Christian: Real Presence

true blood · Jul 16, 2005

I respect both of your views but I believe you are misunderstanding, especially in what Paul was telling the Corinthian Church. The only rule I spoke of was the use of a metaphor. Without this usage Jesus would of had to literally feed the disciples his flesh and blood. He would of had to slice into his flesh, cut out some pieces and catch some of the blood falling from the wound. Maybe they were cannibal vampires. In this literal sense, people then partake in a mock memorial where in their minds they believe they are actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood. Now about the Apostle Paul, according to the Epistle to the Corinthians, rebuked them and endeavored to correct them for being sick because they did not properly discern the Lord's body. They did not realize that Jesus, sacrificed, had accomplished something for them in His body. Paul pointed out that it was no longer necessary to suffer sickness and disease. Paul wasn't asking them any questions at all. He rebuked them. Paul probably thought that something obviously was wrong when members of the Church are still weak and sickly and people dying prematurely. Paul knew that the elements of the Passover for Israel are equivalent to Holy Communion for the Church. The Passover lamb had two important parts: blood and flesh. So also, the death of the lamb of God had two elements: blood and flesh, symbolized in Holy Communion by the cup and the bread. There are two parts: sin and disease, one is removed by the blood of the lamb and the other by the flesh of the lamb. Isaiah 53:5 prophesies the the Messiah was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastiesment of our peace upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Again, two elements: forgiveness and healing. Wholeness has two parts: spiritual and physical. These are the steps to discerning the Lord's body that Paul was speaking about.

To sum it up the cup in the Holy Communion represents the blood of Jesus Christ. The bread represents the body of Christ. Since Jesus bore my sin and sickness on Calvary's cross, then when I come to the Communion in remembrance of Him and eat of that bread and drink of that cup I have healing and forgiveness of sins because "his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree...by whose stripes ye were healed." And it's not just the "doing" but "doing in remembrance of Christ". To have remembrance of anyone or anything, one must first have knowledge concerning that person or thing. In simple, born-again terms, Communion teaches "By believing, receive and thank God for physical as well as spiritual wholeness." It is also a symbol of the making of a new covenant with Israel, a covenant involving the shedding of blood. As stated in Matthew 26:27-29. For me, learning about all of these things is discerning the Lord's body. But pretending to drink blood and eat flesh seeking a feeling of some presence? Imo, those are the teachings of the False Prophet.

michel · Jul 16, 2005

true blood said:
You are a primary example when Jesus said "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of bread, and drink of cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Basicly Jesus is accusing those who misunderstand this memorial as the cause of "many who are weak and sickly, and dead". And we have it narrowed down to either a 1)literal meaning in which we literally eat Jesus Christ's body or 2) a figurative usage in which a metaphor is used where the verb "is" can be replaced by the word "represents." I believe Jesus was emphatically saying, "This bread represents my body." Likewise the wine in the cup represented his blood. So one of us is "not discerning the Lord's body" thus guilty of supporting such doctrine which causes weakness and sickness and death. Why are you "happy" in the doctrine you support that goes against the rules of language and logic?

Please look at :-http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1004.asp

for a full description of the Eucharist; I would have cut & paste but there was a copyright restrictin, so you will need to view it yourself.

I take it you will accept the Catholic Church's own views as being acceptable ?

After reading that, you may be able to understand Why I am "happy" in the doctrine you support that does not go against the rules of language and logic.

Uncertaindrummer · Jul 16, 2005

true blood said:
I respect both of your views but I believe you are misunderstanding, especially in what Paul was telling the Corinthian Church. The only rule I spoke of was the use of a metaphor. Without this usage Jesus would of had to literally feed the disciples his flesh and blood.

Says who? Can't God have truly given them His flesh without using the flesh He just happened to have on Hid Body at the moment? He is God afterall.

He would of had to slice into his flesh, cut out some pieces and catch some of the blood falling from the wound

Again, says who?

.

Maybe they were cannibal vampires. In this literal sense, people then partake in a mock memorial where in their minds they believe they are actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

It was just this that confused the Jews, which is why the LEFT Jesus. And after they left, did He call them back, saying, you misunderstood me? No He did not. Why did He not?

Now about the Apostle Paul, according to the Epistle to the Corinthians, rebuked them and endeavored to correct them for being sick because they did not properly discern the Lord's body. They did not realize that Jesus, sacrificed, had accomplished something for them in His body. Paul pointed out that it was no longer necessary to suffer sickness and disease. Paul wasn't asking them any questions at all. He rebuked them. Paul probably thought that something obviously was wrong when members of the Church are still weak and sickly and people dying prematurely. Paul knew that the elements of the Passover for Israel are equivalent to Holy Communion for the Church. The Passover lamb had two important parts: blood and flesh. So also, the death of the lamb of God had two elements: blood and flesh, symbolized in Holy Communion by the cup and the bread. There are two parts: sin and disease, one is removed by the blood of the lamb and the other by the flesh of the lamb. Isaiah 53:5 prophesies the the Messiah was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastiesment of our peace upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Again, two elements: forgiveness and healing. Wholeness has two parts: spiritual and physical. These are the steps to discerning the Lord's body that Paul was speaking about.

But Paul SPECIFICALLY says that those who eat andrink the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily are GUILT of the Body and Bloody of the Lord. How can that be possible if it is NOT actually the Body and Blood of the Lord?

To sum it up the cup in the Holy Communion represents the blood of Jesus Christ

Then why is this not what Jesus said? You never deal with Scott's factualy claim that the Aramic language had over thirty words to mean represent and he did not use a lonely single ONE!

And as a last question: What on Earth did Jesus mean when He said all of those "cannabilistic" thigns in John 6? For them to not be taken literally they have to mean something ELSE. What is it? The symbolic interpretation would be "Who ever eats and drinks my blood (i.e. presetues and destroys me) will gain eternal life. Noe does THAT make any ssnes? Most certainly not.

true blood · Jul 21, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
[/font]

Says who? Can't God have truly given them His flesh without using the flesh He just happened to have on Hid Body at the moment? He is God afterall.
No.

Again, says who?

Me

.

It was just this that confused the Jews, which is why the LEFT Jesus. And after they left, did He call them back, saying, you misunderstood me? No He did not. Why did He not?

No idea what you are speaking of.

But Paul SPECIFICALLY says that those who eat andrink the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily are GUILT of the Body and Bloody of the Lord. How can that be possible if it is NOT actually the Body and Blood of the Lord?

Read my previous posts.

Then why is this not what Jesus said? You never deal with Scott's factualy claim that the Aramic language had over thirty words to mean represent and he did not use a lonely single ONE!

Last time I checked the bible did not contain the dialoge of Jesus in Aramic.

And as a last question: What on Earth did Jesus mean when He said all of those "cannabilistic" thigns in John 6? For them to not be taken literally they have to mean something ELSE. What is it? The symbolic interpretation would be "Who ever eats and drinks my blood (i.e. presetues and destroys me) will gain eternal life. Noe does THAT make any ssnes? Most certainly not.

You try to make a memorial a type of mysterious sacrement. Why?

Scott1 · Jul 21, 2005

true blood said:
You try to make a memorial a type of mysterious sacrement. Why?

...because it has been the foundation of Christianity (along with the Bishop) for about 2,000 years.

You try to make the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord a grape juice and wonderbread snack. Why?

true blood · Jul 23, 2005

Scott, what do you think Christ accomplished by his death?

Quiddity · Jul 23, 2005

True Blood or anyone else seeking a good argument for a literal interpretation I would recommend the following dialogue. Let me know your thoughts.

http://catholicoutlook.com/john6dialog.php?no_sb=1

The Least
~Victor

Scott1 · Jul 23, 2005

true blood said:
Scott, what do you think Christ accomplished by his death?

His death... nothing.

How about you?

true blood · Jul 30, 2005

Scott1 said:
His death... nothing.

How about you?

As I figured because people have failed to properly discern the Lord's body. At the end of His earthly life when they were beating Him and scourging Him, Jesus in His physical body was paying the price for the physical wholeness of mankind. When he allowed His body to be beaten and scourged, Jesus was redeeming us from sickness and disease. Not His body, but His blood was spilled at Calvary for the remission of sin. When one knows and believes in the total significance of Holy Communion, one will no longer tolerate sickness. Sickness and sin lose their power over those who properly discern the Lord's body and blood. You see Scott, one must know what Christ accomplished by his death before they can have a rememberance of the results of His suffering and death for us. The Word actually says that every time we eat and drink (basicly living our lives) we should "be" at the communion table knowing that our sins are forgiven and that by His stripes we were healed. It should not depend on anyones feelings one may or may not have; When clearly it depends upon the accomplishments of Jesus Christ.

michel · Jul 30, 2005

True Blood, you quote your religion as 'doulos' - I may be a bit slow, but can you tell me where that comes from?

true blood · Jul 30, 2005

michel said:
True Blood, you quote your religion as 'doulos' - I may be a bit slow, but can you tell me where that comes from?

It came from one of Jesus' greatest teachings on serving.
John 13:13-16
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for I am. If I then, Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant [Greek: doulos, bondslave] is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Personally I do not think Jesus was saying that his followers should literally always be ready to wash the feet of fellow believers. But rather a principle saying that in attitude of heart his followers should be like bondslaves. Doulos, translated in the Bible as "servant" is used of a dedicated trusted servant. I use this as an analogy transferred to Christian services of the highest devotion of one who is bound by love. That could be what Jesus meant. People should be devoted to help each other keep their walks pure before God. They should be willing to do the lowliest tasks in order to bless others.

John 13:17
If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

I also somewhat dis-believe in religions and I change my title from time to time just having fun.

Scott1 · Jul 30, 2005

true blood said:
As I figured because people have failed to properly discern the Lord's body.

Oy vey.....

true blood, I appreciate the preaching, but I would just like you to explain what you mean.

You asked what his DEATH accomplished.

In every instance you just brought up... Christ was ALIVE.

At the end of His earthly life when they were beating Him and scourging Him, Jesus in His physical body was paying the price for the physical wholeness of mankind.

So it was the beating and scourging that paid the price... not his death.

When he allowed His body to be beaten and scourged, Jesus was redeeming us from sickness and disease.

So it was when he allowed His body to be beaten and scourged that redeemed us from sickness and disease.... not his death.

Not His body, but His blood was spilled at Calvary for the remission of sin.

So it was his spilled blood that achieved the remission of sin.... not his death.

Once again... you have failed to explain what Christ accomplished by his death ... please try again.

Thanks,
Scott

true blood · Jul 30, 2005

The term "shed blood" is a figure of speech and does not mean literally "to bleed", but that the life has gone from the blood. Jesus' blood was shed-He died-for the remission of sin.

Scott1 · Jul 30, 2005

true blood said:
The term "shed blood" is a figure of speech and does not mean literally "to bleed", but that the life has gone from the blood. Jesus' blood was shed-He died-for the remission of sin.

Gonna answer my question?

He either died for the remission of sin, or it was (as you said before) the beating and scourging.... pick one.... or are you going to recant your earlier post and go with the "shed blood" allegory>???

true blood · Aug 20, 2005

Scott1 said:
Gonna answer my question?

He either died for the remission of sin, or it was (as you said before) the beating and scourging.... pick one.... or are you going to recant your earlier post and go with the "shed blood" allegory>???

Are you a religious forums bot? I answered these questions in earlier posts in this very thread in my responses in which you obviously could not follow and misquote me by the "(as you said before)" . You know "remission of sin" is a bit different from "physical healing". I associated "physical healing" with the beatings and scourgings as quoted in scripture "by whose Stripes you were healed". I was pointing out that many people, yourself included, miss out on this. During that hour you only associate Christ's "shed blood" to the "remission of sins". It's like you only grasp half of what he accomplished and like your mind becomes void to understanding that His Stripes (the beatings) physically healed us. Thus you fail to discern the Lord's body.

Scott1 · Aug 20, 2005

true blood said:
Are you a religious forums bot?

How very Christian of you.... "Doulos" eh? :areyoucra

It's like you only grasp half of what he accomplished and like your mind becomes void to understanding that His Stripes (the beatings) physically healed us. Thus you fail to discern the Lord's body.

They are fairly easy questions tb... don't blame me because you can't explain your theology with any clarity.... and I really don't care for your attitude, so I'll bow out and reserve comments for more charitable Christians.

Scott

rmarchy · Aug 20, 2005

Exo 16:1 And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin

Let me pause right there, because it does say Sin. Some would get the idea that the Holy Spirit here is writing an allegory. He is not, although its very fitting, because the wilderness is certainly characterized by sin, their journey. In Hebrew, sin means bush. Sinai means the bush of God. I think the Holy Spirit must have chuckled we He had Moses write this because it is very typical of the journey of the Christian in Satans Kingdom, i.e. Christian walk in time.

Exo 16:1 which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.

Every fact in Scripture is put there for a reason. The fifteenth day of the second month, if you understand Numbers Chapter 9, it gives us an addition in the observation of Passover. Its off topic right now though so lets move on.

Exo 16:2 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness:

In the previous chapter, we had the whole congregation murmuring against Moses. Now their attitude is fiercer, murmuring against Moses and Aaron. 8 times or so in this chapter its listed that they murmured. Murmur has in it a suggestion of slander in the Hebrew. If you know what that word means in the Greek, you can see in 1 Tim 3, where God through Paul gives directions on how to choose a bishop (simply an overseer, a pastor teacher) and one of the directions in there under the subtopic of deacons (people who serve in the church) is that deacons wives be not gossipers or slanderers. That same word that is rendered Satan, or Devil (because hes the ultimate slanderer), is diabolos in the Greek, which means slanderer.

Exo 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

Look at theyre murmurings. Theyre saying that it was better that they were strangled in their crib by their father then to be brought forth into the world here. It isnt Pharaoh that they would have desired to kill them in Egypt, remember its Pharaohs lash on their backs. Pharaoh first had their children cast to the crocodiles after the midwives wouldnt kill the children. Then he compounds their work to kill them. Here the children of Israel say to Moses and Aaron Would to God by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt what an insult. The irony there is that it was the hand of the Lord that delivered them from Egypt (Due 6:21).

Now notice their remembrance of Egypt. Exodus starts with their cries and sighs that God hears. They have the audacity to now speak of their bondage as if they were at a Country Buffet; when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full sounds like a vacation, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. They have heard the word of the Lord remember. God tells Moses early in Exodus, go and tell them that I will bring them out with a mighty hand and that they will worship on this Mount, proof to Moses to convince him to come, He predicts that this people will worship Him on Mount Sinai.

Compare that with Numbers 11:2: (which was at a different time)

Num 11:2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
Num 11:3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
Num 11:4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

Listen to this now:

Num 11:5 We remember the fish, (so now its not just the flesh pots) which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic:
Num 11:6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

When you find out what manna really is, this is the pinnacle of ingratitude. Manna is angels food. Angels ate manna. Its called the bread of heaven in this chapter and in Psalm 78 David tells us that it was food of angles. Christ Himself tells us what it typifies in John 6 which Ill get to shortly. Read through Psalm 78 and you will see how deplorable the whole congregation of Israel was acting out there in the wilderness. Psalm 78:19 Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Theyre saying that Egypt was better, slavery was better. Do you understand the stench of this is the mind of God? The picture of Egypt and Pharaoh is of Satans kingdom and being entrenched in bondage to Satan himself, and it was a fond memory now to the Israelites.

And how does God respond?

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain (a picture of grace) bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

The response of God to the grumbling, to the murmuring, to the slander, to the blasphemy of His people is BLESSING, this is grace.

You know, theres the passage in John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ that some grace teachers over look because they think that somehow God stumbled upon grace on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, instead of simply revealing it through Paul. John 1:17 does not mean that prior to the incarnation that grace and truth did not exist. What it does mean is that it is NOW made manifest. The personification of truth is here. Grace has ever existed, it is an attribute of God, and ever will exist. Here you see one of the greatest evidences of grace in all of scripture. It is a type, a shadow, a model, it actually happened, but it is in the heart of God. Now if I was god, and this was the response that had just cost me, in type, the life of my son, I would have rained on them too, but it wouldnt have been blessing. It would have been fire, ICBMs, it would have been anything but this J Its a good thing Im not god. Shakespeare wrote how sharper then a serpents tooth it is, to have a thankless child. And the picture of the Israelite under the leadership of God in the wilderness is that of a thankless child. Ok so Gods response in Exodus 16:4 is profound, that of grace.

rmarchy · Aug 20, 2005

Now manna, what is manna? Its ironic if you understand the Hebrew. Manna means what is it?

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. (Compare Matthew 4)
Exo 16:5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.

God gives them bread from heaven here. Manna was a gift of God (Exo 16:15). Now the fact that it was a gift from God for an ungrateful, unworthy people, makes it grace.

Exo 16:6 And Moses and Aaron said unto all the children of Israel, At even, then ye shall know that the LORD hath brought you out from the land of Egypt:
Exo 16:7 And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of the LORD (John 1); for that he heareth your murmurings against the LORD: and what are we, that ye murmur against us?
Exo 16:8 And Moses said, This shall be, when the LORD shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that the LORD heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD. (The constant repetition of murmur sets the stage to the attitude of the Israelites here.)
Exo 16:9 read through to Exo 16:14 (Im trying to save room)

Exo 16:14 And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. (The Holy Spirit doesnt tell us that for no reason.)
Exo 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna (What is it?): for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
Exo 16:16 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.
Exo 16:17 And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.
Exo 16:18 And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.
Exo 16:19 And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning.
Exo 16:20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wroth with them.
Exo 16:21 And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted.

Ok so now youre seeing some attributes of the bread from heaven here. Its color was white, its size was small and round, it melted in the sun, it was given in the morning, and it couldnt be kept over till the next day because it would stink and bred worms.

The Holy Spirit is teaching a lesson here. The mind of the slave in the Exodus generation couldnt grasp it. The minds of (this will shock you) the Disciples of Christ couldnt grasp it as youll see in John 6.

Ok so what is manna? Manna represents 1 thing is 2 ways. It represents the Word. Manna is the Word of God. How is that in 2 ways? Well the Word of God in Scripture is both what we have here in binding, words on a page, and it is a person, John 1. Manna, technically the bread of life, represents the written Word and the Living Word. You have them combined in John 1 and Revelation 19 and here. So its function, its attributes, the way God deals with it and the way men deal with it will let you know divine truth and meaning as to what manna was meant for, what it represents.

Its interesting to note what God says of it and what man says of it. God says that its angels food. Elsewhere we read that its sweet and it tasted like honey or bread with oil. Man says what is it? Man doesnt know what it is. He despises it, grows tired of it and so forth.

In John 6 Christ unveils the true meaning of the bread from heaven. This is one of those types of Christ where you dont have to guess upon. Bread is the subject in John 6.

Joh 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

Joh 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. (Notice the seeing but not believing. A crowd that sees Christ, recognizes the power, but doesnt believe. Thats the theme throughout the whole Bible. They followed Him because of His miracles, but those miracles were supposed to tell them who He was, and they didnt care, they were entrenched with the power. They had a power lust.)

Joh 6:3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
Joh 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
Joh 6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

Dont tell me that God doesnt have a sense of humor. And here you see the ignorance of His followers.

Joh 6:6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
Joh 6:7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
Joh 6:8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
Joh 6:9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
Joh 6:10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
Joh 6:11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

Same thing was to be done with the manna, why? It will breed worms and stink. Christ is pointing them to something that should be familiar to them, a sign that He is the Messiah. Even the ancient rabbis wrote, as Moses brought food to the people, so will Messiah likewise bring food to the people.

rmarchy · Aug 20, 2005

Joh 6:12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

Notice they were filled. No one was lacking. Everyones appetite was quenched. One of the things with the manna was, no matter how much they collected, everyone ate to the full. It was sufficient for every appetite, the gathering of the manna. Let me skip down now a bit because of the length here.

Joh 6:24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
Joh 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, (Jesus sees the heart) Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

They didnt discern that the miracles pointed to Messiah. They were interested in the power, a power lust. This will be confirmed by their question to Him.

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you (Grace, the gift of God to the undeserving): for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Their interest is in power, they want to work the works of God. They have the wrong attitude.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Its the only work you can do without lifting a finger. You cannot work for God unless you are apart of His family, they werent part of His family.)

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Now He has just showed them a number of signs. He just multiplied 5 barley loaves to feed 5000 people and so on. They should have understood that sign, and now they ask Him for another one. They suggest to Him:

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. (Psalm 78)
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven (which is true in 2 ways, because God actually gave, but it was also just a shadow, a type, Christ being the substance); but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. (How? They dont understand yet.)

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. (Hes making a claim here that He gives eternal life, and they still dont get it, listen to what they say.)

Joh 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Remember the response of the woman at the well, when He says:

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This is 1 of 7 I ams that are particular in the book of John. I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world, all aspects that we learn of in Exodus. I am the resurrection and the life, I am the true vine, I am the door of the sheepfold, I am the good Shepard.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Dont tell me that there wasnt eternal security taught in the Old Testament, because John is an Old Testament book. He was a circumcision apostle. They didnt have to continually eat as the Israelites did every day. One drink, one bite; now they had to continually eat for energy for service but not for initial life.

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. (Notice the seeing but not believing again.)

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (Eternal Security, they didnt have to continually come to Him, he reiterates that in John 17).

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Notice the seeing again and believing)

rmarchy · Aug 20, 2005

Then what happened:

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. (The Holy Spirit is consistent, they murmured, same word is used in Exodus 16 from the Septuagint. The Jews murmured, its sadder then that, His own Disciples murmured)

Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Look at the contrast now. Remember, what does manna mean? It means (what is it?) God never calls it manna. God always refers to it as the bread from heaven, angels food, grain from heaven, but God never says what is it? One time He says it reflexively, quoting what those of little faith call it. Note the distinction, what men see it as, and what God tells you it is. So they said, Is not this Jesus? So the Jew in the Old Testament says what is it? and the Jew in the New Testament says, who is it?

Now what is the eating and the drinking? Look Christ explains it to you.

Joh 6:53 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Its sad that the Catholics takes this one passage literally, when Christ is speaking in metaphor. They dont take I am the door of the sheep gate literally. There are 7 I ams here in John, and they only take one literally. They dont see Him as a light bulb when He says I am the light of the world. I am the door, the vine, they dont worship the vine.

So what is the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood? Christ tells you in this very chapter.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Eating and drinking Christs flesh and blood is BELIEVING ON HIM. John 6:47,48 are developed in 53 and 54. The literal nature to the Jew would have been repugnant. Both of those things, eating human flesh, and drinking blood, were illegal according to the Mosaic Law, and punishable by death by the way. To drink blood (where life is in the blood) was punishable by death and so was cannibalism. So thats why some of the confusion is here in this very chapter to those Jews even. They were confounded by it, offended by it, and even His apostles are confounded by it. (Study John 6:47-58)

Exodus 16 was meant to be studied with John 6. Christ tells you Hey that was the shadow, or type, and I AM the substance! A type or a shadow usually has many parallels with its substance, but Christ mentions a few differences in John 6. He says your fathers ate of the (physical bread, but a supernatural manifestation, but it was still a physical bread meant for a physical need) bread and died, but I am a (spiritual) bread meant for a spiritual need. Catholics see Christ explain the type, which He is the antitype, and they drag Him back into the type, and they say the host is the body of Christ, and the wine really is His blood. Only a child (and Im not trying to bash anything or anyone here) but only a child would run back to the types and pictures. Religion is foolish. You cant drag the antitype back into the type.

Christ is the Bread of Life. He was born in Bethlehem (literally House of Bread), at the Tower of the Flock (Migdal Edar, Micah 4:8). The Lamb of God was born in the proximity of the fields where the shepards would raise the temple sheep for the temple sacrifices, the perfect place for Christ to be born. In the very birthplace of tens of thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed to prefigure Him, Jesus the Lamb of God was born to die for the sins of the world. Theres many more reasons why God chose Bethlehem, but Ive written to much already.

One of the most AMAZING things about the Bible is that, it is consistent, all the way through. It has a divine thread woven through it. It was written by some 60 different authors, but it has the same Editor all the way through it, the Holy Spirit. The Bible was not meant to be read, it was meant to be studied. The Bible has an insane amount of depth to it. While some read through the books of Moses and see it as a compilation of simply a narrative or a journey, they miss the great doctrines in there. Yes they did actually, historically happen, and thats marvelous in itself, but there is also so much more to them.

Christ is on ever page of scripture because the whole Bible is His autobiography, you got to just dig and search. The Old Testament Scriptures speak of so many spiritual truths that they shouldnt be ignored.

If you understand these types in the Old Testament, you will not be confused with the formula of salvation in the New Testament.

Hope you enjoyed this... because this is barely scratching the surface...

Christian: Real Presence

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member