• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you

Spiderman

Veteran Member
I notice that of all of the people who claim to be Solascriptura (Bible-alone), I've never known of one that actually was. One very common unbiblical belief that is embraced by many who claim the Bible is their sole authority is the belief that Jesus was only speaking symbolically when he said his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

John 6
This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this...
...65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

So, this was the first time in Jesus ministry that he lost followers. It was over this teaching. He never called them back to explain that he was speaking symbolically.

In every last supper account he says "This is my body, this is my blood". Those are not the words of symbolism. In fact, for the next 1500 years, every Christian Church on the face of the earth believed it to be literal. It's hard to imagine Jesus would use words to lead Christians astray for 1500 years without ever offering an explanation that He was speaking symbolically.

Paul goes on to further explain Holy communion as being literally the body and blood of Christ.
The early Church leaders ("Church Fathers") clearly believed holy communion was literally the flesh and blood of Christ as well.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Here are some quotes from the Church Fathers (Early Church leaders) on the topic:

Ignatius of Antioch
"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" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"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 [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).



Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]). The Real Presence | Catholic Answers
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Here are some quotes from the Church Fathers (Early Church leaders) on the topic:

Probably some Christians who don't believe in it literally are kind of in denial that Christianity has more to do with physical sacrifice not just symbolic or "spiritual." Maybe if they (not to be rude) go back in history and see how the Church has a lot to do with inspired scripture and the structure of christianity, many would probably either want to turn to Judaism or at most Orthodox Catholicism.

But it's a simple teaching.

Animals in the OT were killed for the blood to cover sins.

People still disobeyed god.

According to Christianity, god decided to send his son to be the sacrificial lamb. It's easier for believers to associate with a human sacrifice rather than an animal sacrifice. That, and it frees them for having to do physical sacrifices in the OT because they feel jesus did it for them.

But the key is, in the OT, people did sacrifice the lamb.

Catholics do the same by sacrificing lamb of god.

It's all supported by the lord's supper. (John 6:54) and to say Christianity is symbolic is to tell a christian that he is not literally saved.

So, why would jesus sacrifice be symbolic but god's existence and jesus actual death be literal? If a christian accepts that jesus was a sacrifice and that Christianity is about sacrifice of a person then maybe they would understand how they can sacrifice themselves as much as they can for other people. Many saints did so but many had no choice. I'm not advocating suicide but I'm sure protestants kind of get it.

I just don't see it as symbolism either.

I don't know. :rolleyes: It just makes sense.

Carry on...
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jesus did not require sacrifice of any kind.

He often spoke against sacrifice as a means of Remission from Sins.
John the Baptist was against sacrifice for the Remission of sins.

The whole communion looks to be a pagan ritual which Christianity reversed into.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Jesus did not require sacrifice of any kind.

He often spoke against sacrifice as a means of Remission from Sins.
John the Baptist was against sacrifice for the Remission of sins.

The whole communion looks to be a pagan ritual which Christianity reversed into.

He didn't require a sacrifice because he was the sacrifice. The lord's supper was not telling people to give sacrifices daily as in the OT. Mass is to remember jesus as the sacrifice and in Catholicism, in order to do that "remembrance of me" is to replay (for lack of better words) the life (Mass), death (Repentance/confession), and resurrection (Eucharist) or, in short the Lord's Supper or The Passion.

To say Catholics sacrifice jesus everyday (my words) is like saying jesus died multiple times three to four times a day. He died once. Communion is the remembrance of that one death through that one sacrifice in The Lord's Supper. So each Mass is isolated. It's one Mass. One Passion. Just Catholics like to remember more than once a week. It's an ongoing remembrance.

Many protestant churches don't do his Crucifixion or see it as symbolism (communion as symbolism) Edit: well, also in the act of repentence. The life is somewhat there in sermon. It's mostly (well, evangelicals) focused on resurrection.

The only protestants I can think of that does the full Passion are Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and probably Methodists but I'm not sure. The liturgical churches.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
What is the point in trying to discuss it in a Scripture Debates area in which anybody with feathers can claim to be a goose, but here goes. First here are previous threads on the same topic.

Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation
Personal honesty called for over Communion
Why do Catholics belive that Christ is present during Holy Communion?
Question about the historical context of Christian communion.
Transubstantiation/Real Presence

The reason that the 'Real Presence' is in communion and the 'Real flesh' and 'Real blood' are taken is probably so that one disciple cannot claim the other is a false believer. Probably that is why, but the documents do not say.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
What is the point in trying to discuss it in a Scripture Debates area
I got into the conversation elsewhere about God being weird and wanting people to eat him :D

Rather than derail the thread, I thought I'd have the topic elsewhere cuz it goes to show how solascriptura people aren't solascriptura. It seems like this is a good place for it because I wanted anyone to feel free to comment.

If this isn't the place, my bad I wasn't aware of it being a topic brought up much.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
That's an example of why you cannot expect a really good conversation about it. Some people think they are experts on everybody else's religions.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Since Jesus hasn't been around since about 33 CE, how exactly is someone today supposed to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

The whole debate over trans- versus con- substantiation led to people being declared heretics, expelled from the Church, or worse...

The theological debate is one of the many issues that led me to doubt any and all churches...
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Since Jesus hasn't been around since about 33 CE, how exactly is someone today supposed to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

The whole debate over trans- versus con- substantiation led to people being declared heretics, expelled from the Church, or worse...

The theological debate is one of the many issues that led me to doubt any and all churches...
The belief is that the holy Spirit descends upon the altar and the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.

I understand why people find that hard to believe. There have allegedly been miracles where the host started bleeding or the bread and wine literally became flesh and blood. But we weren't present for that and have every reason to be skeptical.

I don't see how God can fault one for rejecting this belief...but for a person to claim to be solascriptura and reject this belief is absurd
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Soliscriptura ha!!!!! What's the problem with that?
It isn't a problem until people proudly use Scripture to condemn people of other faiths. A lot of Solascriptura people say Catholics are unbiblical, unchristian, Pagan, and Idolators, and so I'm happy to show them that so are they being unbiblical.

If the Bible were to be the sole rule of Sacred Theology, surely there would have been somewhere in the Scripture that stated it to be so.

I'm not a good Catholic. I'm a spiritist who prays the Rosary and goes to Catholic Mass, but don't agree with everything the Church teaches. I'm more with Allan Kardec and his book "The spirit's book".

My beliefs and practices come under attack a lot by those who claim to be Solascriptura, so I'm happy to put them in their place on all the ways they are not Biblical in their faith. I'm okay with the faith of other people until they start using it to attack another faith.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Well, sacrifice is biblical as well as connected to many other religious and pagan peoples. And communion is connected to cannibalism, I think.
Only cannibalism is eating dead flesh. Communion is receiving God into oneself that he live there.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Maybe if they (not to be rude) go back in history and see how the Church has a lot to do with inspired scripture and the structure of christianity, many would probably either want to turn to Judaism or at most Orthodox Catholicism.

Actually the Orthodox, American and Eastern, believe in the 'real' presence of the Eucharist. However, they do not believe in Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation to explain the 'how' of the change.
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist


The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ Himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metousiosis

But the key is, in the OT, people did sacrifice the lamb.

They also had a bloodless sacrifice called the todah.
Jesus took the bread and wine and gave "thanks" (eucharistia) over them (Luke 22:19).

The sacrifices were "peace offerings," and the todah was the most important and common peace offering. All the elements of the todah were present. David offered bread and wine along with the meat of the sacrifices (1 Chron. 16:3). Most importantly, David had the Levites lead the people in todah hymns, that is, psalms of thanksgiving (1 Chron. 16:8-36).
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Actually the Orthodox, American and Eastern, believe in the 'real' presence of the Eucharist. However, they do not believe in Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation to explain the 'how' of the change.
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist


The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ Himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metousiosis



They also had a bloodless sacrifice called the todah.
Jesus took the bread and wine and gave "thanks" (eucharistia) over them (Luke 22:19).

The sacrifices were "peace offerings," and the todah was the most important and common peace offering. All the elements of the todah were present. David offered bread and wine along with the meat of the sacrifices (1 Chron. 16:3). Most importantly, David had the Levites lead the people in todah hymns, that is, psalms of thanksgiving (1 Chron. 16:8-36).

I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or extending my answer?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well, sacrifice is biblical as well as connected to many other religious and pagan peoples. And communion is connected to cannibalism, I think.

Cannibalism is not connected to communion unless, maybe a group of people like eating people's literal flesh.

Communion in the Church is consecrated bread and wine. They are not eating flesh.
 
Top