Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[Foxfyre]

We have the complete picture of what was happening back then. The disciples weren't given a primer, everything Jesus did and said was new to them. The keywords here in the scripture in question are often, and remembrance. He didn't tell the disciples to drink blood often, or eat some chunks of flesh. But when they drank wine and ate bread regularly, and were reminded to do what Jesus told them to do.
Just like when Christ told Nicodemus he needed to be born again. He wasn't really promoting a vaginal reinstall. It was emblematic. We know that, but it confused Nicodemus. He was shocked at the notion.
It is ok for us not to agree on different scriptural explications, as long as we don't lose focus on Christ and the work He did on the cross for our sake. We belong to the same Heavenly family. We have the same Father...

Thank you. Thank you. You argued my position beautifully here and more eloquently than I did.

We don't have to agree on what was intended to be taken literally and what was symbolic/metaphorical or allegorical in the scriptures. To be Christian we do have to agree that Jesus was God with us, died for our sins and rose again. And we are to love and obey him or at least sincerely try to do that despite our inevitable sinful natures.

 

[ding]

We have the complete picture of what was happening back then. The disciples weren't given a primer, everything Jesus did and said was new to them. The keywords here in the scripture in question are often, and remembrance. He didn't tell the disciples to drink blood often, or eat some chunks of flesh. But when they drank wine and ate bread regularly, and were reminded to do what Jesus told them to do.
Just like when Christ told Nicodemus he needed to be born again. He wasn't really promoting a vaginal reinstall. It was emblematic. We know that, but it confused Nicodemus. He was shocked at the notion.
It is ok for us not to agree on different scriptural explications, as long as we don't lose focus on Christ and the work He did on the cross for our sake. We belong to the same Heavenly family. We have the same Father...

The first Christians weren't confused by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So when do you think this confusion about what Jesus meant started?

 

[ding]

Thank you. Thank you. You argued my position beautifully here and more eloquently than I did.

We don't have to agree on what was intended to be taken literally and what was symbolic/metaphorical or allegorical in the scriptures. To be Christian we do have to agree that Jesus was God with us, died for our sins and rose again. And we are to love and obey him or at least sincerely try to do that despite our inevitable sinful natures.

I don't believe Jesus was confused by his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He even asked his disciples if they were shocked by it. Rather than make it symbolic he let MANY of his disciples leave (John 6:66)

But to your point, truth always matters as God is truth among other "things."

 

[The Irish Ram]

Jesus didn't say do it often nor did he say don't do it often

He said it twice. Paul reiterated it to the Corinthians:
This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

 

[ding]

He said it twice. Paul reiterated it to the Corinthians:
This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

He didn't tell us to do it often or to not do it often.

But he gave the command more than twice.

 

[ding]

He said it twice. Paul reiterated it to the Corinthians:
This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So how many other fallible things did Jesus say?

Matthew 26:26–28
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 22:19–20
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."


1 Corinthians 11:26-27
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”

John 6: 53-56
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The first Christians weren't confused by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So when do you think this confusion about what Jesus meant started?

He was speaking to Jews, so believe me, if a Jewish Rabbi told them to drink blood, they would have been very confused. And especially, a command to eat flesh would have tripped them out. That didn't do that often. But they did drink wine and bread every day. Do you also take being reborn to mean climbing back into the womb?

 

[Meriweather]

We have the complete picture of what was happening back then. The disciples weren't given a primer, everything Jesus did and said was new to them. The keywords here in the scripture in question are often, and remembrance. He didn't tell the disciples to drink blood often, or eat some chunks of flesh. But when they drank wine and ate bread regularly, and were reminded to do what Jesus told them to do.

We have a picture of Paul's letters and the early Christians who did do this often. Who could not help but remember Jesus a this time. Jesus' words have been presented....This is my body, this is my blood. We have words that the early Christians believed this, and we have historical sources accusing them of being cannibals. We have Eucharistic miracles preserved down through the years.

What do we all have? The first thing that comes to mind is John's verse: "This is a hard teaching; who can accept it." Yes, some walk away and are no longer disciples. But we also have those who can't believe but still remain close and embrace Jesus.

This calls to my mind one of my favorite verses in the entire Bible (Mark): Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief! While perhaps not with regards to the Eucharist, I firmly believe I could be the poster child with the cartoon balloon containing the words "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!" floating ever above my head as I walk the Way each day on this journey we call life.

Why else do I do so much studying?

 

[ding]

He was speaking to Jews, so believe me, if a Jewish Rabbi told them to drink blood, they would have been very confused. And especially, a command to eat flesh would have tripped them out. That didn't do that often. But they did drink wine and bread every day. Do you also take being reborn to mean climbing back into the womb?

So you are saying he was wrong to say it that way? That the Word of God is indeed fallible?

 

[ding]

He was speaking to Jews, so believe me, if a Jewish Rabbi told them to drink blood, they would have been very confused. And especially, a command to eat flesh would have tripped them out. That didn't do that often. But they did drink wine and bread every day. Do you also take being reborn to mean climbing back into the womb?

Try reading the passage. They were confused, they were shocked. So Jesus doubled down on it and spoke even more explicitly. As a result many of his disciples left. And he let them leave.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The accusations would have had merit if the people following Christ were cannibalizing and often had blood dripping down their chins. But just as the Corinthians were eating bread and drinking wine, Paul admonished them for not remembering Christ as they ate and drank.
Meri, I love that verse. And especially your cartoon. I see myself following Christ around for thousands of years just uttering, thank you, thank you, thank you...

 

[ding]

The accusations would have had merit if the people following Christ were cannibalizing and often had blood dripping down their chins. But just as the Corinthians were eating bread and drinking wine, Paul admonished them for not remembering Christ as they ate and drank.
Meri, I love that verse. And especially your cartoon. I see myself following Christ around for thousands of years just uttering, thank you, thank you, thank you...

Maybe study up on the "Real Presence?" Because what you are describing was never a thing or a belief by any of the first Christians who did believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you are saying he was wrong to say it that way? That the Word of God is indeed fallible?

No. He is saying that the Bible must be read through the eyes and experience of those who wrote down the words. That means that more than one interpretation can be logical and reasonable as to the exact meaning of the words used. Who am I to say my belief/interpretation is the only right one and everybody else is wrong?

I believe in allowing people of faith to believe what they believe so long as we all share a relationship with the living Christ who, as Jesus of Nazareth, was very big on using common sense and intent and encouraged us to worship God instead of worshiping rules/dogma/doctrine.

 

[ding]

The first Christians believed that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of Christ, a belief often referred to as real presence.

In Christian theology, "real presence" refers to the belief that during the Holy Eucharist (or Communion), Jesus Christ is physically present in the bread and wine, even while they still appear to be bread and wine. This presence is not just a symbolic or spiritual presence, but a real, bodily presence.

 

[The Irish Ram]

So you are saying he was wrong to say it that way? That the Word of God is indeed fallible?

Stop questioning my faith in the Word. It is unshakable.

What I am saying is it was emblematic, just like being reborn:

emblematic serving as a symbol of a particular quality or concept.

 

[ding]

No. He is saying that the Bible must be read through the eyes and experience of those who wrote down the words. That means that more than one interpretation can be logical and reasonable as to the exact meaning of the words used. Who am I to say my belief/interpretation is the only right one and everybody else is wrong?

I believe in allowing people of faith to believe what they believe so long as we all share a relationship with the living Christ who, as Jesus of Nazareth, was very big on using common sense and intent instead of worshiping rules/dogma/doctrine.

So in effect, you are saying it's ok to contradict the literal words spoken by Jesus and that makes the bible still infallible?

 

[ding]

Stop questioning my faith in the Word. It is unshakable.

What I am saying is it was emblematic, just like being reborn:

emblematic serving as a symbol of a particular quality or concept.

Jesus said, "this is my body." He did not say, "this represents my body." He said, "this is my body. Was he wrong?

Are you familiar with the first Christian's belief in the "real presence?"

 

[ding]

Stop questioning my faith in the Word. It is unshakable.

What I am saying is it was emblematic, just like being reborn:

emblematic serving as a symbol of a particular quality or concept.

Clearly Jesus' command to eat his body and drink his blood has shaken your faith.

 

[The Irish Ram]

As a result many of his disciples left. And he let them leave

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
^
The Word said that.

 

[Foxfyre]

So in effect, you are saying it's ok to contradict the literal words spoken by Jesus and that makes the bible still infallible?

No I didn't stay that. Nor have I ever said that our interpretation of the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible or the Bible itself will always be infallible.

There is a difference between the infallibility of the Bible and our interpretation of it. I would hope all people capable of critical thinking would be able to understand that.