The Body of Christ?

The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the wafer and the wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who finds this a bit hard to take?

If so, you shouldn’t be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, the response was less than enthusiastic. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him that Jesus asked the twelve if they also planned to quit. Note that Jesus did not run after the deserters saying, “Come back! - I was just speaking metaphorically!”

It’s intriguing that one charge the pagan Romans lodged against Christians was that of cannibalism. Why? They heard that this sect met weekly to eat flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: “wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”? Not at all. When explaining the Eucharist to the Emperor around 155AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

Not till the Middle Ages did theologians really try to explain how Christ’s body and blood became present in the Eucharist. After a few theologians got it wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we normally observe, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and kids to be a tanned beach bum, bleached and spiked my hair, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different. But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same confused, middle-aged dude as when I started.

St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one change we encounter that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What starts as bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the “sub-stance”, what “stands-under” the surface, came to be called “transubstantiation.”

What makes this happen? The Spirit and the Word. After praying for the Holy Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Sounds like Genesis 1 to me: the mighty wind (read “Spirit”) whips over the surface of the water and God’s Word resounds. “Let there be light” and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.

But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine? Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: “you are what you eat?” The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.

Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate than the Eucharist can you get? We receive the Lord’s body into our physical body that we may become him whom we receive!

Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast. And that’s why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.

But this was not the case. They never questioned and left Him because of symbolic language, but they did in John 6. They left because they understood it was not symbolic language.

The problem Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisees regarding divorce is that the Israelis were hard of hearing regarding spiritual things. God allowed a certificate of divorce because He knew their hearts were far from Him, and yet His plan for them to carry the Word of God to all generations was already decided.

Mat 19:7-8
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The ones who left because of their fear of cannibalism real issue was being spiritually tone deaf.

Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it] not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.

Jesus stayed on top of His disciples regarding their weak faith.

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Mat 16:8 [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

**Scripture says you can suffer damnation from not seeing the Lord’s body in the bread. These are not the words of a symbolic gesture.**

You say 'not seeing the Lord's body in the bread'. My KJV does not add 'in the bread'.

The Lord's body in the world is the church:

Rom. 12:5 "So we, being many, are one body in Christ..".
1 Cor. 12:12 "For as the body is one, and hath many members,...so also is Christ." verse 27 "Now ye are the body of Christ..".
Eph. 1:22,23 "..and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Col. 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church...".

**Please answer the following questions:
1.Why would bread being a symbol of flesh be hard to understand for the followers of Christ?**

Jesus said the Spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. He was trying to let them know that he would dwell in people spiritually:

As the Comforter (John 14:16), that the Lord promised to them, Jesus said in verses 17 and 18: "for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." How? as "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name..." (verse 26).

How do we know this? Because back in verse 20 Jesus said: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you".

and verse 21: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them (remember he said "ye must be born again"), he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (How as 'Spirit of Christ', the Holy Ghost).

and verse 23: "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode in him." How? As the Holy Ghost.

Rom. 8:9 "....Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

**2.Why would this be the only instance where followers of Christ left Him for doctrinal matters?**

Your opinion, and maybe others? Where do you draw the line on being a follower, in the 'gospels'? There were others that followed for the loaves and the fishes, but when the hand outs ceased, stopped following. Didn't the Lord teach doctrine to them as well?

**3.In Greek, the same “IS” is used when Christ said “This is my Body” and in Matthew 3:17 “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’" If the Eucharist is symbolic, Jesus was not man, but only a symbolic man. Which is it?**

While my answer to your question #1 should suffice, here's the easy answer to #3: "..the last Adam (Jesus) was made a quickening spirit". 1 Cor. 15:45.

“The Lord's body in the world is the church”

Look at the larger passage to see the context:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

In the verse 27, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” In verse 29, it uses the exact language “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.”

See the connection? It could not be more clear. Eating and drinking unworthily makes you guilty of the body and blood – eating and drinking damnation. This whole passage is talking about the body and blood of the Lord. It is completely out of context to assume it is referring to the church.

Are you suggesting that every time in scripture we see ‘the Lord's body’ we should read it as ‘the church’?”

Later, in Chapter 12:26-27, which you cite, is a completely different context. “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” This clearly refers to the members of the body of Christ, His church. Not the bread.

Context is important.

****

I think you may have missed the point of my question. My question was, “Why would bread being a symbol of flesh be hard to understand for the followers of Christ?” Why would the disciples leave over a symbolic reference?

A symbol is easy to understand.

Christ’s followers clearly understood symbolic language. They never questioned “How can this man say He is a vine? This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They did not question symbolic this language. They clearly understood the differences between the literal and the symbolic.

You believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically about the bread being his flesh, despite His actual words say otherwise.

If His followers believed the bread being His flesh was only symbolic, they might have responded, “Fine. He’s a vine. He’s a door. He’s a light. Now He’s bread.”

But this was not the case:
“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. … Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? … From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

They never questioned and left Him because of symbolic language of Christ being a vine, a door or a light. But in John 6 they did. Their response was to leave because they understood it was not symbolic language.

“There were others that followed for the loaves and the fishes, but when the hand outs ceased, stopped following”

Free food is not a doctrinal issue.

*****

“here's the easy answer to #3: "..the last Adam (Jesus) was made a quickening spirit". 1 Cor. 15:45

Are you denying Christ was man? Christ a created being? I thought the Arian and Gnostic heresies died out long ago. I don't understand your answer.

Christ’s followers clearly understood symbolic language. They never questioned “How can this man say He is a vine? This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They did not question symbolic this language. They clearly understood the differences between the literal and the symbolic.

This is simply not the case.

Many times the disciples were baffled as to what Jesus would say ... and in many cases, their bewilderment wouldn't be cleared up until they asked Jesus about it.
John 16:17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?

18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.

19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?
The reason why Jesus teaching of offering His body and blood so offended His hearers ... when His teachings of being a door, a vine, light, etc. didn't offend, ... is because God's covenantal Law to the Jews prohibited the consumption of blood ...
Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

"..this do in remembrance of me." from 1 Cor. 11:24 and 25.

The Lord said 'remembrance of me', not 'for the remission of sins'.

The bulk of the epistles are instructions to born again people (saints), also known as the body of Christ. I still believe, that in context, Paul was instructing the Corinthians to regard the Lord's supper as a solemn ceremony for 'ye do shew the Lord's death (remembrance)till he come'. They had let it become a church meal, replacing a regular meal at home.

To make matters worse there were unrepentant members partaking. How do I know this? It's because they were ignoring the fact that they were partaking in the presence of faithful, Spirit filled members of the body. Their unbelief or disobedience, while still partaking, would cause others to relax their faithful walk. And by causing others to sin, they would bring damnation on themselves.

**Are you suggesting that every time in scripture we see ‘the Lord's body’ we should read it as ‘the church’?”**

Not necessarily, but if we are making a point of context, nearly the entire book of 1 Corinthians is about getting them to realize 'who they were': the body of Christ. (for they had allowed a great deal of carnality to mix with the faith)

**Christ’s followers clearly understood symbolic language.**

You're giving them too much credit, for the Lord had them 'stumped' numerous times. Here's a few:

Matt. 16:9,11 "Do you not understand, neither remember...? ...How is it that ye do not understand...? (also found in Mark 8:17-21)

John 14:9,10 (to Philip) "Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hast seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." and chap 16:12,13 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..".

Luke 24:45 "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." What!? Three years with the Lord, and these men needed their understanding opened? He further told them that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. and that they should tarry in that city until they were 'endued with power from on high'. (Acts 2 is that beginning)

**Free food is not a doctrinal issue.**

Mark 6:31-44 'feeding the five thousand'; verse 34 "..and he began to teach them many things". Luke 9:11 "..and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God..".

And in closing, I will do a better job of answering that third question from your previous response. I must confess of being fatigued, and anxious to get some sleep.

I said: “here's the easy answer to #3: "..the last Adam (Jesus) was made a quickening spirit". 1 Cor. 15:45

You say: Are you denying Christ was man? Christ a created being? I thought the Arian and Gnostic heresies died out long ago. I don't understand your answer.

I say: Jesus was 'justified in the Spirit'. I forgot to make it clear that I also believe he was 'manifest in the flesh'. 1 Tim. 3:16

So do we crucify him afresh at religious assemblies? I hope not. "For in that he died, he died unto sin ONCE.." Rom. 6:10. and "Who needeth not DAILY, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself." Heb. 7:27.

"God's covenantal Law to the Jews prohibited the consumption of blood ... "

This is exactly my point. They understood the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood -- NOT a symbol.

Well ... seeing as they walked away from Jesus, ... it is much more likely that they misunderstood.
Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
It was Peter and company that held on to obtain a better understanding.

"it is much more likely that they misunderstood."

But this is not what happened.

In Matt. 16:5–12, we have a clear example of Jesus correcting a misunderstanding: “In coming to the other side of the sea, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus said to them, "Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They concluded among themselves, saying, "It is because we have brought no bread." When Jesus became aware of this he said, "You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

But in John 6, Jesus did not correct "misunderstandings," because there were none to correct. They understood him perfectly well. They understood the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood -- NOT a symbol.

"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" No corrections followed. “But there are some of you who do not believe … After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him"

Look at the verses just before the ones you cite. “The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” Matt13:10-12

It was Peter and company who stayed because they had “knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”. Bread as a symbol is not a mystery. Those with the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven chose to stay, and they grew rich. The ones who did not left, and lost all.

"it is much more likely that they misunderstood."

But this is not what happened.

In Matt. 16:5–12, we have a clear example of Jesus correcting a misunderstanding: “In coming to the other side of the sea, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus said to them, "Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They concluded among themselves, saying, "It is because we have brought no bread." When Jesus became aware of this he said, "You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

But in John 6, Jesus did not correct "misunderstandings," because there were none to correct. They understood him perfectly well. They understood the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood -- NOT a symbol. "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" No corrections followed. “But there are some of you who do not believe … After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" Look at the verses just before the ones you cite. “The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” Matt13:10-12

Jesus DID correct this misunderstanding for the twelve.

At the event of the Lord's Supper (prior to His arrest in thr garden) ... Jesus demonstrated the offering of His body and blood.

Jesus offered bread (so says the text) to His disciples and said ... "This is My Body".

He then offered the disciples wine (so says the text) and said ... "This is My Blood which is shed for you."

At the point of the demonstration of the Lord's Supper, the disciples understood.

The ones who left did not hang in with Jesus long enough to receive the benefits of this demonstration by Jesus. If they had ... they would have understood as well as the twelve.

It was Peter and company who stayed because they had “knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”. Bread as a symbol is not a mystery.

Bread as a symbol of the body of Jesus would be a mystery.

“And by causing others to sin, they would bring damnation on themselves”

You can believe whatever you want, but the clear language of scripture says otherwise.

In the verse 27, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” In verse 29, it uses the exact language “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” Nothing here about causing others to sin.

Your interpretation requires you to bounce around, cut and paste the verses to make this connection. I will stay with the obvious.

“You're giving them too much credit, for the Lord had them 'stumped' numerous times.”

Yes, but my point was about symbolic language:

I am the vine. No Questions.
I am the door. No Questions.
I am the light. No Questions.
“beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” Questions and clarifications. (Look at my post #271)

I am the Bread of life. Questions. No clarifications, corrections or retractions. Desertion by followers. Those who left understood they Jesus told them to eat the literal flesh of the Lord.

It was Peter and company who stayed because they had “knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”. Bread as a symbol is not a mystery.

“Bread as a symbol of the body of Jesus would be a mystery”

No. Bread actually being the body of Christ is the mystery. This is my body.

I am the vine. An analogy. Not a mystery
I am the door. An analogy. Not a mystery
I am the light. An analogy. Not a mystery
I am the Bread. An analogy. Not a mystery

However,

This is my body. Literal. Big mystery. .

A mystery is simply some fact which is misunderstood (or not understood) for any period of time.

There were many points where the disciples were mystified by the sayings of Jesus.

As soon as He clarified ... mystery solved.

It doesn't have to be a 'big mystery'.

Jesus solved any misunderstanding the disciples had associated with the offering of His body and blood when He presented the Lord's Supper.

You'll note that He distributed bread (per the text in every reference) and wine (per the text in every reference).

You'll find no reference in scripture to Jesus offering flesh that looked like bread ... or blood that looked like wine.

You'll find no scriptural witness to the idea of Transustantiation.

The gospel writers (Apostles) in one accord witness that Jesus distributed bread and wine.

If they knew that it was really Jesus' flesh and blood ... don't you think that (even one of them) would have said so ?

I fail to see how you can not see this.

That's because you are pre-conditioned to think with a Roman Catholic mind.

“You'll find no reference in scripture to Jesus offering flesh that looked like bread ... or blood that looked like wine.”

This is the mystery.

“As soon as He clarified ... mystery solved”

In my post 271, I showed you how Christ corrected the misunderstanding about the bread. You accepted that. Good.

But in John 6, Jesus did not correct "misunderstandings," because there were none to correct. They understood him perfectly well. They understood the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood -- NOT a symbol.

"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" No corrections followed. “But there are some of you who do not believe … After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" Mystery remains to this day. A divine mystery. One that cannot be solved, but needs to be believed. Because Scripture is clear.

“You'll find no scriptural witness to the idea of Transustantiation.”

Except throughout all of the New Testament.

“Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” John 6:53-56

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16)

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:29)

"Take and eat; this is my body." Mat 26:26

"This is my body, which will be given for you” Luke 22:19

It still comes down to the meaning of the word “IS”. I believe it means is. You do not. For those of us who believe the bible is literally true, there is no alternative.

“If they knew that it was really Jesus' flesh and blood ... don't you think that (even one of them) would have said so?”

This is what happened in John 6. They all knew it to be literal. Those that believed stayed. Those who found it hard to accept, left.

And my only conditioning is logic and a literal reading of scripture. You start with a tradition of man that says it is symbolic. By doing so, you are forced to say “is” does not mean “is”.

Instead of starting with your traditions, start with a view that the Bible is literal. Then try to find scripture that contradicts the literal.

And my only conditioning is logic and a literal reading of scripture. You start with a tradition of man that says it is symbolic. By doing so, you are forced to say “is” does not mean “is”.

It is clear to any non-biased reader of the gospel of John ... that it is full of symbolism (or spiritualism).

An example of spiritualism (just so that you know where I'm coming from) ... is found in John 1 where it speaks of John the Baptist bearing witness to "The Light" ...
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
In this ... and other passages in John ... Jesus is spoken of as the "Light of the World". I would consider such a statement in a spiritual sense ... (i.e. that Jesus is not 'physical' light, ... but that He is 'spiritual' light).

In such a writing as John's gospel, where Jesus declares ...
I AM the LIGHT of the world.

I AM the BREAD of life.

I AM the DOOR to the sheepfold.

I AM the VINE, ye are the branches.
... it is not illogical or tradition-biased to conclude that when Jesus says ...
"This is My BODY" ... and offers bread ...

... and "This is My BLOOD" ... and offers wine ...
... that He is speaking symbolically (or spiritually).

It is easier to make the case for symbolism or spiritualism (because its done throughout the gospel) ... than it is to make the case for mysticalism.

“It is easier to make the case for symbolism or spiritualism”

Yes, it is easier. It was so easy that his followers, people who were used to seeing miracles performed by Christ, left him over this easy to understand symbol.

Jesus used analogy and symbolism.

* I am the vine. An analogy. No Questions from His followers.
* I am the door. An analogy. No Questions from His followers.
* I am the light. An analogy. No Questions from His followers.
* “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” An Analogy. Questions and clarifications. “why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?” (Look at my post #271)

* I am the Bread of life. Questions. In John 6:60 : "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were His disciples. No clarifications, corrections or retractions. Desertion by followers. “Hey guys, come back! It is only a symbol!” Christ never called them back. Those who left understood Jesus told them to eat the literal flesh of the Lord. This they could not accept. This is when Judas turned, not being able to accept the literal truth.

Yes. It is easier to make the case for symbolism. But that is not what the scripture shows.

* I am the Bread of life. Questions. In John 6:60 : "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were His disciples. No clarifications, corrections or retractions. Desertion by followers. “Hey guys, come back! It is only a symbol!” Christ never called them back. Those who left understood Jesus told them to eat the literal flesh of the Lord. This they could not accept. This is when Judas turned, not being able to accept the literal truth.

Those that left were not yet, if ever, disciples of Jesus. If they had been, they'd have never left ... they would have continued (in faith, as did Peter) with Jesus.

Jesus never called anybody back ... those who chose to leave Him (for whatever reason) ... He simply allowed to leave.

If the remaining disciples understood that Jesus was going to feed them His body and blood, ... no doubt thry were surprised (and relieved) when He offered them bread and wine instead.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.