ECT The Eucharist - John Chapter 6

[Tambora]

The whole emphasis is upon BRAKING the bread, the one thing incidentally that Catholics do not do

He took the bread, He gave thanks and BRAKE it, guess what? there is no more body, we can only participate in His body, no-one can lift his fragment and say "here is the body of Christ" it is WE as the receiving assembly who now become [or who are] the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Yes, broke the bread to share with all, and all shared a drink from the same cup. (bread and wine now IN them).
Christ refers to the bread and wine as Himself.
You must have Christ IN you.
It's not about having literal bread and wine in you, but Christ in you.
The thief on the cross did not partake of literal bread and wine to have Christ in him.
He had Christ in him because he recognized the sinless sacrifice (that was eaten by the congregation) that was on the cross next to him.

 

[Tambora]

Hi and if it does happen , PJ is the one who brought up the RCC Eucharist and the word sacrament !!

dan p

Not a problem that he uses those words if we stick to the core issue at hand ---- what the bible says is the core issue of the bread and wine.
Let's get to what the bible says is correct first, before we get into whether what the RCC says is correct or not.

Get what the bible says first, and most the other questions about what denominations have it right or wrong will already be answered and we won't have to bring up any particular denomination at all.

 

[jsanford108]

One does not "do" anything in remberance but to remember Christ when you do.

Christ did not want it to become just another practice of religion.

One could ask why Paul had to correct them about their wrong practice of eating their meals at church as if that fulfilled the bread and wine event, if Paul had instituted the bicky and bread practice which he would have when he first taught them ,if it was so necessary.

Paul was instead instructing them to eat of His Word and drink of His spirit in a worthy manner by judging themselves and getting right with the Lord with help if necessary before sharing Gods word with one another.

Thus praying should be the first thing to do when gathering together instead of singing songs of worldly manner over and over until the preacher decides he can give his sermon.

LA

Yes, broke the bread to share with all, and all shared a drink from the same cup. (bread and wine now IN them).
Christ refers to the bread and wine as Himself.
You must have Christ IN you.
It's not about having literal bread and wine in you, but Christ in you.
The thief on the cross did not partake of literal bread and wine to have Christ in him.
He had Christ in him because he recognized the sinless sacrifice (that was eaten by the congregation) that was on the cross next to him.

Hello, friend.

I think you make some excellent points.

But the thief on the cross should not be the example for all of us. The thief is more of a proof that God's grace knows no limits.

As for you examples of Christ/bread and wine, I think that does not flow logically. No disrespect meant towards you. But let us make that into a progression equation.

Christ = Bread and Wine, Christ must be in you, therefore Bread and Wine must be in you. Now, if the Bread and Wine is Christ, that makes Christ true (real) food and drink. It doesn't really make logical sense for Christ to say "My flesh is real food" if He was being metaphorical or symbolic.

And I am in complete agreement with you; let us look to the Scriptures to find answers, and not in the teachings or beliefs of various denominations.

 

[Tambora]

Did Judas partake of the wine and bread of the new covenant at the last supper?

 

[Right Divider]

Then why does Paul stress it heavily? And just because Eucharist is a "Catholic" term takes nothing away from what is written by Jesus Christ, John and Paul etc.

Why do you think that "Paul stresses it heavily"?

 

[jsanford108]

Did Judas partake of the wine and bread of the new covenant at the last supper?

No information is given on that. Many scholars say that it is most likely that Judas left, to go talk to the chief priests. Others, suggest that Judas may have, but that he did not believe it to be as Christ described it.

 

[Tambora]

No information is given on that. Many scholars say that it is most likely that Judas left, to go talk to the chief priests. Others, suggest that Judas may have, but that he did not believe it to be as Christ described it.

WE got Matthew Mark Luke and John.

 

[Right Divider]

Christ = Bread and Wine, Christ must be in you, therefore Bread and Wine must be in you. Now, if the Bread and Wine is Christ, that makes Christ true (real) food and drink. It doesn't really make logical sense for Christ to say "My flesh is real food" if He was being metaphorical or symbolic.

Later in John 6, Christ shows that He is being symbolic.

John 6:63 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.
​

Peter understood:

John 6:66-68 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:66) ¶ From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (6:67) Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? (6:68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. ​

 

[Tambora]

Concerning all of Israel.


1 Corinthians 10:3-5 KJV
(3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
(5) But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.


They all ate the same spiritual meat and drink
But even though they all ate and drank the same, GOD was not pleased with many of them.

Compare that with the 12 (including Judas) at the last supper.

 

[jsanford108]

WE got Matthew Mark Luke and John.

Yes, we all have the gospels. And four accounts of the last supper (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39, and John 13:1-17:26).

 

[jsanford108]

Later in John 6, Christ shows that He is being symbolic.

John 6:63 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.
​

Peter understood:

John 6:66-68 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:66) ¶ From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (6:67) Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? (6:68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. ​

So, if Christ was being symbolic, why did He allow the followers who turned from Him to leave? After all, they simply said "How can He give us His flesh to eat?" Instead of correcting them, Christ repeats that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. The verse (63) is also a clear change of subject.

If we examine Christ's words, beginning in verse 48, at no point does He imply symbolism. He even compares Himself with the manna, which was real food. Christ even says that He is "real food and drink." Thus, to imply that Christ was being symbolic, is illogical, given the clarity of the phrase "real food."

If we take your inference, applying it extensively to Christ, if "the flesh profits nothing," then what good is the crucifixion? A sacrifice of flesh would profit nothing, right? The issue with the inference that you provide doesn't make sense when paralleled with the Last Supper, either.

 

[Right Divider]

So, if Christ was being symbolic, why did He allow the followers who turned from Him to leave? After all, they simply said "How can He give us His flesh to eat?" Instead of correcting them, Christ repeats that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. The verse (63) is also a clear change of subject.

I see no "clear change of subject" in verse 63.

If we examine Christ's words, beginning in verse 48, at no point does He imply symbolism. He even compares Himself with the manna, which was real food. Christ even says that He is "real food and drink." Thus, to imply that Christ was being symbolic, is illogical, given the clarity of the phrase "real food."

So you think that Christ was preaching cannibalism?

If we take your inference, applying it extensively to Christ, if "the flesh profits nothing," then what good is the crucifixion? A sacrifice of flesh would profit nothing, right? The issue with the inference that you provide doesn't make sense when paralleled with the Last Supper, either.

I disagree.

 

[jsanford108]

I see no "clear change of subject" in verse 63.


So you think that Christ was preaching cannibalism?


I disagree.

Of course you are going to disagree. That is evidenced by your inferences.

Of course, Christ was not preaching cannibalism. No more than God was telling Joshua to commit murder by slaying every Amalekite (1 Samuel 15:3).

 

[Tambora]

Yes, we all have the gospels. And four accounts of the last supper (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39, and John 13:1-17:26).

Right.
And not a one of them says that Judas left before the bread and wine were shared.

 

[oatmeal]

I came across an interesting study about the Eucharist by a former Presbyterian pastor who apparently became Catholic. Is the Eucharist considered a "work" by some people? After reading this, I'm not sure it is a work. I have said that it is symbolic and is only done "in remembrance." This was a good read for me, a little long but worth reading.

https://chnetwork.org/2015/12/10/un...-there-is-no-life-in-you-symbolic-or-literal/

John 6 states what?

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Is this passage about the eucharist or something else?

 

[Tambora]

Of course you are going to disagree. That is evidenced by your inferences.

Of course, Christ was not preaching cannibalism. No more than God was telling Joshua to commit murder by slaying every Amalekite (1 Samuel 15:3).

Wait a minute.
Are you trying to make the argument that since not all killing of the flesh is "murder", then not all eating of the flesh is "cannibalism"?

 

[jsanford108]

Right.
And not a one of them says that Judas left before the bread and wine were shared.

Let us compare them together.
Matthew 26:17-30: after the conclusion of the supper, in verse 30, it says "they went out to the Mount of Olives." Was Judas part of "they?" For we know this is when we went to betray Christ.
Mark 14:12-26: same account.
Luke 22:7-39: Scripture says in 22:29, "And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him." Was Judas counted in "his disciples?" After all, once again, we know this is when Judas betrays Christ.
John 13:26-28: Jesus tells Judas, after washing him, "That thou doest, do quickly." Judas immediately departed. This reads as if before the feast.

There is one version (NIV, ESV?), which I do not recall which, where it says that Judas took the bread and departed, implying that Judas did not stay and participate in the meal.

So, sure. None explicitly state that Judas stayed, nor that he left, except John.

 

[jsanford108]

Wait a minute.
Are you trying to make the argument that since not all killing of the flesh is "murder", then not all eating of the flesh is "cannibalism"?

Close. I am actually alluding to that which God/Christ commands exists outside of natural law. Christ's flesh would be eternally "living," correct? This instantly makes it different from cannibalism.

 

[jsanford108]

I see no "clear change of subject" in verse 63.


So you think that Christ was preaching cannibalism?


I disagree.

I will explain it better, later. I am about to eat with my family.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[steko]

Let us compare them together.
Matthew 26:17-30: after the conclusion of the supper, in verse 30, it says "they went out to the Mount of Olives." Was Judas part of "they?" For we know this is when we went to betray Christ.
Mark 14:12-26: same account.
Luke 22:7-39: Scripture says in 22:29, "And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him." Was Judas counted in "his disciples?" After all, once again, we know this is when Judas betrays Christ.
John 13:26-28: Jesus tells Judas, after washing him, "That thou doest, do quickly." Judas immediately departed. This reads as if before the feast.

There is one version (NIV, ESV?), which I do not recall which, where it says that Judas took the bread and departed, implying that Judas did not stay and participate in the meal.

So, sure. None explicitly state that Judas stayed, nor that he left, except John.

John doesn't mention the NT nor the cup.
Luke is the only one that clearly sets forth the chronology concerning Judas' presence during the sharing of the cup and bread.

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luk 22:21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.


Lk 22:21 is present tense and occurs after the sharing of the cup of the NT.