all (initially, at least) metaphors. In each case Christ declares Himself to be something and then explains that metaphor:

"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved" (John 10:10)
"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in Him bares much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and He who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35)

Here's where the similarities end. Notice that in the 'door' and 'vine' passage, that not only does anyone not question Christ to what His meaning is, He does not proceed to say words to the effect of...
"And the door of which is my speak is a large hole in my physical body, the same body which I am giving for the life of the world."
or,
"And the vine to which I refer is my physical flesh, the same which I am giving for the life of the world"

And the disciples, of course, do not respond by asking...
"How can we walk through His physical body?" or
"How can we be ingrafted to His physical body?"

Which of course is not followed by...
"Most assuredly, I say unto you that unless you walk through my physical body you have no life in you", or
"Most assuredly, I say unto you that unless you are grafted into my physical body you have no life in you."

Nor this...
"For my flesh is true wood/hinges/knobs indeed," or
"For my flesh is true green growing vegetation indeed".

On the other hand, in the 'bread of life' discourse, Christ does indeed say such statements about the "bread" and His "flesh"...

'"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world"

The Jews therefore quarrelled among themselves and said, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"

Then Jesus said unto them, "Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

"For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him."' (John 6:51-56)

So just looking at the text, in contrast to the 'door' and 'vine' passages, it is obvious--based on His explicit statements and the multitudes response---that Jesus proceeds from making a general metaphor about Himself (as being the 'bread of life')to a specific identification of the bread with HIS FLESH, and also to a more concrete action that's required of people coming to Jesus--that one must eat this flesh, that Christ is giving for the life of world (and which He specifically said was the bread He was giving), in order to have life.

In addition, I've already pointed out that Christ never later on pointed to a physical door and said "This is my body--walk through it, all of you, that you may have life", nor did he bring out a vine and say "This is my body--attach yourselves to it, all of you, so that you will bear much fruit". However, Christ does later on declare about the bread: "Take,eat, this is My Body", and about the cup of wine: "Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:26-28).

Likewise, Paul never said to the Christians about a wooden door, "This door that we walk through, is it not our participation in Christ?", nor about a growing plant, "This vine we attach ourselves to, is it not the our communion with Christ?". However, Paul does say: "This cup of blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

It is obvious, then, when looking at all the relevent Scriptural passages in context, and by examining the consensus of early Christian belief and practice on this subject, that the "Real Presence" of the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and the wine of the Eucharist is is the orthodox biblical doctrine regarding Holy Communion.

 

Doubting Thomas:

"Christ's plain explication that the bread He's about to give is HIS FLESH, the same that He was going to "give for the life of the world". In context, and grammatically, the same flesh that He identifies the bread as being, is the same flesh He was going to give for the life of the world, and is the same flesh that one must eat to have eternal life and to abide in Christ. If one explains away the "eating" and "drinking" statements as being only metaphor, then to be consistent one must explain away the "giving" of the same flesh (which Christ declares we are to eat) "for the life as a world" as only metaphor as well, something that Christ meant not to be taken literally. In fact the one group in the early history of the Church who consistently interpreted both as metaphorical was the gnostic docetists, who denied both Christ's bodily death in the atonement and the real communion of His flesh and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist."

GE:

Lk22:19 And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it. Then GAVE He to them (the bread) saying: This is the body of mine being given for you ..." Christ Himself is the 'Body' being referenced -- not the bread! "Do this (eat) in remembrance of Me."
Again Jesus is the one being referenced through the act of 'remembrance'. He nor His body, is eaten; He, as his body, is being remembered.

Jesus of "the CUP" (not 'blood') -- WITHOUT THE WORD 'IS'! -- said, "This the New Testament IN my blood which is shed ("once for all") for you."

Christ's body was broken "once for all". It is blasphemous idolatry to crucify Him again and again as do the Catholics.

 

Catholics re-crucify Christ over and over...:eek:

Wait a minute...ain't you the one who stated that Chick said that Islam is the creation of the Catholic Church? :laugh:

-

 

GE:

I knew you were going to hold your tummy for laughter -- Catholics always make fun of us the simple -- because they have't the power now to get serious.

 

In John 6 we find these "inconvenient details"

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "b]"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'[/b]'
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 yourselves.
54 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 ""As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58 ""This is the [b]bread which came down out of heaven[/b]; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever[/b].''


59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, " " This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?''


61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this[b/], said to them, ""Does this cause you to stumble?
62 ""What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I have spoken to you ARE spirit and ARE Life.[/b]


Question left as an exercise for the reader: After spendng that time talking about "my flesh is food" - Christ said WHAT "profits NOTHING"!??

Note that in John 10 "I am the door" Christ does not say "literal doors profit NOTHING".

Note that in John 15 "I am the VINE" Christ does NOT say "literal vines profit NOTHING"

No disciples were leaving -- in John 10 and John 15.
But in John 6 we find the FAITHLESS disciples taking Christ too literally on the subject of eating flesh!! And the symbol of bread

And so in that ONE case Christ clarifys that his literal flesh (if eaten) "Profits NOTHING".

In Matt 16 - once again we see His faithFUL disciples taking the symbol of bread TOO lterally

 

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Here we see Christ refer to the SAME example of feeding the people as in John 6 where the people came to Christ seeking literal food AFTER the feeding of the 5000. Christ rebukes the disciples mistake here of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally as did the “faithLESS” disciples of John 6.

 

Bob, this has nothing to do with communion and everything to do with warning against those who would preach contrary to the word of God.

PS. stop using multiple colors it is near impossible to read one of your posts.

 

Bob, Bob, Bob…Christ’s flesh profits us nothing huh? Well Christ’s flesh profits us everything! If His flesh profits us nothing then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, He died for no reason, and He rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world Bob! So if Christ’s flesh profits us nothing, then by you’re reasoning (without thinking and relying on someone else to think for you), the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is of no avail, then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Cor. 15:17-18)

In John 6:63 flesh profits nothing refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me. So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

Furthermore Bob, it makes no sense to me to read Christ just command His disciples to eat His flesh and then mean by John 6:63 that it is a waste of their time.

-

 

#1. In John 6 NO ONE "bites Christ" not even the faithFUL disciples.

#2. In John 6 Christ used the symbol of flesh as BREAD saying he already WAS the BREAD that came down from heaven. NOT "some day I WILL be the BREAD that came down from heaven".

#3. Christ then SUMMARIZES by saying "FLESH is WORTHLESS - my WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE"

the point of that symbol REMAINS.

Futhermore in Matt 16 Christ condemns the practice of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally!!

11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. The point remains that Christ used bread as a SYMBOL for teaching - consistently. AND He condemned the practice of taking the symbol TOO literally.

#2. My bible uses multiple colors - hard to get away from it sir.

 

Agreed; Bob, along with many Zwingliist memorialists I've encountered, appears to be espousing a form of docetism, which is at least implied in his claim that the flesh profits nothing. This is an ancient heresy condemned amongst others by the Apostle John - see I John for example.

 

If docetism is implied by simply ADMITTING that Christ points us to the fact that "The FLESH profits nothing" then the traditions of man in that case are condemning the Word of God itself!!

 

Bob, the point you are trying to make isn't even there. He doesn't say anything that would lead one to believe we should not take him at his word in Communion. There is a warning against the teachings of the pharisees and sadducees and nothing else.

Actually Bob it is very easy to get away from it requires only a highlight and a click.

 

The burden of proof lies on you to clearly demonstrate that 2,000 years of Church Tradition is wrong and simply your interpretation isn’t going to cut it.

Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles from error and lead them in truth. With that in mind, the Apostolic Church Fathers such as Polycarp a disciple of John, Ignatius and Irenaeus, both disciples of Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome who was a student of both the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote of the Real Presence.

Are you saying that Christ was wrong and the Holy Spirit didn’t protect as promised, and the Apostles were teaching error right out of the starting gate? If not, then how do you explain what these Early Fathers of the Church wrote.

-