John 6 and Real Presence

[OrthoCanuck]

I understand that you do not believe in 'real presence' in the eucharist. I heard explanations about the Gospel accounts when Jesus says "this is my body" and often it is explained that the "is" is symbolic and not literal. But what about the following verses which are often used to support 'real presence':

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

I'd appreciate anyone who can explain another interpretation for this verse. If this topic has come up often I apologize, but I'm just curious (like usual) and not looking to argue.

Peace.:wave:

[Matthan]

Read and study verse 63 where Jesus explains what it was He spoke of. His disciples then understood. Will you?

Matthan <J><

[ZiSunka]

It's called a metaphor and Jesus often used them in explaining difficult concepts to people.

They were offended because they didn't understand what he was saying. To them, it seemed like he was proposing that they take up cannibalism, and they knew cannibalism is wrong. So they asked each other, "what is he proposing, that we eat his flesh?" They thought he was being literal. They thought that he was going to allow himself to be killed and cooked and that would be very offensive to everyone, even now!

Then Jesus said something shocking, (which he often did), saying, "yes you heard me right. Unless you come to the realization that you must take me to heart, you can have no part of eternal life."

The verses before this one are important to the understanding of this. Jesus is likening himself to the manna that came down out of heaven, and whoever ate of that supernatural food didn't gain eternal life. But those who eat of Christ's supernatural food, spiritual food instead of literal food, gains eternal life. He's saying that even supernatural food doesn't keep us from perishing, which it seems to me would include any belief in the "real presence."

He is foreshadowing the symbols of communion when he says his flesh is bread and his blood is wine. Of course he wasn't made of literal bread and wine, was he? This is a metaphor. He was saying that his teachings, his identity, has to be taken internally, to heart, we have to take Christ in so that he can abide in us. "Salvation that comes from trusting Christ...10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." Romans 10:8-10

Without taking Christ internally, into our hearts (meaning the core of our being, not our literal hearts), we cannot have eternal life. We can't wear him or look at him, we have to let him in to be assimilated into our lives to nourish us spiritually as food is assimilated in our bodies to nourish us physically. Any baby who never eats does not live because they don't have the nourishment they need to keep their bodies alive. Any person who does not taken Jesus into themselves will not have a spiritual life because he is what we need to have an eternal life. "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

But the one thing I know for sure is that Jesus is not really made of bread and wine, so he had to be speaking metaphorically. He is telling us that we must accept and assimilate him. "For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." Taking communion is one way of confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

"Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see me, the Son of Man, return to heaven again? 63 It is the Spirit who gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But some of you don't believe me." John 6:61-64

It was offensive to them that they were not going to get salvation by doing external things, but by accepting and assimilating Christ, which is much, much harder than doing and working or performing rituals, which is what they hoped would get them there. But it's the Spirit who gives live, not the effort of their own works. The Spirit dwells inside us! We must be filled with Him! Not by what we eat, but by Who we have accepted and assimilated.

Other food metaphors refering to the indwelling of the Spirit? Luke 11:11 "You fathers – if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead? 12 Or if they ask for an egg, do you give them a scorpion? Of course not! 13 If you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him." Here again his is linking the internalization of the Spirit to food. And remember that food is love and that's why He uses the metaphor.

[OrthoCanuck]

It is interesting to look at things differently. I grew up in churches that believed in some form of real presence. I kinda took it for granted. Never really challenged the belief before. I look forward to any further comments.

[Matthan]

Looking at the Chapter, it is clear what Jesus preached to the multitudes. In the first part Jesus feeds the 5,000. Some of those who were fed realized who He was, and wanted to seize Him to make Him their king. This was not in His Father's plan, so He slipped away. Then, He walked on water. And, immediately after He was in the ship He cause another miracle and they were at land. WOW!!

John 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. (They wanted more free bread. He tells them so in v.26, then begins His sermon:)

27. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (Here He is talking spiritually or metaphorically. He is telling them to labor (spiritually) for God if they want to receive eternal life.)

28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Here Jesus gives them the entire essence of Christianity, the exact same message He gave four different times in Chapter 3, and many other times elsewhere. God wants us to believe in Jesus, the Son that God has sent to live among men. That's the entire message, straight from Jesus' lips. Nothing else is required of us. Our work is to believe in Him alone!)

30. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. (The day before they witnessed an unbelievable miracle, with five loaves feeding 5,000, and here they want still another miracle.)

32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. (Jesus makes sure they understand that it was God, and not Moses, who gave them the life-sustaining manna to their their ancestors as they wandered in the desert. He also metaphorically (spiritually) begins His important point with a "double" meaning, that God has (again) given them the true bread from Heaven (Himself).)

33. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. (Is Jesus saying that he is made of bread, and not flesh? No. He is speaking metaphorically (spiritually), telling them that He is the Christ of God. But they do not understand what he is really telling them.)

34. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 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. (So they, thinking actual food, ask Him for that bread. And He again tells them metaphorically (spiritually) He is that (spiritual) bread of (eternal) life. He is NOT telling them that He is made of bread.)

36. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 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. 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. (Jesus once again tells them God's (spiritual) truth, but they do not believe in Him. And, Jesus also once again gives them the essence of Christianity with, "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." Belief, belief, belief! Over and over again Jesus tells us that we need to believe in Him, and nothing else, to receive God's grace. And yet so many people do not believe this simple message, just like the Jews who were looking for more food in these verses and failed to understand His more important message of eternal life.)

41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. (Is Jesus calling Himself real "bread", or is He speaking metaphorically (spiritually)?

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? 43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. (The proof was right in front of them, speaking to them, and doing miracles, and they chose not to believe what they saw and heard. So, Jesus gives them another important lesson in verses 44 to 48.)

44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48. I am that bread of life. (Pay particular attention to v. 47 and 48. Once again it is the essence of Christianity. Believe in Jesus and we have everlasting life. Why? Because Jesus is that (spiritual) bread of (eternal) life. Or, do you think Jesus is actually saying He is made of bread?)

49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Do you think Jesus is telling them He is bread? Or is this metaphorical (spiritual) language? Do you think that, when Jesus says, "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:", He is saying that anyone that eats of His real flesh will receive eternal life? Or, is He saying metaphorically (spiritually) that anyone who believes in Him will live eternally, the exact same message He has given so often?)

52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (They still did not understand what He was saying.)

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. 54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (Here is His strongest metaphorical (spiritual) language yet. Do you think He is saying to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to receive eternal life? Or, do you think He is talking spiritually, telling these Jews that they must believe in Him in order to receive eternal life? Do you really believe that actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood will result in receiving God's grace to eternal life? You have to believe that if you also believe Jesus is telling us to eat His real flesh, because that is the literal meaning in v. 56. And that means His death on the cross meant nothing! Or, is this is all metaphorical (spiritual) speech from Jesus?)

57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (Here is more metaphorical (spiritual) words. Or, do you believe that, when Jesus says, "he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever," He is talking about actually eating Him? If you do believe that, then you have another serious problem. He is here telling us that He is bread, not meat. So, when your transsubstantiation turns the bread into flesh, it should really be bread. That is the literal meaning, isn't it? Or, is Jesus speaking metaphorically (spiritually)?)

61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (Jesus knew that even His own diciples were confused on this sermon, that spoke of cannabalism. So, in the next verse, He explains what He really meant.)

63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (He tells them, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit". Spirit! Spiritual! He tells them He is sspeaking spiritually (metaphorically). He did not mean for anyone to literally eat His flesh, but to eat of Him "Spiritually".

You can believe what you want concerning the lesson Jesus gave to us in chapter 6. His truth speaks for itself.

Matthan <J><

[Lockheed]

When Jesus said, "I AM the vine...", did He intend to mean He was really a plant?

[rural_preacher]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Matthan again.

Great Post Matthan.


--

[SumTinWong]

I am the door, I am the gate...

great post Matthan

[Gwenyfur]

Great Post Matthan.


--
repped him for ya! Great post!

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Matthan again.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lockheed again.

[Matthan]

Thank you all for your kind thoughts. I really, really do appreciate all of them.

I am still waiting for Canadian75 to post a reply and tell me (us?) where the fault or error lies in what I posted.

Matthan <J><

[OrthoCanuck]

Thank you all for your kind thoughts. I really, really do appreciate all of them.

I am still waiting for Canadian75 to post a reply and tell me (us?) where the fault or error lies in what I posted. Do you think he can?

Matthan <J><

I wasn't looking to challenge your beliefs or to look for fault. I just couldn't find much information on this subject on the internet because a great deal of churches believe in real presence in one form or another. I decided to re-examine the issue since it is one I always took for granted. If you were looking for a furious debate, I'm sorry to dissapoint you.:P I think you have posted quite a good response :thumbsup: and it is taking me time to digest the information and think about it. I'm on a fact finding mission, not a "you guys are crazy to believe this..." mission.
Though I do have a follow up question. It appears that real presence in one form or another was common practice for most of christian history, I'm wondering if anyone can point me to a good internet article that might show if any of the church fathers didn't believe in real presence?

[ZiSunka]

Actually there was furious debate by the early fathers before and around Augustine's time about whether or not it was really the body and blood of Christ or just bread and wine. Finally it was decided that it was the "real presence" and those who disagreed were either censured or kept their opinion to themselves. Several bishops who were previously leading theologians fell out of favor with the church because they publically disagreed with the decision.

Augustine himself felt the elements were symbolic only, but the church now interprets his statements in a different way. In fact, some translations of his "Confessions" leave out altogether his statements regarding the communion being symbolic only.

[Iollain]

41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. (Is Jesus calling Himself real "bread", or is He speaking metaphorically (spiritually)?
Matthan <J><

Here is what i believe, the bread and wine that we share at the Lord's Table, is Jesus's body and blood, but it is a spiritual thing, not an actual. As in when someone toasts the bride and groom at a wedding, we raise the cup and have a sip when someone says a toast, because we are agreeing with it, not because it is some magical spell. Like if i am at my high school crushes wedding, i'm a little jealous lets say. Someone says a toast and i cannot bare to get that class to my mouth because of my feelings. Or if the father of the bride does not really like the idea of his daughter marrying this fellow so maybe he has a few too many wine and when a toast is made to the bride and groom he throws his glass in the corner just before he says what he thinks of the whole thing. Though that glass thrown has no magical power, it is still saying a lot in what he did.

Sooo, my point is, when we are having the bread and the wine at the Lord's Table, we are doing it in rememberance of the Body that was sacraficed and the blood that was shed. Also it is a time to ask God to reveal any sin in our life that we should turn from. Like if i am working at an office and am flirting with a man there, God brings up this sin to me and i ask for forgiveness and agree i will turn from this sin, i do partake in the Lord's Table, remembering what Jesus attained on the cross for me. Now the next month (or however long) that the church is having the Lord's Table, i realize that i've tried to turn from my sin, but i cannot agree that i have fully, so this month i will let the cup and bread pass by for fear of drinking condemnation onto myself.

So i would say spiritually, we do partake in the Lord's body and blood.

Do my ramblings make any sence at all? :blush:

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Here is what i believe, the bread and wine that we share at the Lord's Table, is Jesus's body and blood, but it is a spiritual thing, not an actual. As in when someone toasts the bride and groom at a wedding, we raise the cup and have a sip when someone says a toast, because we are agreeing with it, not because it is some magical spell. Like if i am at my high school crushes wedding, i'm a little jealous lets say. Someone says a toast and i cannot bare to get that class to my mouth because of my feelings. Or if the father of the bride does not really like the idea of his daughter marrying this fellow so maybe he has a few too many wine and when a toast is made to the bride and groom he throws his glass in the corner just before he says what he thinks of the whole thing. Though that glass thrown has no magical power, it is still saying a lot in what he did.

Sooo, my point is, when we are having the bread and the wine at the Lord's Table, we are doing it in rememberance of the Body that was sacraficed and the blood that was shed. Also it is a time to ask God to reveal any sin in our life that we should turn from. Like if i am working at an office and am flirting with a man there, God brings up this sin to me and i ask for forgiveness and agree i will turn from this sin, i do partake in the Lord's Table, remembering what Jesus attained on the cross for me. Now the next month (or however long) that the church is having the Lord's Table, i realize that i've tried to turn from my sin, but i cannot agree that i have fully, so this month i will let the cup and bread pass by for fear of drinking condemnation onto myself.

So i would say spiritually, we do partake in the Lord's body and blood.

Do my ramblings make any sence at all? :blush:

I think that is very much the Calvinist/Reformed point of view. Also, excellent work to all who took the time to really put Christ's words into context when He says, "This is my body."

[GreenEyedLady]

When Jesus said, "I AM the vine...", did He intend to mean He was really a plant?

ROTFL!!!!!!!
That was so funny! ^_^ You made a funny Lockheed. Welcome to our board. I like your sense of humor!
GEL

[Lockheed]

ROTFL!!!!!!!
That was so funny! ^_^ You made a funny Lockheed. Welcome to our board. I like your sense of humor!
GEL

THANKS! :liturgy:

[Matthan]

Canadian75, I apologize for "taunting" you with my reply. That was not a Christian thing to do, and I am deeply sorry for doing it. I can only hope you can forgive me for basic stupidity. I sure am guilty of same.

I do hope, in the interest of better interdenominational understanding, that you at least comment on my post from a Catholic's point of view. However, if you choose not to because of my unchristian attitude, I will understand.

Matthan <J><

[OrthoCanuck]

Canadian75, I apologize for "taunting" you with my reply. That was not a Christian thing to do, and I am deeply sorry for doing it. I can only hope you can forgive me for basic stupidity. I sure am guilty of same.

I do hope, in the interest of better interdenominational understanding, that you at least comment on my post from a Catholic's point of view. However, if you choose not to because of my unchristian attitude, I will understand.

Matthan <J><

No prob, but I don't have a particularly well-researched response. This is because: A) I shouldn't debate in this forum, and B) I've been questioning a lot of Catholic doctrines lately. If you have noticed, my faith icon has changed to "Christian" from "Catholic". Not because I've officially left the RCC, but I am re-evaluating my beliefs. But if you are looking for some sort of answer, I'll give you a general one based on these verses.
The Catholic Church is not the only denom that believes in real presence. Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans also hold this belief (I'm sure others do as well, but I'm not as aquainted with those denoms). I'll stay away from Transubstantiation because this is a particularly Catholic belief not held by Orthodox, Lutherans and many Anglicans. So as for real presence and John 6, my best explanation for using these verses to support the idea is the fact that some bible verses have multiple shades of meaning. Jesus in the verses previously posted is referring to a spiritual teaching. However, he could very well be also foreshadowing the last supper and the institution of the eucharist. So by telling the people to drink his blood and eat his flesh he is both being metaphorical and literal at the same time. The metaphor was for the edification of the people present while the literal was in anticipation of the sacrament of the eucharist. Now, many can say that Jesus is present either physically or spiritually in the bread and the wine. Either way is a form of real presence. The technicalities of the real presence is debated frequently and not really an area I get into, though I do understand the various positions. That all being said, I still was not looking to push a particular position or debate the issue. I am in a transitional period in my spiritual journey. I am re-examining everything I believe in order to come to a deeper relationship with our Lord and God. Only He knows where this will end. But, I came here to this forum to understand the Baptist perspective a bit better (in relatively general terms since I know there are variations in Baptist beliefs as there are in many different denoms). I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter. But here I am rambling on...sorry about that.

Peace all.:amen:

[Diane_Windsor]

Here is what i believe, the bread and wine that we share at the Lord's Table, is Jesus's body and blood, but it is a spiritual thing, not an actual. As in when someone toasts the bride and groom at a wedding, we raise the cup and have a sip when someone says a toast, because we are agreeing with it, not because it is some magical spell. Like if i am at my high school crushes wedding, i'm a little jealous lets say. Someone says a toast and i cannot bare to get that class to my mouth because of my feelings. Or if the father of the bride does not really like the idea of his daughter marrying this fellow so maybe he has a few too many wine and when a toast is made to the bride and groom he throws his glass in the corner just before he says what he thinks of the whole thing. Though that glass thrown has no magical power, it is still saying a lot in what he did.

Sooo, my point is, when we are having the bread and the wine at the Lord's Table, we are doing it in rememberance of the Body that was sacraficed and the blood that was shed. Also it is a time to ask God to reveal any sin in our life that we should turn from. Like if i am working at an office and am flirting with a man there, God brings up this sin to me and i ask for forgiveness and agree i will turn from this sin, i do partake in the Lord's Table, remembering what Jesus attained on the cross for me. Now the next month (or however long) that the church is having the Lord's Table, i realize that i've tried to turn from my sin, but i cannot agree that i have fully, so this month i will let the cup and bread pass by for fear of drinking condemnation onto myself.

So i would say spiritually, we do partake in the Lord's body and blood.

Do my ramblings make any sence at all? :blush:

Sort of, but I'm still confused. Do you know of any websites that can explain the Calvin/Reformed position? :scratch: Do you treat the bread and wine/grape juice as if it was Christ Himself?

I am in a transitional period in my spiritual journey. I am re-examining everything I believe in order to come to a deeper relationship with our Lord and God. Only He knows where this will end. But, I came here to this forum to understand the Baptist perspective a bit better (in relatively general terms since I know there are variations in Baptist beliefs as there are in many different denoms). I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter.

Well, I'm glad that someone is in the same boat as I am ;) I too am in the midst of re-evaluating my beliefs-actually, this has been going on for nearly the past 10+ years with no end in sight . . .

Diane
:wave:

[SumTinWong]

No prob, but I don't have a particularly well-researched response. This is because: A) I shouldn't debate in this forum, and B) I've been questioning a lot of Catholic doctrines lately. If you have noticed, my faith icon has changed to "Christian" from "Catholic". Not because I've officially left the RCC, but I am re-evaluating my beliefs. But if you are looking for some sort of answer, I'll give you a general one based on these verses.
The Catholic Church is not the only denom that believes in real presence. Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans also hold this belief (I'm sure others do as well, but I'm not as aquainted with those denoms). I'll stay away from Transubstantiation because this is a particularly Catholic belief not held by Orthodox, Lutherans and many Anglicans. So as for real presence and John 6, my best explanation for using these verses to support the idea is the fact that some bible verses have multiple shades of meaning. Jesus in the verses previously posted is referring to a spiritual teaching. However, he could very well be also foreshadowing the last supper and the institution of the eucharist. So by telling the people to drink his blood and eat his flesh he is both being metaphorical and literal at the same time. The metaphor was for the edification of the people present while the literal was in anticipation of the sacrament of the eucharist. Now, many can say that Jesus is present either physically or spiritually in the bread and the wine. Either way is a form of real presence. The technicalities of the real presence is debated frequently and not really an area I get into, though I do understand the various positions. That all being said, I still was not looking to push a particular position or debate the issue. I am in a transitional period in my spiritual journey. I am re-examining everything I believe in order to come to a deeper relationship with our Lord and God. Only He knows where this will end. But, I came here to this forum to understand the Baptist perspective a bit better (in relatively general terms since I know there are variations in Baptist beliefs as there are in many different denoms). I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter. But here I am rambling on...sorry about that.

Peace all.:amen:
Don't be sorry, that post was very well done! I will pray that the Lord does show you the path where He wants you and your family :)

[Gwenyfur]

I am one of those annoying Catholics (annoying to more conservative Catholics) that believe a Christian is a Christian regardless of denom and only God knows for certain who the true Christians are (the wheat vs. the chaff). I've always kind of held to CS Lewis' idea of the "invisible church." I just want to know my brothers and sisters better, to ulitmately find the community that God wants me to be a part of to increase me in faith and bring me closer to Him, and finally to behold His Glory and dwell in His presence in the hereafter.

WOOT! :clap: A Fellow believe in the invisible church! You wouldn't believe how many times I've been called a closet catholic for upholding that belief!!!! Nice to meet you...and may God guide you on this new leg of your journey :amen:
God Bless:clap:

[Victrixa]

Hiya there everyone :wave:

I too am in the same boat as Diane and Canadian75.... Remember my Catholic icon? ;)

I did understand John 6 the way Matthan explained it during my Evangelical years. I am in a questioning period myself.... I was wondering about Church Fathers' position myself. Maybe the term 'real presence' didn't mean to the Early Church Fathers what it means to liturgical churches today. As the term 'primacy of Peter'. Same terms, different meanings... maybe. :scratch:

I need much :prayer:

[Matthan]

God is truly reaching out to those who are confused.... and His reach is both long, and strong....

May god bless each of you with His love and wisdom.

Matthan <J><

[SumTinWong]

I believe in the real presence. I believe that Jesus is present when we partake of communion/Lord's Supper. I just do not believe that Jesus is present in the elements used during the Lord's supper.

As far as the early fathers. From the earliest writings the disciples themselves wrote, there is no mention of Jesus being physically present in the elements used. There is not one book in the NT that says that Jesus flesh turned into the bread and that His blood became wine.

Now did this doctrine or habit form later, obviously. Was it correct? Obviously I believe no.

[Athanasian Creed]

Leviticus 17:11 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.

Leviticus 17:14 For it (blood) is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

When Christ said "take, eat of my body and drink of my blood" He welcomed us to partake in His very life - His blood which would make "atonement for the soul."

Acts 15:29 That ye (Gentiles) abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If Christ had meant to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood He would have been breaking His own commandment, given in Leviticus to the Jews and in Acts to Gentile believers not to eat/drink blood.

Therefore, it is figuratively that He is speaking, just as He did when He called Himself the "true Vine"/"bread from Heaven"/"the Door"/"Shepherd of the sheep", etc. ;)



Ray :wave:

[SumTinWong]

1Co 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I would argue that Paul is indicating that in the sacrament we are receiving the body and blood of Christ.
That is of course one interpretation and obviously you feel that supports your idea of Christ being physically present in the "host". But let's look at what it means to at least some of us who do not hold to that doctrine:

From Adam Clarke:
"We who partake of this sacred cup, in commemoration of the death of Christ, are made partakers of his body and blood, and thus have fellowship with him; as those who partake of an idol feast, thereby, as much as they can, participate with the idol, to whom the sacrifice was offered."

1Co 11:27 Therefore, 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.

I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper.
Curious isn't it that Paul calls this bread (here and above), bread and not the flesh of the Lord? Obviously he was a stranger to the idea that this substance was Jesus Himself. This is quite obviously Paul telling them not to treat this meal as a gluttonfest if you read the passages before this. In their celebration of the cross they acted in a way unbecoming the of ordinance.

[Matthan]

I read your post and thought I would chime in a litte since I believe and teach the real presence, and have had some training on the matter. Lutherans, as you already noted have always held to the real presence, not to the Roman understanding. Luthers word in with and under have been used. I tend to refer to it as a supernatural presence, but a real presence.

Scriptures used to defend it are Christ's institution which clearly uses the word "is" in the greek. If Jesus wanted to say represents or symbolizes, he could have easily used those words. Also note the discussion Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians.

1Co 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I would argue that Paul is indicating that in the sacrament we are receiving the body and blood of Christ.

Was Paul indicating real presence? I do not think so. The very next verse clarifies v.16. Here are both:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

When a believer participates in the Lord's Table, he symbolically partakes of Christ's body and blood. This means to share and participate in Christ's saving work on the cross. All those who come to the Lord's Supper enter into communion with one another. They form one single body by virtue of their joint participation of Christ. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Then, you also state:

Note also:

1Co 11:27 Therefore, 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.

I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper.


Hope this helps you.

What is Paul really stating here? Let's examine ALL of the appropriate verses, found in 11:23-29:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25. 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. 27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

What is Paul telling us here? First, when we are partaking of the Lord's Supper, we are to do it "in remembrance of Jesus," as a symbolic gesture of faith in His completed work accomplished on the cross. And, when we partake, we do "shew" (show, display) the Lord's death till He returns in the clouds.

Furthermore, if we have the wrong mental attitude while partaking of the Lord's Supper, then we are, "not discerning the Lord's body" properly. That is, we are not preceiving or understanding the true meaning of the ordinance.

"I don't quite understand how you could sin against the body and blood of the Lord if it isn't even presence in the supper."

The Lord IS present symbolically in the Lord's Supper. The bread is symbolic of His body, the grape juice is symbolic of His blood, and together they remind us of how He permitted Himself to be sacrificed for our sin, the perfect sacrifice to God our Father.

It is quite possible, Iczell, that we are both stating the same thing here, and I simply did not understand your post. If you are saying that Jesus is "present" in a symbolic sense in the elements of the Lord's Supper, then we agree. However, if you are saying that Jesus' actual body (flesh) and blood are actually and really present, then we disagree completely. Paul tells us to partake of this ordinance in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice, and that is what we believe.

Matthan <J><

[Lockheed]

When Christ said "take, eat of my body and drink of my blood" He welcomed us to partake in His very life - His blood which would make "atonement for the soul."

Right, and the partaking of blood is the partaking of the life of the 'victim'.

If Christ had meant to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood He would have been breaking His own commandment, given in Leviticus to the Jews and in Acts to Gentile believers not to eat/drink blood.

Therefore, it is figuratively that He is speaking, just as He did when He called Himself the "true Vine"/"bread from Heaven"/"the Door"/"Shepherd of the sheep", etc. ;)

Um... well I agree and disagree here I think the only sacrifice of which we can/must partake of the blood of is Christ Himself, since it is by Him that we become Children of God. I'm not certain what you've provided is a means of refuting 'real presence', but is certainly an awesome topic for a sermon or Bible study of being "In Christ By His Blood."

I say that because the Roman Catholic, or even the Lutheran, could just as easily use those same verses to show that we must partake of Christ's blood in reality to be in Christ. I would reject this idea, but not on the basis you provided.

[Lockheed]

Sort of, but I'm still confused. Do you know of any websites that can explain the Calvin/Reformed position? :scratch: Do you treat the bread and wine/grape juice as if it was Christ Himself?





From the THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap29)(1646) -XXIX, II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
(Note they don't declare the belief of Real Presence to be gross idolatry, but that it has been the cause thereof)
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Herein the Westminister divines declare: "receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ" - So it is not in temporal reality that we partake of elements somehow changed by a priests prayer into the Body and Blood of Christ, but by faith the elements thereof are Christ's body and blood "really, but spiritually".



The London Baptist Confession (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm)of 1689, modeled on the WCF, similarly states:XXX, 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified & all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally, or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of Believers, in that Ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses.

The Reformed, recognizing the serious warnings of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, realize that just as the elements of the New Covenant are "corporally, but spiritually" Christ so as to confer the blessings of grace upon the elect, so to these same elements can cause cursing to those who take it in an "unworthy" manner and thus "whosoever shall receive unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves." Therefore anyone who partakes of Christ, our our Paschal lamb, and yet is unbelieving and rebellious partakes of a curse and so the Apostle Paul writes:



1Co 11:29-30 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
Keep in mind that to the WCF and LBCF writers "unworthy" doesn't mean "sinless", as has been said the supper is "for the sinner" just as medicine is for the sick. But the unworthy one is the one who partakes in "ignorance or with a wicked intent".

[lczell]

I will try to clarify the Lutheran position as best I can. We believe that in the sacrament, bread and wine are not destroyed but are received. Also truly received are the Body and blood of Christ, not spiritually but truly. Not carnally as others have said, but Jesus is present and gives us His Body and Blood in the Super in a Supernatural way. We believe Jesus gives us his Body and Blood in the Supper, because that is what Jesus says that it is. We believe it is because in the very simple words of Paul, He also says it is the body and blood of Christ, and it is a participation in the Body and blood of Christ.

How God does this is a mystery. Many things about our relationship with him are a mystery. How the baby in the manger can be the creator of the universe is truly a mystery. How can God have such love that He dies for the sins of the whole world is mystery. How God can have such wrath that He will send the entire world population of unbelievers to suffer eternally in hell is a mystery.

I am just a man. I can not fully comprehend or understand God, His will and His ways. However, I have his word and promises and have been baptized into Christ. I just try to believe and trust and serve Him and teach others what His word says, even when I do not fully understand it all.

[P_G]

Closed for staff review

[BT]

This thread is now opened.

[BT]

Please be advised of the following forum specific rule:

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

We are pretty liberal about how we determine if you are a Baptist or Anabaptist. Some who come in here have generic Christian icons. Others like me have some thing else even still. We will look to see what church you belong to in your profile and maybe even ask you. In my case I belong to Great Shepherd Mennonite Christian Fellowship as Well as Congregation Nehmiah Center.

However if you are not Baptist or Anabaptist in any way shape or form. You cannot debate here. You may ask a question and what ever the answer is you must accept that answer as it is given. You may ask a follow up question if you need clarification to be sure but debate or discuss the issue you may not do.

You may post a fellowship message "Happy Birthday" "Please Pray for Me" "I got a new car". Fellowship posts do not make people want to argue with you or send us reports.

There have been a rash of non Baptist / Anabaptist comming in trolling and arguing. I would ask that you would stop this. If you choose to do this be aware you will be warned and possibly banned as is appropriate. There will be no more second chances or quietly making the post go away or allow you to edit them. The mod staff is running ragged dealing with these problems. And it must stop.



This rule is being strictly enforced in this thread, along with all of the general CF forum rules. Please keep all discussion within the guidelines.

MOD HAT OFF

thanks - BT

[OrthoCanuck]

Nice to see the thread re-opened. I hope that if anyone reads through this thread and wished to add to it, that would be great. Though if we wish to discuss the issue further and avoid having it closed down again. I'm still looking into the issue, and I find good arguments on both sides as to the meaning of John 6. But coming from churches that believe in real presence, I am still more interested in the other side of the story because I know less about it.
God bless.

[OrthoCanuck]

There have been a rash of non Baptist / Anabaptist comming in trolling and arguing. I would ask that you would stop this. If you choose to do this be aware you will be warned and possibly banned as is appropriate. There will be no more second chances or quietly making the post go away or allow you to edit them. The mod staff is running ragged dealing with these problems. And it must stop.


This is the last thing I am doing here in Baptist/Anabaptist. I have tried to make it clear I do not wish to debate an issue. If Baptists/Anabaptists wish to debate amongst themselves, perhaps I'll learn something about other perspectives. I did answer a question about the OP from a different perspective than I intended, but it came about because I was asked to by a Baptist member. As for others who wish to debate the issue, please don't. I'm trying to ask honest questions. non-Baptist/Anabaptist members aren't doing any good coming and arguing. I don't troll or look for a fight. If I wanted a debate about real presence, then I'd go to another part of CF, not here.

God bless.

[mesue]

It appears that real presence in one form or another was common practice for most of christian history, I'm wondering if anyone can point me to a good internet article that might show if any of the church fathers didn't believe in real presence?
He is really present in me, or any other blood bought forgiven child of God. Everyday 24/7. I don't need to reintroduce Jesus in me, He's already there.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I love Galatians

[ZiSunka]

Communion is a commemoration of Christ's atoning death and a foreshadowing of the Lamb's wedding feast that we will enjoy in unity in the New Jerusalem. If it were merely a meal of flesh and blood or a memorial of his death, we could take it alone in our own homes. But it is this foreshadowing of the wedding feast eaten in unity that makes it a group thing.

And, keep in mind that Jews were not allowed to consume any raw flesh or any blood, so if it were really his actual flesh and blood, they would have to become sinners in order to consume it. God never contradicts himself. If it was illegal by his own laws to consume blood and raw flesh, it would be a contradiction for him to then require the consuming of flesh and blood for salvation. Something that condemns cannot save.

[SumTinWong]

This is the last thing I am doing here in Baptist/Anabaptist. I have tried to make it clear I do not wish to debate an issue. If Baptists/Anabaptists wish to debate amongst themselves, perhaps I'll learn something about other perspectives. I did answer a question about the OP from a different perspective than I intended, but it came about because I was asked to by a Baptist member. As for others who wish to debate the issue, please don't. I'm trying to ask honest questions. non-Baptist/Anabaptist members aren't doing any good coming and arguing. I don't troll or look for a fight. If I wanted a debate about real presence, then I'd go to another part of CF, not here.

God bless.
I honestly do not think BT's comments were aimed at you. You question was honest and valid and you deserve the opportunity to get the idea of what Baptists view is on the real rpesence, or in this case lack thereof. I apologize if I or my bretherin here have made this experience difficult in anyway.

So I would join in asking non forum members to stay out of the conversation and would ask my Baptist friends to stick tot eh topic and not deveate into what others believe or not.

Peace to you C75,
Bud

[FLMike]

I've deleted this post, since on further reading of the thread I decided I shouldn't be commenting on it.

[ZiSunka]

Is it appropriate for a Catholic to reply here? I'll do so until I hear differently.

First, regarding "the vine", "the door", "the shepard", etc., we can see clearly that these are metahpors because we know that people are not actually branches, nor actually sheep. No such knowledge prevents belief in the Real Presence, however. People do actually eat.

Regarding not eating blood, it involved eating the blood of creatures. Christ is not a creature. Further, the prohibition was put into place exactly to lay the foundation for understanding that in drinking His blood we take on His life.

Has anybody discussed Passover here? If so I missed it. The critical points of the Passover sacrifice involved not only killing the lamb, but eating it. Regarding Christ, the Lamb of God, the killing took place once, in history, but the eating of the sacrificial lamb continues, for all of His people, throughout time, must at least be offered the opportunity to partake of the sacrifice. Just as Passover continued until the lamb had been consumed, so Christ's sacrifice continues until The Lamb has been consumed.

One more point is that a figurative use of phrases such as eating one's flesh and drinking one's blood had a specific meaning in the culture of the day, and still today in cultures of that area. It meant something like attacking, insulting, reviling. Very negative connotations, nothing like "believe in me" or "follow my words".

Finally, John 6:51: "...and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Christ doesn't say that the bread is His words, or faith in Him. He says the bread is His flesh. It was His actual flesh that hung upon the cross, and it is that same flesh, given for the life of the world, that He gives us to eat, and requires us to eat.

Anyway, that's one Catholic's understanding.

I don't think the OP was looking for the catholic perspective, since he is a recently former catholic.

But thanks for your response. We're not allowed to debate here or I would post scripture in response.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

not a necessary post anymore

[FLMike]

I don't think the OP was looking for the catholic perspective, since he is a recently former catholic.

But thanks for your response. We're not allowed to debate here or I would post scripture in response.

Yes, I went back and deleted my post, on further reading of the thread. Sorry for breaking the rules (through lack of understanding them, not through intent).

[ZiSunka]

Hey, it's okay. We'd love to have you come particiapte in some of our fellowship threads, like the Barnraising or The Person Below Me game.

[Lockheed]

Fellow Baptists,

These are fairly typical of the responses you see...

First, regarding "the vine", "the door", "the shepard", etc., we can see clearly that these are metahpors because we know that people are not actually branches, nor actually sheep. No such knowledge prevents belief in the Real Presence, however. People do actually eat.

The reply should be evident: But unless they're cannibals they don't eat the flesh and drink the blood of other humans.

John 6:51: "...and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Christ doesn't say that the bread is His words, or faith in Him.

John 6 is prior to the initiation of the Eucharist (or Supper if you prefer) and it is not in view here. Also, note that Christ suggests that some can already eat of His flesh and drink of His blood... prior to the Supper being given. There's no way this passage can be used to support real presence given these facts. Finally:

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

Coming to Christ is 'partaking of His flesh' and believing in Him is "drinking of His blood". (See also Rom 3:25)

[Matthan]

Everyone is welcome here, even if a tiny bit of "improper" debate occurs. Looking ever to Christ is, or should be, all of our desires and goals. Discussion such as has occurred in this particular thread can only lead to a clearer, fuller, and more complete understanding of Christ's true message to us all.

Always remember that God's love is not Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or Orthodox, or anything else. It is available to everyone who truly wants it and is willing to give just a tiny bit of love in return. When that happens, the "mustard seed" of faith has been planted by God, and His fertile fields of truth will nurish the believer into a mature Christian, ready for His harvesters to gather in His time.

Matthan <J><

[Iollain]

Sort of, but I'm still confused. Do you know of any websites that can explain the Calvin/Reformed position? :scratch: Do you treat the bread and wine/grape juice as if it was Christ Himself?

Diane
:wave:

No, i didn't know that was Calvin/Reformed view. You mean as if i had the an actual piece of Jesus's flesh and His blood? No. I just take a piece of the matza, it must be matza cause it is the same thing in the Jewish section at the grocery store, and i take one of the little cups with the grape juice, and i sit quietly remembering what Jesus did on the cross, and the Last Supper, and i remember that someday there will be a big feast that we will have with Jesus, someday:

Mat 26:29 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.

.......So He cannot be talking about drinking His own blood.




1Cr 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper.


1Cr 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


1Cr 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.


1Cr 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:


1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


1Cr 11:25 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.


1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.


1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.


1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.


1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.


1Cr 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


1Cr 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.


1Cr 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.


The way we share in the body and blood of Christ is that He died in our place, and if we are dead in Him, in His death, then we have a hope of someday being risen with Him in His Ressurection.

Edit: just wanted to add, if God is spirtually present in the bread and wine, (as in a mystery) it is not like Christians have not handled this Spirit before, for He lives in us. You can't hold the Body of Christ up above His Spirit, for they are One and the same. There is nothing i would do differently if i believed this position.