Remembrance till Jesus Christ comes again?
ECT The Eucharist - John Chapter 6
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
I understand that concept.... I'd still like to know why you think that Paul "emphasized it heavily".
Paul said to show how they ought to behave in the house of God, the church.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Seems he barely mentioned it. Much like the women wear head coverings.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think he was specifically talking about the way they were turning a simple remembrance ceremony into a drunken heathen gorging. Those Corinthians liked to overdo everything.
Patrick Cronin
New member
Of course it is symbolic, but the question is What does it symbolise? "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a communion with the blood of Christ?.... etc.(1 Cor.10:16)then Paul goes on to speak of the Christian eucharist as superior to pagan sacrifices. And at the Last supper Jesus said "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood which is poured out for you"(Luke 17:20)
The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were completely symbolic, having no intrinsic value. ("For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins"- Hebrews 10:4) However, the worship of the New and eternal Covenant instituted by Christ for Christians to celebrate- is of infinite value. It is symbolic,(visibly) but the symbols are signs of the presence of the invisible reality of the risen Christ among His faithful.
The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were completely symbolic, having no intrinsic value. ("For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins"- Hebrews 10:4) However, the worship of the New and eternal Covenant instituted by Christ for Christians to celebrate- is of infinite value. It is symbolic,(visibly) but the symbols are signs of the presence of the invisible reality of the risen Christ among His faithful.
Right Divider
Body part
I get that. But I'm still asking the question about "emphasized it heavily".
To me a "heavy emphasis" would show this repeated many times in his epistles.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, that is exactly my point.
True, but the quantity of mentions does not automatically take away from it's importance or specialness.
Should the BOC be treating it as something very special that we should hold up as something that should be done until the Lord returns?
I could be wrong, but I think PJ is asking if the BOC today has gotten to a point that we place too little emphasis on it.
So I used a poor word choice, let's just say he emphasized it.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Not to worry.
Words weren't enough to straighten em out.
He had to physically go there to put them in order.
jsanford108
New member
I would agree.
jsanford108
New member
So, you would agree that it is illogical to imply that Christ was being symbolic, given that those who turned away thought He was being literal?
In verse 61, Christ asks the crowd why they take offense to His words (eat my flesh). Then, in verse 62, He foretells the Resurrection. In verse 63, Christ says "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that i have spoken to you are spirit and life." (Emphasis my own). Here we see Christ saying that we cannot accept this (Eucharistic) mystery if we think of it in too human of a nature.
So, by using the phrase "clear change of subject," was inaccurate. I apologize for that. My intent was to point to Christ's words pointing toward divine revelation vs human limits, rather than a "change of subject" from the Eucharist. My bad.
But do you see how when Christ is talking about His words being "spirit and life," He is not saying that His Flesh and Blood is symbolic?
Here, you are disagreeing, because I am extending your symbolism extensively, correct? But why not? You wish to use the passage beginning in 6:48 to be symbolic, why not apply that same logic to the rest of Christ's words and teachings?
You could argue that "context matters." And I agree. Which is why the context of 6:48-66 is meant literal and not symbolic. The disciples who left spoke of their issue with the literal nature of Christ's words. Yet, Christ never corrected them, rather repeated His phrasing the same way; four times, with an affirmation following the third time (Even affirming the literal nature by saying that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink).
If you are going to maintain your disagreement, at least posit logic and Scripture in support of your claim.
Right Divider
Body part
I think that your question is illogical.
No, Jesus was NOT asking them to LITERALLY eat His flesh as in one human consuming another.
John 6:33 (AKJV/PCE)
(6:33) For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Clearly symbolic from the start.
Verse 62 says nothing of His resurrection, it's talking about His ASCENSION.
John 6:62 (AKJV/PCE)
(6:62) [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jesus said that HIS WORDS are spirit and are life.
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.
THAT is what He was talking about the whole time. That is the bottom line/summary.
No.
Take note of this passage that parallels the concepts in John 6:
Matt 26:26-29 (AKJV/PCE)
(26:26) ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Notice the symbolic nature of the wine that remains wine.
Eating and drinking Christ are symbolic.
glorydaz
Well-known member
If we put more emphasis on it than Paul did, we'd end up with another ritual. I haven't found a rite or ritual that has ever been anything but FAKE. There is too much danger in that already. Just my opinion, of course.
How Roman Catholicism Can Get Protestantism Back To Its Reformation Roots
There's a decent treatment of the Eucharist in there too.
jsanford108
New member
Then, what is the logical alternative to my question?
Not if He is speaking literally. Just saying He is being symbolic does not make it so. Prove your position, logically.
Is Christ the living Word?
Let us consider what "the Word" is. The "Word of God" exists in three forms: written (Scripture), physical (Christ), spoken (teachings/commands).
The spoken Word is no small thing. It is more real than reality itself. Think about it. God said "Let there be...." and instantly it was. The spoken Word transcends nature itself.
How is it symbolic? Christ is talking about literal wine, right? Not symbolic wine.
So, a couple questions then.
1.) How is Christ's body and blood "true food and drink?"
2.) Why did the disciples leave Christ, if He was being symbolic? It clearly says that they thought He was being literal.
Right Divider
Body part
He said WORDS and not WORD.
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.
I'm amazed by your denseness.
Matt 26:26-29 (AKJV/PCE)
(26:26) ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
The WINE is SYMBOLIC of the BLOOD.
jsanford108
New member
So, a couple questions then.
1.) How is Christ's body and blood "true food and drink?"
2.) Why did the disciples leave Christ, if He was being symbolic? It clearly says that they thought He was being literal.