The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

Peace By Jesus ^ | March 4,2015 | Peace by Jesus

[daniel1212]

And, then, guess what? (He let them go)

Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,

speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is a form of endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

Moreover, nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) For His words are spirit, and life. (Jn. 6:63)

[daniel1212]

LOL. If you need examples from me for what constitutes proper behavior then we all are lost.

Laughing (or claiming to) will not substitute for an argument, and you do indeed need both a reference point and examples of what you are arguing for and against.

In Scripture we see strong reproof, rebuke, sarcasm, scorn, and harsh language within certain contexts which can be shown. But just claiming something is wrong in this forum without examples and why is akin to a reverse claim that there is not any anti-Protestant or anti-RC bigotry in FR.

[af_vet_1981]

I’ve noticed you took up mind reading for Lent.

False

Sir, what did Jesus say?

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses eleven to twelve, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Colofornian]

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation. And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

Well, I'm glad you emphasized the phrase I just highlighted, because, frankly, I rarely (if ever) see Protestants stress this on any of these threads: That Jesus' words in John 6 highlights a physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again.

Both those words -- physical -- and sustenance -- are of import:

"Physical" because we "physically" take communion...we don't do it by osmosis or by prayer (even though it's a spiritual act)

And "sustenance" because I believe this is really THE essence of what Jesus is highlighting: I am Your Living Sustenance, just as bread and drink was the living sustenance of the day.

Now why can't other Protestants beyond you Daniel stress that? Why is it usually a heavy dosage of only Jesus as a past tense "memorial"?

You would come away thinking that the altar in these Christian churches is come to be viewed more as only a museum instead of Christ's real presence providing real sustenance.

[Resettozero]

John 6:
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Thank you for posting this this portion of Scripture entirely. After the part you had marked in bold, Lord Jesus Christ continued and by what He said, it is clear that He was thinning the herd of followers intentionally; those who the Father had enabled and those who were curious about Jesus but really didn't believe in Him after hearing Him speak many times.

I would imagine that "the Twelve" were rattled by this saying as well. (Yes, J.I. was present.) But believers in Jesus as Son of God do not turn away for good because of any of His hard sayings, as the rest of the "disciples" did.

Please note, especially, verse 63:
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life."

[Colofornian]

Please note, especially, verse 63: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life."

And yet it's called a sacrament and Jesus' offering of flesh can only be a direct reference to His forthcoming sacrifice -- of His flesh.

The paradox here is that Jesus' sacrificial flesh, which He is obviously referencing in John 6, counted for everything -- for us.

Jesus is referencing the true Source of life here: His Father is indeed Spirit (John 4) and He ALWAYS glorified His Father in all He said and did.

[af_vet_1981]

To backbiting or tale-bearing and thus slander someone in their absence requires the person being slander to be identified, which i did not do, nor link to it or otherwise identify you, and i am quite sure the person being responded to had no idea of who it was, or can read my mind, nor were you not the only person who acted as described and to whom i responded as said.

Rather than talking about you to someone, I provided an example of a certain kind of shoe while YOU are the one who now have publicly identified yourself as wearing it, though you are not alone. Thus you can blame yourself for outing yourself, while slander refers to things that were not true.

And it was your manner of reactionary rants that earned your place on the do not call list. Which you have now further affirmed was warranted.

backbite
[bak-bahyt] 
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
verb (used with object), backbit, backbitten or (Informal) backbit; backbiting.
1.
to attack the character or reputation of (a person who is not present).
verb (used without object), backbit, backbitten or (Informal) backbit; backbiting.
2.
to speak unfavorably or slanderously of a person who is not present.

The Hebrew term lashon hara (or loshon hora) (Hebrew לשון הרע; "evil tongue") 
is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about another person.[4] 
Lashon hara differs from defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, 
rather than falsehood and harm arising. 
Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it says something negative about a person or party, 
is not previously known to the public, 
is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, 
and is true. 
Statements that fit this description are considered to be lashon hara, 
regardless of the method of communication that is used, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a letter, telephone, or email, or even body language.

Lashon hara (lit. "evil tongue") is considered to be a very serious sin in the Jewish tradition. 
The communicator of Lashon Hara (and rechilut) violates the prohibition of "Lo telech rachil b'ameicha (Leviticus 19:16)."[5]

By contrast, hotzaat shem ra ("spreading a bad name"), also called hotzaat diba, or motzi shem ra (lit. "putting out a bad name") 
consists of untrue remarks, and is best translated as "slander" or "defamation". 
Hotzaat shem ra is worse, and consequentially an even graver sin, than lashon hara.[4] 
And the act of gossiping is called rechilut, and is also forbidden by Jewish law.[4]

Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Leviticus, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses sizteen to eighteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty six,
Matthew, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verses fifteen to seventeen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Resettozero]

I used to have discussions like this one with an elderly High Episcopalian church member. I never convinced her, that I knew, and she never convinced me.

Man, could she ever play the pipe organ, though! I miss her.

[Resettozero]

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, FOR MY SAKE.

For Christ's Sake!

Not for the sake of a church sect.

(The first time I've been able to say that while engaged in appropriate conversation.)

[CynicalBear]

>>Too many Christians are still on milk.<<

From some of the comments made here I fear many are not even at that level. It's more a carnal knowledge with no spiritual understanding at all.

[CynicalBear]

>>It's simple...import yourself back into Jesus' presence...when He spoke John 6 -- and you were a "marginal" disciple at that time.<<

There were no "marginal disciples". They were either disciples or curious onlookers or leeches looking for a free lunch. Jesus Himself explained it.

John 6:26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.

Then He tells us who it is that will and will not understand. He tells us who it is that He will not drive away.

John 6: 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Then He tells what the will of the Father is.

John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

There we get a hint of what gives eternal life. It's not eating His physical flesh and drinking His physical blood. it's "believing in Him".

He even repeats it.

John 6:47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

Now before anyone has left He explains that His words aren't carnal but spiritual.

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

It wasn't the physical flesh that was giving life. It was the words. God's word is milk (drink) and meat (flesh).

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk (drink), and not of strong meat (flesh).

Then Jesus tells us who will be leaving.

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.

They are not in the Fathers will because they didn't believe.

He even tells us why they didn't believe.

John 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.

It's at that point that many left.

John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The Father had not enabled them to understand and believe. They were still thinking carnally of the physical flesh and physical blood. They knew that would be a sin because of God's command not to eat blood. They were not enabled by God to understand that His words where spirit and that the flesh was not what would prophet them.

>>Now look at how "you" -- & the other "marginal disciples" reacted -- :<<

How wrong you are. We haven't left. We understand the spirit of what He was saying just as the apostles did. We understand that the word of God is spiritual milk (drink) and spiritual meat (flesh) that is what nourishes our spirit. It's not this fleshly body that doesn't get hungry or thirsty ever again. It's our spirit that is no longer looking for sustenance but has forever been nourished by the word of God.

Thinking that Jesus was talking about His physical flesh and blood is carnal thinking. Those who have been enabled by God to understand the spirit of what He was saying are those who believe in Him and "eat" the word of God. We don't literally eat the physical flesh and blood of Christ any more then Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or John literally ate the physical scroll.

[MHGinTN]

Beautifully explained. Thanks be to God.

[Colofornian]

There were no "marginal disciples". They were either disciples or curious onlookers or leeches looking for a free lunch.

Do you always have this basic reading issue where you insert your own private interpretations into the text?

John CLEARLY says:

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

John could have used other phrasing to describe these people if he had wanted to comport with your 21st century redefs.

He doesn't describe them as "wannabe" disciples...

Of course, you're rendering tends to HAVE to be in place once pre-concluded by lockdown theology that a disciple can NEVER "turn back" (for that then falls back to the default position of too many Evangelicals of once a disciple, always a disciple, otherwise you were never a disciple)

Too bad John 6:66 gives them heartburn on more than a single theological conjecture.

[CynicalBear]

>>Now why can't other Protestants beyond you Daniel stress that? Why is it usually a heavy dosage of only Jesus as a past tense "memorial"?<<

It's not Jesus in the past tense. It's what He did that is in the past tense and it's that which we remember just as He told us to.

[Resettozero]

(for that then falls back to the default position of too many Evangelicals of once a disciple, always a disciple, otherwise you were never a disciple)

You say you are not a Catholic, but...

You've now begun to post like one.

(In an earlier post to you, I was thinking you were sincere.)

[Colofornian]

It wasn't the physical flesh that was giving life

The context here is Jesus is talking both about...
...ascending to where He was before (v. 62) ... Heaven, where His Father as Spirit -- the Source of all life and new life -- reigns;
...as well as the Holy Spirit regenerating new life in us here on earth...

Per John in 1:12-13 -- the flesh, including human decisions (for or against Christ) -- counts for nothing. John clearly says here that our authority to become God's sons is NOT made by "any human decision."

If Jesus was referencing only His own flesh, then that would be a direct contradiction of the cross itself, would it not?

I thought you and I might concur that the flesh of Jesus on the cross, & His blood shed from the cross, essentially counted for everything for you & me?

What does His blood shed on the cross amount & count for you?

[Resettozero]

It's not Jesus in the past tense. It's what He did that is in the past tense and it's that which we remember just as He told us to.

Affirmative.

[Colofornian]

It's not Jesus in the past tense. It's what He did that is in the past tense and it's that which we remember just as He told us to.

(Well, I didn't say we are to play down Luke 22:16 & 1 Cor. 11:24-25...this is a solid Scripturally based focus. That's why I carefully used the word "only"...The complimentary to this is also: Jesus is STILL saving people. And He is still indwelling people...As Paul told the Colossians: "Christ in you, the hope of glory" -- 1:27)

[Resettozero]

In the country, in the mountains, when I was a boy, we called this kind of thinking “shifty”. You keep moving the boundaries of the conversation.

[Colofornian]

You say you are not a Catholic, but...You've now begun to post like one. (In an earlier post to you, I was thinking you were sincere.)

Not a Catholic.

I've always been a Protestant. Never a Catholic.

I am not considering Catholicism.

And for the past 20+ years I have actually described myself as an "Evangelical Christian"

(Just because I critique fellow Evangelicals on 3 or so theological points doesn't mean I've been drummed out of the "Evangelical Social Club." )