The Body of Christ

“I interpret this to mean that those who eat and drink without discerning the body and blood of Christ, eat and drink judgment on themselves.

In fact, St. Paul goes on to say that some of these people died.”

Per my response to the other fellow, Paul makes it clear that they are eating bread and the “fruit of the vine.” The message to the Corinthians was against their treating the Lord’s Supper as any other supper.

1Co 11:25-26 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.

Christ is also clear that the “fruit of the vine” in the cup, which He called blood, is still the “fruit of the vine” He plans to drink when He is reunited with the Apostles:

Mat 26:27-29 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (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.

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

I very strongly agree with you of course!

And thank you for your question:

Iscool, perhaps Alamo-girl will bless us with her explanation how Eden was actually a heavenly, spiritual place.

To explain it, I must put it in context with my overall understanding of "all that there is" and prophecy. So here goes.

At our present space/time coordinates, the universe is observed to be about 15 billion years old. However, when we consider the inflationary model and general relativity (warping of space/time) - we can also see that the universe is about a week old (equiv earth time) at the inception space/time coordinates (Schroeder et al.)

I also perceive this change of "observer" perspective in Scripture.

More specifically, Genesis chapters 1 to 3 are from the inception perspective. The Creator is the only observer of Creation ex nihilo and He speaks to both the physical and the spiritual as the Creation, the earthly and the heavenly. To presuppose an earthly space/time perspective would result in needless contradiction such as plants on Day 3 before the sun and solar system on Day 4 (emphasis mine:)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3

Indeed, I perceive the creation of Adam and the Garden of Eden in the spiritual realm and thus see no contradiction at all in Genesis 1 to 3. The tree of life is in the middle of the Garden of Eden and Paradise (see below) and therefore not strictly physical.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7

I perceive Adam was created in the spiritual realm before he was banished to mortality, the physical realm, and his mortal calendar/clock began. Or to put it another way, I do not perceive Adam as strictly physical.

At the top of Genesis 4, after Adam is banished to mortality, the perspective changes to Adamic man, to our space/time coordinates. Adam's clock starts ticking.

The first indication of the change in observer perspective is in the curse itself (emphasis mine)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [literally, muwth muwth or “death death”]. – Genesis 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

That is not some vague reference but is explicitly revealed here:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. – 2 Peter 3:8

That is also the Jewish interpretation (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa) of Psalms 90:4:

For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

Adam was not made for a mere physical existence like a bacteria, daffodil, fish or cow. He doesn’t “belong” in the physical realm and he knows it. But because he was banished to mortality, this peculiar creature made for Paradise/Eden, having immortality at his finger tips, now is grounded in the physical universe whose life forms were his to name.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. – Genesis 2:19

Death entered the world because of Adam, not just physical death but muwth muwth – death death (Gen 2:17) - not just the death of his physical body, but the death of his living soul.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: - Romans 5:12

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28

Adam, by Jewish and early Christian beliefs, was appointed a week (corresponding to Creation week) - or seven thousand years, the last of which is Christ's thousand year reign on earth, the Lord's Sabbath (Revelation.) The Sabbath is also prophecy:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

To illustrate that it was an early Christian belief, I offer the first excerpt below from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5 which is not part of the canon and is not to be confused with the late sixteenth century Islamic fraud, “The Gospel of Barnabas.”

The Epistle of Barnabas dates back to the first few centuries after Christ’s resurrection. It is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and also mentioned by Origen. It was part of the Codex Sinaiticus but is not part of the Catholic canon today. Nevertheless, it reveals the discernment of these early Christians.

He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the Creation, "And God made in six days the works of His hands and on the seventh day He made an end, and He rested on the seventh day, and He sanctified it. Consider, my children what this signifies: That He made an end in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in six thousand years the Creator will bring all things to an end, for with Him one day is a thousand years. He Himself testifies, saying, Behold the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished. And He rested on the seventh day: He means this, that when His Son shall come He will destroy the season of the wicked one, and will judge the godless, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.

It is also recorded in the first verse, chapter 33 of 2 Enoch which is the Slavic version of that book (also not part of the canon) but nevertheless showing the beliefs of early Christians:

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that (the first seven) revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

In sum, the Jewish mystics and these early Christians (and I) perceive that Adamic man, upon being banished to mortality, was appointed a total of 7 days or 7,000 years. The last day of the week, the Sabbath, in the Christian view is Christ’s millennial reign on earth.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. – Revelation 20:4-6

And again,

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. – Matt 12:5-8

God's Name is I AM..

It as Plain As Day! Just amazing how it is twisted by some. But Some have to still chase something.

Surely, if they had misunderstood Him, Christ who is Truth would have immediately sought to dispel this misunderstanding.

Wrong answer...Jesus already knew they didn't believe he was the Son of God...Nothing he could have said would have changed their minds...They were looking for another free meal...

You got it easy...All you have to do is copy and paste one of the three responses you have in your repertoire, regardless of who posts what...

"You got it easy...All you have to do is copy and paste one of the three responses you have in your repertoire, regardless of who posts what..."

That beats the random word generator you so often use. ;o)

More specifically, Genesis chapters 1 to 3 are from the inception perspective. The Creator is the only observer of Creation ex nihilo and He speaks to both the physical and the spiritual as the Creation, the earthly and the heavenly. To presuppose an earthly space/time perspective would result in needless contradiction such as plants on Day 3 before the sun and solar system on Day 4 (emphasis mine:)

I am an adherent to the gap theory...I believe there is scripture to back it up... I don't have a problem with with plants showing up before the sun or solar system...

I perceive Adam was created in the spiritual realm before he was banished to mortality, the physical realm, and his mortal calendar/clock began. Or to put it another way, I do not perceive Adam as strictly physical.

There's no doubt in my mind that something was going on which is far more than the just the physical...I mean, Adam could actually communicate with God...

It was however physical as well...Adam was created out of the dirt of the earth...Eden had physical coordinates...So, Eden is still where God put it initially but we obviously couldn't recognize it for what it was when Adam and Eve lived there...

Aside from that, I agree with everything else you said...I'll even go beyond that...

I believe the 7 days of creation are seen thru out the OT scriptures and give up a clue to future prophecy often when such things are said, for example: in three days, or after 4 days, etc...If one pays attention to those little things, it seems that other things jump out that may have been overlooked...

But thanks for posting that...

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and beliefs, dear brother in Christ!

I believe the 7 days of creation are seen thru out the OT scriptures and give up a clue to future prophecy often when such things are said, for example: in three days, or after 4 days, etc...If one pays attention to those little things, it seems that other things jump out that may have been overlooked...

Indeed.

Becareful not to misunderstand Augustine here. When Augustine says ‘Catholic,” it is no different than saying the universal body of Christ. In the 4th century, there wasn’t even a Roman Catholic Church at all.

I have become skeptical of most of the Catholic history...And I haven't spent much time in the work of Augustine...

The fact that the word Catholic was used, with a Capital C shows me is trying to subvert the work of Augustine...But why would Augustine say catholic instead of universal...Or why would it be translated as catholic instead of universal???

But I agree, Augustine's got it figured out on the Eucharist...

But for Augustine to misquote scripture and then go on a rant whey he/they have to worship the footstool as a result is a little mindboggling...

That beats the random word generator you so often use. ;o)

It's got a name too...It's called, Bible...

Spiritual does NOT mean symbolic, allegorical, double entendre, or any convention of language that results in a conclusion that "it isn't real".

I don't believe that I implied that it was...

If spirit is poetic license for "not real", then one is arguing that God is not real, for the bible clearly says "God is Spirit."

I have on many posts discussing this very matter proclaimed that while 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' is literal, it is not physical but spiritual...

Look folks, no one is saying that Catholics have a monopoly on helping the poor. That’s a straw man’s argument. But let’s get back to the Eucharist. Christ didn’t use bread and wine as symbols. This is one area where He was not talking in parables.

When Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:51-55)., there can be no doubt what He was referring to.

The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called “real” not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real. The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.

When the Jews understood Christ as actually meaning His real Body and Blood they were aghast. Many of you literalists, the “sola scriptura” crowd, ironically deny the emphatic words of the Christ. Here’s how this exchange occurred.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said.

Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this particular point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

But now Jesus corrects them.

Jesus first repeated what He said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly.

Now follow the discussion carefully.

Again Jesus repeated His words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking His blood:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

No Corrections

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

This then is the point that NO fundamentalist or Eucharistic denyer can ever explain. This is why the early Church fathers assembled and formally declared the central truth of the Eucharist. Approval comes not from the trees. It comes from the authority given by Christ to Peter and his successors.

The quotes from Jn 6:26-29 are not on point because Christ is talking about earthly perishables. On the contrary, He is the living presence in the consecrated host.

This is why the Catholic Church will remain until the “consummation of the earth” while the rest, all the tens of thousands of Christian sects like Islam, Hinduism, Mormons, Church of Latter Day Saints, Church of Scientology down to your Joel Osteens, Schullers, are all in one sense different yet they have in common the quality driftwood.

Iscool complains in a prior post that we Catholics reject all what non-Catholic Christian say. It’s not so much that as that we have no clue what tens of thousands of Christian sects “think” since at the end of the day each one is a Church unto himself and often sects within sects.

They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

This then is the point that NO fundamentalist or Eucharistic denyer can ever explain.

I and Jesus already explained it to you...Jesus even told you that what goes into the mouth has a one tract mind...The intestinal tract...It goes from your stomach to the toilet...

“The fact that the word Catholic was used, with a Capital C shows me is trying to subvert the work of Augustine...But why would Augustine say catholic instead of universal...Or why would it be translated as catholic instead of universal???”

Technically, the word translated ‘catholic’ MEANS universal. It’s just that the RCC claims that the universe is centered on the Pope, but this would not have been the case in Augustine’s day. Even when the whole heresy of Peter being supreme took hold, the “Pope” in Rome was still attributing Peter’s seat to the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria (from the RCC’s perspective, it’s basically like saying that there are many Popes), and condemning the idea of a Universal Bishop in Constantinople. This is why Calvin called Gregory the 1st the “last good Pope,” at least so far as Gregory’s rejection of the idea of being the universal head of the church. It was his successor, unfortunately, who finally petitioned the emperor to be called “universal.”

“But for Augustine to misquote scripture and then go on a rant whey he/they have to worship the footstool as a result is a little mindboggling...”

Keep in mind, Augustine did not speak Hebrew. He was going off of the Greek LXX, and the “at” in “worship at God’s footstool” has to be assumed, at least that’s the impression I get looking just now at the LXX. The “at” is italicized, which tells me the at is inserted based on the context. Augustine, obviously, did not make that proper assumption, but tried to reason about it word for word. This doesn’t seem to be a problem in the Hebrew.

This is why Augustine goes into that whole logical cycle of turning the footstool into another name for Jesus Christ. It’s convoluted from our perspective because we simply have far more resources and better translations than they do, and Augustine is left to his own devices reading and studying the scripture. But the fact that Augustine is studying the scriptures is to his credit. You will find also that as Augustine develops his theology throughout his years, he does not rely on some previous Roman Catholic tradition. His reasoning is based solely on the scriptures. There are many assumptions he makes, but as people challenge them you see him evolve based on what the scriptures do or do not say.

This is especially visible in Augustine’s dispute with the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, the latter of which basically run the Catholic church now. As a result of this conflict, all of the stuff we see put forward by Luther nearly a thousand years later is actually using arguments derived from Augustine, since Luther, not coincidentally, was an Augustinian monk. Thus, the whole battle against free will, and whether grace alone by faith alone is sufficient, actually stems from Augustine, who himself was only making sense of the teachings of the scripture.

This is not to say, of course, that Luther depended on any man for his theology. It’s just that Augustine put forward a perspective that was simply suppressed by the Romanists (they even burned books that attempted to analyze the true nature of Augustine’s system), which became a great benefit for those who took the authority of scripture alone to determine doctrine seriously. The Romanists can’t come up and say that our doctrines are novel, since they’ve actually been around since the time of the Apostles, and believed on by men like Augustine and others.

Spurgeon makes that point here:

“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon

We Christians, ultimately, depend ONLY on the word of God for our doctrine, and all the doctrines of men must bow to the doctrines of scripture. A study of the Early church “fathers”, beyond mere snippets and projections of modern theology on the past, reveals that the RCC is truly built on myths, phantoms and forgeries.

“When Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:51-55)”

But notice how much scripture you are basically pretending does not exist, and you just, frankly, assume that Christ didn’t correct them from the carnal view even though He very clearly did. You don’t actually offer any real explanation for why Christ always speaks like this in other cases either, and yet the Romans don’t offer anybody consecrated “living water” to drink as Commanded by Christ, or why no one is giving anybody milk or meat to eat in order to learn the Gospel, per Paul who describes, respectively, easy and heavy Gospel truths. It’s been made very clear what Christ’s actual position is, but I can’t think of ANY Catholic in this thread who has really, significantly, put forward a real response to the most powerful arguments offered. They simply work around the edges.

I posted for you a long and detailed reply... MORE than once, and you do not even attempt to answer the points made. It’s almost as if they weren’t even made at all. Please address them, and I’ll add this to them as well:

From Augustine: If a sentence is given that seems to enjoin an act of cime or vice, it is figurative.

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, 3rd Book, Chp. 16)

This is because to drink blood and eat human flesh is actually a sin.

Gen 9:3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (4) But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Lev_7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Lev 17:10-11 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. (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.

Deu_12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Since God emphasizes and reemphasizes never to drink blood, this certainly would make literally drinking the blood of Christ to be a crime. Therefore, to believe on Christ, to adhere to His teachings, is to eat and drink Him, as this is certainly the lawful understanding of the scripture. We eat His flesh by adhering to His teachings, we drink His blood by having faith in Him. This is what it means to truly take in Christ, and not carnally. The flesh profits nothing, only the Spirit quickens.

No Corrections.

Not even a few verses away? Are you sure about that?

Hint: verse 62 came true, quite literally. And that manna spoken of? sent from heaven. With no word invoked or spoken over the tiny (as hoarfrost) pieces as they were gathered, no "transubstantiation" performed by Moses, Aaron & the boys. The people in the wilderness that ate of that physical substance which Christ said he himself was? What happened to those guys? They DIED.

The key point of the correction (which you claim did not follow at that precise juncture(!));

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

they're not listening

Perhaps they never will...

So some followers of Christ died ("fell asleep") for failing to "discern the body of Christ," which is really just bread and wine?

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Thank you so much, dearest Sister-in-Christ.

I am always blessed when I read your reminders that Adam and God communicated in the same plane prior to Adam’s eviction from Eden, the Paradise of God.

There is an intersection of the spiritual and the earthly, and Jesus demonstrated it when the doors and windows were shut and suddenly He was in the midst of them.

The Spiritual is not only “real”, but it is the ultimate reality... For “God is Spirit”.

A question: Do you think a “Day” lengthens from our perspective as “time” goes on and we get farther from the source of creation?

Thanks...