Replies

Well, looks like i did it again. Got some html in there and lost all the paragraphs breaks. And i know it is long to begin with, but this is a major doctrine, which is part of what the Pope seek to convert sous to. So let me try it again (i will preview it this time).

"the verb "eats" of "eats my flesh" in 6:54-58 is not the Greek verb used to denote human eating, but instead the gnawing of animals.." You are in error. trōgō simply describes what happens in the process of eating, and only used of humans eating (plural), as in Mat_24:38: "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark," It is never used to denote animals eating, unless you suppose the above also refers to animals marrying. Moreover, the singular word "eat in jn. 6:53 is the common word for eatings, as an examination of the 97 occurrences of the word reveals. And it is used metaphorically to denote spiritual eating: Rv. 2:7,14,17,20; 17:16.

"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself The Greek word for "examine" translates better as "test and find true" - part of that examination requires discerning the body of Christ in the Eucharist." This also is erroneous, as contextually it is clear what Paul was referring to by the Lord's body. The context is that some souls were commemorating the utterly selfless sacrifice of the Lord in an entirely selfish way, that of pigging out at the love feast of charity (Jude 1:12) while others members of the body of Christ were starving. This is what is meant by not discerning (or judging) the Lord's body. And which Paul elsewhere defines as the church (Eph_1:23,16; 4:4,12,16;_5:23,30; Col_1:18,22; 2:11,17,19; 3:15).

Overall, the RC doctrine that consecrated communion wafer actually literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, which they then consume (which would just as literally be cannibalism), is erroneous for trhe following reasons.

1.The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood, the penalty being to be cut off from God's people, “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” (Lv. 17:0). And that the apostles, far from being learned theologians, who might have understood what Rome proposes, were unlearned Jews, who were not above voicing concerns when troubled about things, even at the last supper, (it is I?). and that Peter, the must vocal of all, was still following Kosher Law as far after the Lord's supper as Acts 10 (9-16), in which he protested “Not so, Lord” (an oxymoron). How much more he, or one of the apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord's corporeal flesh and drinking His blood! Peter did not even (initially) want the Lord to wash his feet (Jn. 13:6), never mind eat His flesh! We can see even see how preposterous the RC scheme is in the light of Scripture (however, those after physical bread will likely disagree: Jn. 6:26).

2. Grammatically, that the bread was Jesus actual body is no more literal than the cup was actually the New testament in His blood (Lk, 22:20), rather it clearly represented it. The Jews were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner. When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your WORDS were found. and I ATE them. and your WORD was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (15:16), or Ezekiel and Joghn are told, "EAT this SCROLL, and go, speak to the house of Israel" ( 3:1), "Take the SCROLL ... Take it and EAT it" (Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9 ), it is not speaking of literal eating.

In Jn. 6, it is speaking of receiving the words of Christ, even as one eats food (Mt. 4:4). This is how Jesus "lived (Jn. 4:34), and as He states in Jn. 6:57, this is how we shall live by him. .

As relates to equating men with blood, perhaps one of the most analogous example is found in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates the thing gotten at the peril of the men's life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. So it is in the Lord's supper accounts. The Lord is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life giving substances could be broken and poured out, respectively, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless “pour out “ as ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).

3. If John 6:53 is what Rome says it means, then in order to have "life in you", which can only come by receiving the holy Spirit (Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved. Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning. The apostles taught that how one becomes born again, which is how you get “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47). For Jesus said, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4).

And as touch on before, the analogy Jesus gave in Jn. 6 as to how we are to “eat His flesh” was that of how Jesus lived by the Father" (John 6:57), which was not by physically consuming Him, but by doing His will in believing and obeying Him, as Jesus said that was “meat and drink” (Jn. 4:34). Thus the interpretation of Jesus words requiring us to eat His flesh and drink his blood, was “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not” (Jn. 6:63, 64). For as He said before, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

(Mat 4:4) "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

(John 4:34) "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

(John 6:57) "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

Eph. 1:13b.. "ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord's Supper, that by means of transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine is actually exchanged, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earth;ly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did, there was no such exchange. The water actually became wine, and it who tasted like it, and sick were made well, and knew it. Even in the Lord's incarnation, it was Christ being made in the flesh, but not a transubstantiation, so that the Lord would be a type of phantom, or in any way no be literally flesh and blood, while yet being “God manifest in the flesh” (1Tim. 3:16).

5 Unlike other major doctrines - and the RC doctrine of transubstantiation is a most major one - very little mention of the Lord's supper is made, and no theology on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Nowhere it presented as the means or necessity to gain eternal life, as the RC interpretation makes it, and instead effectually believing on the Lord Jesus Christ gives life (Acts 10"43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13; 2:1). "The Lord's body" referred to . The term "eating and drink in Jn. 6 is consistent with Biblical Jewish as well as Greek allegorical usage, and Lord's body in 1 Cor. 11 contextually represented the church, just as Paul often refers to elsewhere, rather than bread and wine being transubstantiated into it. Those who are deceived into believing the carnal interpretation of Rome (which the lost souls in Jn. 6:66 did) have “eaten the fruit of lies” (Hos. 6:13), and which is another example of the abundant use of metaphors regarding eating.

May all "eat" the word of God and effectually repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood for salvation, not our merit or that which Rome professes, and so find the Word to be the joy and rejoicing of our heart (Jer. 15:16).

Thanks for redoing your post - I had no idea what the first one was!

You are in error. trōgō simply describes what happens in the process of eating, and only used of humans eating

I don't hold myself out as a Greek scholar, so you may very well have a stronger grasp of the language than I. However, this site gives a strong treatment of what I have learned about the use of "trogo" as opposed to "phago" - I don't believe I have the depth of knowledge required to continue this argument with you; however, I know of a couple Greek speaking FReepers who would be able to shed light on this matter from the Church's perspective, if you wish.

Regarding your other points:

The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood

Indeed the Jews were - I, however, am not a Jew, and am not held to their laws. Yes, the Apostles continued to keep the law until the Council of Jerusalem, but there we learn that Christians are not required to keep such laws. I could keep Kosher if I so desired, but that would be merely a lifestyle choice for me - it has no bearing on my relationship with God. Same with the Apostles. They kept Kosher because that was what they knew, but the New Covenant superceded the dietary requirements. If Christians were eating pig before Acts 10, they were not in violation of the law, as it had already become obsolete.

How much more he, or one of the apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord's corporeal flesh and drinking His blood!

But that is exactly what occured in John 6. The disciples understood Him metaphorically at first - they were fine with that. It wasn't until their question of "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" that they began to understand Him. And His response? "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh..." Many were aghast at such a proposition, and left - however, Peter the Rock stayed and accepted Him at His word.

Grammatically, that the bread was Jesus actual body is no more literal than the cup was actually the New testament in His blood (Lk, 22:20), rather it clearly represented it

I already touched on this - the cup was His blood. Jesus spoke literally here, there was no mincing of words. I don't deny that there is symbolic usage of language in the Bible, but you're reaching here - sometimes He means exactly what He says.

Nowhere it presented as the means or necessity to gain eternal life, as the RC interpretation makes it

I'm going to touch on points 3 and 5 together, since I think they go together. The Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the means or is necessary to gain eternal life - it is a means to impart Grace upon the faithful. Your used of John 6:47 is touched on above - the disciples heard Him metaphorically, and it wasn't until John 6:53 that they really understood the gravity of what he was saying.

4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord's Supper, that by means of transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine is actually exchanged, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earth;ly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did, there was no such exchange. The water actually became wine, and it who tasted like it, and sick were made well, and knew it. Even in the Lord's incarnation, it was Christ being made in the flesh, but not a transubstantiation, so that the Lord would be a type of phantom, or in any way no be literally flesh and blood, while yet being “God manifest in the flesh” (1Tim. 3:16).

If what you say is true, why did almost no one recognize Jesus as God? Because they did not know God? Then, did Jesus really hand over the keys to Peter? Physically? Or did He endow Peter with power? Or did He lie when He said He would give Peter the keys? And what of the Gift of the Holy Spirit? The Apostles were not physically changed when they received the gift, but they received it nonetheless. And why did the Apostles lay hands upon Paul, if not to pass on the gift of the Spirit? Lastly, I am curious if you've heard of the Miracle of Lanciano.

Now, I've neglected to include the testimony of the earliest Christians in this post recognizing the true Body and Blood in the Eucharist, only because I don't know if you would consider those sources as "valid". I do struggle on the Religion Fourm, because Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different sources of authority - either the Bible alone, or the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.