Dannii
You know the NT is authorative because the Catholic Church told you so in 397AD at the Council of Carthage.
Donna

Hi Tim
You are a patient man.  Thank you.  I have struggled with how I was to approach the subject of the Eucharist and some of the objections you raised.  My initial intention was to show the foreshadowing of the Eucharist in the OT - The meal of Melchizidek, the manna from Heaven and the Passover.  However, I thought I would simply argue apologetically.  It would seem that the main protestant position is that Jesus is talking figuratively, metaphorically or symbolically when He uses the words “This is My flesh….”.  I would like to demonstrate that Jesus could NOT be speaking figuratively, metaphorically or any other way except literally.

Let’s look at John 6 again.  Notice that John’s gospel begins with the feeding of the five thousand (men).  Jesus is using bread to feed us.  Go further in verse 26 -35 – Jesus refers to the loaves and reminds them to “seek for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you..” He reminds them of the food of their fathers, the manna from heaven.  That bread came down supernaturally.  It was actually food.  It was not a symbol.  Jesus says “truly, truly I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My father who gives you the true bread out of heaven……and gives life to the world”.  Notice Jesus says truly, truly or amen, amen.  Why is Jesus referring to the manna from Heaven.  Simply because it foreshadowed a more glorious miracle which was to come – the Eucharist.  As we go further into Chapter 6 we see Jesus again saying “truly, truly..” He is preparing them.  He is persistent in His message.  He can hear them murmuring.  He recalls to them that their fathers ate manna in the desert and died but “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh”.  Immediately, the Jews began to argue.  “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Let’s stop here.  If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, why does Jesus continue and say: “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 on 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.” ..and he continues.  If Jesus was speaking symbolically or figuratively why did He not clear up this misunderstanding.  Many of his disciples said “who can listen to it”. 

Jesus was misunderstood many times in the NT.  In each case He always cleared up the misunderstanding.  An example of this is in Matt 16:5-12 – Jesus clears up the misunderstanding regarding leaven bread.  Luke 8:5-15 – parable of sower.  Jesus again clears up a misunderstanding.  So why would Jesus, knowing that many left and knowing that even the Apostles were murmuring, allow them to have their eternal life in jeopardy when He could have just said “I am just talking symbolically.  The bread and wine are not really my flesh and blood”.  2000 years of Christianity is based on a misunderstanding that Jesus could have cleared up very quickly.  This would make Jesus a very poor teacher, if this was the case.

The NT fulfils the OT in a more glorious fashion.  So when Jesus refers to the manna from Heaven He telling us that He is going to give us something even greater.  If He was just leaving us symbols, then Jesus gift would be less than that of Moses’.
Protestants always use John 6 verse 63 as proof that Jesus was speaking symbolically.  I’ll answer this objection this way:
1.  It is very clear from reading John 6 that the multitude and the Apostles understood Him literally otherwise the disciples would not have left Him.  In verse 55 the phrases “real” food and “real” drink mean truly or really.  The word used was “Alethes”.
2.  2.  Whenever Jesus cleared up misunderstandings the disciples had, they always heard Him.  They understood more clearly what He was saying.
3.  Spirit never equals symbolic in the NT.  From a linguistic, logical or biblical viewpoint it would make no sense for the word ‘spirit’ to mean symbol.
4.  Jesus does not say HIS flesh is to no avail.  He says “the spirit gives life, THE flesh profits nothing”.  He has just finished saying HIS flesh give us eternal life!  What Jesus is saying is that we need supernatural faith to believe that HIS flesh is FOOD indeed.  Immediately after Jesus says these words in v63, the disciples withdrew from Him.  This verse didn’t clear up their misunderstanding.  They clearly understood what Jesus was saying.  It then continues with Jesus saying to His Apostles, “…do you want to go away also?”
5.  Protestants may use the argument that Jesus has said “I am the door” to prove that Jesus used metaphor.  The disciples did not say “so you are made of wood”, so understood Jesus when He did use metaphor.  It is clear that the disciples and Apostles understood Jesus literally, otherwise why defect on pure symbol.

The chapter ends with Jesus telling them that one of them would betray Him at the end of his discourse on the Eucharist.  Coincidence, maybe.  I think not.

post to cont.

...part 2
Let’s see what Paul says.  Remember Paul received these instructions directly from Jesus.  1Cor 11 -20-34.  Paul is disciplining the church about their irreverence when meeting for the Lord’s Supper.  In V27 Paul says “therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord”.  Surely this is a little over the top if the bread and wine are purely symbols.  In Verse 30 Paul reminds them that many are …”weak and sick, and a number have died”.  Died!  Would we die if they were purely symbols.  No. 

Generally, physical symbols in the protestant church are frowned upon.  So it seems a contradictory argument to use symbols in this case to support the argument.

Malaci 1:11 – a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting.  It’s a perpetual sacrifice.  What sacrifice is this?  The unbloody sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist.  In Revelations Jesus is seen as the Lamb as slain from all eternity.  He is slain before time.  God does not exist in time so He can, therefore, perpetuate His sacrifice.  He was slain once for ALL.  We weren’t all at calvary.

Historically, the early church has always believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Not one early church father or doctor of the church has said anything contradictory to this.  Even Luther did not reject the Church’s teaching:

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?  Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my BODY is the same as the sign of my body? Or, that IS is the same as it signifies?  What language in the world ever spoke so?  It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.  Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, ‘It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present’.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: ‘It is bread only;p or the body of Christ is not there’, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived.  Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition.

So for over 1500 years, Christianity continued on a misunderstanding which Jesus could have cleared up very quickly.  Jesus is the perfect teacher.  His words are spirit and life.  I believe, help my unbelief!

Donna

Ken Austin - 26 July 2008 08:24 PM

The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is fully man, and fully God. I hope you don’t disagree at this point. So Jesus needed to be fully man, which implies inherited sinfulness, like Adam, to be a suitable propitionary sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Do we still agree? The God side of Jesus wassupplied by his Father, agree? The sinful mankind side was supplied b.... guess who, his mother.

Ken,

I think you need to read some more of the bible go lie down and think about this statement for a bit longer.

“Inherited sinfulness” You might want to talk to some other christians RC or protestant. I’m sure that most will have an issue with your wording.

The Letter to the Hebrews explains that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was a once for all event, that never needs to be or can be repeated. Now he is seated reigning triumphant in heaven, his sacrifice finished. He is the one true high priest, who offered his blood sacrifice in the true heavenly temple. He interecedes for us on the basis of his completed sacrifice. To imagine it can be repeated on earth in many places at once denies all this.

Frank
No it doesn’t.  Jesus is the Lamb slain from all eternity.  He was slain before time was created.  What John saw in his vision was something before the world existed.  Hebrews does not give an argument against the Catholic teaching.  It supports it.  Jesus has died once for all, I agree.  In the Eucharist Jesus is not killed or re-crucified.  It is an unbloody sacrifice.  No Catholic believes that Jesus is dying all over again.  That would be the most ridiculous statement you could say to a Catholic.
Now Ken to what I said in my post.  Which part did you not agree with?  I would need to convinced that Jesus’ words are meant symbolically to change my position.
Donna

Sorry, I just thought of something else.  If Jesus was commanding us to eat His flesh and blood symbolically, would He be asking us to committing an immoral act, symbolically.  This would be a fair question particularly if protestants think that belief in the Eucharist would be a form of idolatry.
Donna

Donna Green - 27 July 2008 06:30 PM

Dannii
You know the NT is authorative because the Catholic Church told you so in 397AD at the Council of Carthage.
Donna

I just want to say that we can know that the NT is authoritive because 2 Timothy 3:16 declares that :

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Donna Green - 27 July 2008 07:28 PM

If Jesus was commanding us to eat His flesh and blood symbolically, would He be asking us to committing an immoral act, symbolically.  This would be a fair question particularly if protestants think that belief in the Eucharist would be a form of idolatry.

Hi again Donna. It seems to me it would be idolatry if we were worshipping the symbol, which we aren’t. We are worshipping Jesus by re-enacting the symbolic event he commanded that we do in his rememberence (1 Corinthians 11:24-25).

Edit: I might point out that we are commanded to remember Jesus every time we share a meal together in Christian fellowship. This would have been a proper meal initially, not our very stylised ‘meals’ of bread/wafers and wine/grape juice we share now during mass/Holy Communion. It only makes sense for Jesus to say “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” if he meant every time they shared a meal (bread and wine) together. There is no suggestion that the early Christians expected or experienced the wine actually turning into blood which as I said earlier would have been repulsive to them (and forbidden due to Jewish laws).

Ken
Yes all scripture is inspired ...But where in scripture tells us what scripture is the actual word of God.  Each book of the bible does not begin, “this is the inspired Word of God”.  The church decided what books would be included.  It’s a historical fact.
Donna

Hi Angus,
The word remembrance “anamnesis” refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb 10:3; Num 10:10).  It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.  The lamb slain from all eternity.  If it was a reminder the word “mnemosunon” would have been used.

1Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus.
1Cor 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed and we become partners with victim.
1 Cor 10:20 - Paul compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God.  This shows the literal sense of Jesus’ words.
1Cor 10:21 - “the table of the lord” was always understood by Jews as the sacrificial table.
So, what about John 6.  How can you show that Jesus’ words were meant symbolically. 
Donna

Hi again Angus
You would have to give me better proof in scripture and church history that what you are claiming is true.  With all due respect it’s just a sweeping statement.  The whole point is that Jesus’ saying did repulse them.  That’s why they left to “walk no more with Him”! 
Donna

Ignatius , Bishop of Antioch ( circa 100 AD)

But look at those men who have perverted notions of the grace of Jesus Christ which has come down to us...they even abstain from the Eucharist and the public prayers because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self same body of our Saviour jesus Christ, which ( flesh) suffered for our sins

Medieval invention indeed!

Ignatius was confused.  That is a good illustration of why his writings and others similar are not in the New Testament. They would contradict the teachings of the apostles contained in the New Testament, so were therefore not deemed to be inspired. Correct teachings conform to the doctrine in the NT.

and… Justin Marytr AD100-110 in his first apology says:
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.  For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

Ignatius of Antioch (regarded as a hearer of St John) says:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life.  I desire the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David, and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible”.

Donna