The Breaking of the Bread

CrabCake · Oct 15, 2014

faithful_servant said:
Because what He was saying was so far outside of the norm that they really didn't understand how a Rabbi could place Himself in the position of God. For what Jesus was saying to be true (that you had to be in covenant with Him in order to be accepted by the Father), would mean that Jesus was God. It struck people to their core and put them into a position of HAVING to decide if they would accept Him for who He was claiming to be.

That's what you see when you read the following statement?

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

tosca1 · Oct 15, 2014

phattonez said:
He said explicitly "This IS my body" and in John 6 was very clear that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Of course that is important, but it seems that every Sunday is the deal, at the very least. Also, the Lord's Prayer implies DAILY bread, just as a note. And the word used for bread in Greek in the Lord's Prayer is not the normal word for bread. I think it's worth looking up.

Not just any meal, but the Passover, during which unleavened bread was used. This is far more than a simple meal.

Do you find the fact that the Last Supper occurred immediately prior to Good Friday to be completely insignificant?

I've stated the reasons why I believe the bread SYMBOLIZES Christ. Whether the Last Supper happened during the Passover or not, doesn't matter, since it is clear that the breaking of the bread is meant as a symbolism.

A lot of good reasons (citing the Scriptures) are given by other posters who believe like me.
Jesus used metaphors and symbolisms throughout His teachings - why will it be suddenly any different at the Last Supper?

Some of the metaphors He'd used to describe Himself - The Bread of Life, The Light of the World, The Gate for the sheep, The Shepherd, The Way, The Truth, The Life, The True Vine.

faithful_servant · Oct 16, 2014

CrabCake said:
That's what you see when you read the following statement?

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Yes, I've extensively studied the covenanting ceremony of that time and how it impacted the 1st century culture. When you read passages about sharing wine, bread, coats, etc. they almost always refer to covenants (such as when Jonothan gave David his cloak, he was passing David his authority as heir to the throne as part of a covenant with David, Elijah giving Elisha his mantle, Joseph's coat are more examples). What Jesus and the people were referring to was the final step in establishing a covenant - "This is my body, eat of it and live." The people of that time would have understood VERY clearly that what Jesus was saying was that unless you entered into a covenant relationship with Him, you had no place in Heaven. So when they asked that question, what they were asking was "By what authority does He offer this covenant?" Jesus is stating EXACTLY what was prophesied in Isaiah, that He would bring a New Covenant. Everything He did was done to establish this Covenant, the Cross, the Empty Tomb, His ascension, His teachings, the miracles, all were pointing to this New Covenant written in our hearts. The people of that time were very aware of this and of what Jesus was saying. It's why the Pharisees hated Him - He claimed the authority to do that which only God could do. Even the forgiveness of sin was part of the Covenant.

You can't study 1st century cultural references from a 21st or even 5th century perspective, you have to study them in light of their culture, not ours.

CrabCake · Oct 16, 2014

faithful_servant said:
What Jesus and the people were referring to was the final step in establishing a covenant - "This is my body, eat of it and live." The people of that time would have understood VERY clearly that what Jesus was saying was that unless you entered into a covenant relationship with Him, you had no place in Heaven.

I don't doubt that Jews of the second temple period would be familiar with covenants. But I can't imagine they would be familiar with phrasing it in terms of eating someone's body. That's not terminology that, as far as I know, they would have been familiar with. There is no tradition of cannibalism in Judaism, or as far as I know, of talking about covenants in those terms. There was, however, a tradition of cannibalism in the worship of Moloch/Marduk, and Baal/Nimrod, pagan gods whose followers Israel had been battling; if anything, that's what they might think of when someone talks about religious cannibalism.

faithful_servant said:
So when they asked that question, what they were asking was "By what authority does He offer this covenant?"

When we look at the text, what we see doesn't resemble disagreement with the authority of Jesus, it resembles confusion. First, they were confused about how Jesus could claim to have come from heaven if they knew where he came from (and it wasn't heaven):

John 6:42 They said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Then they were confused about the consumption of flesh and blood in the verse I pointed out previously.

The picture that is painted here is not one of people who are familiar with what Jesus is proposing and disagree with him. It's a picture of people failing to grasp what Jesus is saying.

faithful_servant said:
Jesus is stating EXACTLY what was prophesied in Isaiah, that He would bring a New Covenant. Everything He did was done to establish this Covenant, the Cross, the Empty Tomb, His ascension, His teachings, the miracles, all were pointing to this New Covenant written in our hearts. The people of that time were very aware of this and of what Jesus was saying. It's why the Pharisees hated Him - He claimed the authority to do that which only God could do. Even the forgiveness of sin was part of the Covenant.

I don't disagree with this view. I just can't see any evidence that the people in John 6 understood what Jesus was saying.

faithful_servant said:
You can't study 1st century cultural references from a 21st or even 5th century perspective, you have to study them in light of their culture, not ours.

Of course. I would love to see sources that show that talking about covenants in terms of eating people's flesh and blood was a familiar concept to second temple Jews.

RAMOSS · Oct 16, 2014

CrabCake said:
I don't doubt that Jews of the second temple period would be familiar with covenants. But I can't imagine they would be familiar with phrasing it in terms of eating someone's body. That's not terminology that, as far as I know, they would have been familiar with. There is no tradition of cannibalism in Judaism, or as far as I know, of talking about covenants in those terms. There was, however, a tradition of cannibalism in the worship of Moloch/Marduk, and Baal/Nimrod, pagan gods whose followers Israel had been battling; if anything, that's what they might think of when someone talks about religious cannibalism.

When we look at the text, what we see doesn't resemble disagreement with the authority of Jesus, it resembles confusion. First, they were confused about how Jesus could claim to have come from heaven if they knew where he came from (and it wasn't heaven):

John 6:42 They said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Then they were confused about the consumption of flesh and blood in the verse I pointed out previously.

The picture that is painted here is not one of people who are familiar with what Jesus is proposing and disagree with him. It's a picture of people failing to grasp what Jesus is saying.

I don't disagree with this view. I just can't see any evidence that the people in John 6 understood what Jesus was saying.

Of course. I would love to see sources that show that talking about covenants in terms of eating people's flesh and blood was a familiar concept to second temple Jews.

it would be horrifying as a matter of fact. One part of the idea of the kosher butchering was to remove blood from the animal. (see Leviticus 17:12,14).

faithful_servant · Oct 16, 2014

CrabCake said:
I don't doubt that Jews of the second temple period would be familiar with covenants. But I can't imagine they would be familiar with phrasing it in terms of eating someone's body. That's not terminology that, as far as I know, they would have been familiar with. There is no tradition of cannibalism in Judaism, or as far as I know, of talking about covenants in those terms. There was, however, a tradition of cannibalism in the worship of Moloch/Marduk, and Baal/Nimrod, pagan gods whose followers Israel had been battling; if anything, that's what they might think of when someone talks about religious cannibalism.

I never said anything about cannibalism. The phrase "This is my body, eat of it and live." was a commitment to sacrifice whatever was necessary to keep a covenant and the terminology would have been very familiar to Jews from about 200 years after Christ back a couple thousand years. This was an ancient ceremony and was well known.

When we look at the text, what we see doesn't resemble disagreement with the authority of Jesus, it resembles confusion. First, they were confused about how Jesus could claim to have come from heaven if they knew where he came from (and it wasn't heaven):

John 6:42 They said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Then they were confused about the consumption of flesh and blood in the verse I pointed out previously.

The picture that is painted here is not one of people who are familiar with what Jesus is proposing and disagree with him. It's a picture of people failing to grasp what Jesus is saying.

Only one with the authority to enter and complete the terms of a covenant would use the phrase that Jesus used. In this case, the only person who had the authority and ability to keep that covenant is God. The confusion from John 6:42 is that of people who saw Jesus as only the son of Joseph and not as the Son of God. They were questioning His claim to have the authority to make the incredibly bold statement of having authority that only God has.

I don't disagree with this view. I just can't see any evidence that the people in John 6 understood what Jesus was saying.

That's because you've never studied the covenanting ceremony and how it was seen and referred in the 1st century in that culture.

Of course. I would love to see sources that show that talking about covenants in terms of eating people's flesh and blood was a familiar concept to second temple Jews.

They weren't eating anyone's flesh, they simply understood the language of the covenant, something which you are missing (back to the idea that you have understand the cultural context of the situation).

CrabCake · Oct 16, 2014

faithful_servant said:
I never said anything about cannibalism. The phrase "This is my body, eat of it and live." was a commitment to sacrifice whatever was necessary to keep a covenant and the terminology would have been very familiar to Jews from about 200 years after Christ back a couple thousand years. This was an ancient ceremony and was well known.

I'd like to see the evidence. What ancient sources can I look at that show that this kind of language was used and familiar during the second temple period?

faithful_servant · Oct 17, 2014

CrabCake said:
I'd like to see the evidence. What ancient sources can I look at that show that this kind of language was used and familiar during the second temple period?

Try Clay Trumball's The Blood Covenant for starters, then G.E. Mendenhall's Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.

CrabCake · Oct 17, 2014

faithful_servant said:
Try Clay Trumball's The Blood Covenant for starters, then G.E. Mendenhall's Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.

Those are not ancient sources, they are modern books. Nevertheless, in the hopes that they would provide footnotes that might point to the sources, I did examine those books. I read one of those in its entirety and did some keyword searches and selective reading of the other. I think they are great resources, but they don't seem to support your claim.

To be clear, this is the claim I am interested in finding support for:

faithful_servant said:
The phrase "This is my body, eat of it and live." was a commitment to sacrifice whatever was necessary to keep a covenant and the terminology would have been very familiar to Jews from about 200 years after Christ back a couple thousand years. This was an ancient ceremony and was well known.

Here are links to the sources you claimed would provide that evidence:
https://archive.org/details/bloodcovenantapr027440mbp
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It seems the book by Clay Trumball comes closest to supporting your case. It claims that blood covenants were commonly understood in the Middle East during that period and that tasting each other's blood was part of the process. It further claims that Israelites would have been familiar with eating the flesh of an animal sacrifice. However, Trumball contradicts your claim in pages 277-278. Trumball explains that this was not "an ancient ceremony that was well known", but rather that Jesus referred to two separate traditions, the traditions of animal sacrifice, symbolized by the eating of his flesh, and of the blood covenant, symbolized by drinking his blood. The Jews were unable to understand what he was talking about, not because they questioned whether he had the authority to say certain words (again, Trumball does not support your claim that the words Jesus used would have been familiar), but because they weren't grasping that Jesus would become the sacrifice and thus he was referencing eating the flesh of the sacrifice.

I think these are wonderful resources. But I still don't see them supporting your claim. Trumbull claims "The words of Jesus on this subject were not understood by those who heard him".

So, I have to say...I still don't see it. What you provided as evidence does not claim that second temple Jews would be familiar with words to the effect of "eat my flesh".

phattonez · Oct 17, 2014

tosca1 said:
I've stated the reasons why I believe the bread SYMBOLIZES Christ. Whether the Last Supper happened during the Passover or not, doesn't matter, since it is clear that the breaking of the bread is meant as a symbolism.

A lot of good reasons (citing the Scriptures) are given by other posters who believe like me.
Jesus used metaphors and symbolisms throughout His teachings - why will it be suddenly any different at the Last Supper?

Some of the metaphors He'd used to describe Himself - The Bread of Life, The Light of the World, The Gate for the sheep, The Shepherd, The Way, The Truth, The Life, The True Vine.

This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

Catholic Answers said:
In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

phattonez · Oct 17, 2014

faithful_servant said:
But you're trying to take His words out of their cultural context. The phrase refers to the covenanting ceremony where those words are used as a promise to fulfill the covenant that had been made. When I first gave my life to God, the first book my Pastor wisely had me read (other than the Bible) was a secular book on 1st century culture. There is so much that we get wrong about what was is in the Bible because we don't take the time to get educated about the culture in which those were spoken.

Tell me how first century Christians interpreted the passage.

faithful_servant · Oct 17, 2014

faithful_servant said:
Two different concepts about "breaking bread". The first is simply the act of coming together for meal. The phrase was a common one at the time. The other indicates a Covenant action. Part of the covenanting ceremony included a point where the two parties tot eh covenant would feed each other bread and state something to the effect of "This is my body, eat of it and live." and then give each other wine and state something to the effect of "This is my body, drink of it and live." The idea behind was a promise to keep the covenant that had been made regardless of personal cost. This was the meaning of the "Last supper", not a literal consumption of the blood and body of Christ, but the establishment of a covenant with Him. It was the idea behind John 6:53 where Jesus states that if the People didn't eat of His flesh and drink of His blood (enter into a covenant with Him), they would have no place in Heaven.

faithful_servant said:
But you're trying to take His words out of their cultural context. The phrase refers to the covenanting ceremony where those words are used as a promise to fulfill the covenant that had been made. When I first gave my life to God, the first book my Pastor wisely had me read (other than the Bible) was a secular book on 1st century culture. There is so much that we get wrong about what was is in the Bible because we don't take the time to get educated about the culture in which those were spoken.

faithful_servant said:
Actually, the breaking of bread as part of a covenanting ceremony is a near global phenomenon. Across continents and oceans it's seen. It's not something that's limited to any one culture and in the 1st century was a well known and understood concept.

faithful_servant said:
What the Jews were arguing about was whether Jesus had the authority to be the party to a covenant that He was claiming to be, not whether people could actually eat His flesh, but whether He had the authority to make the statement that unless you enter into a covenant with Him, the Father would have no place for you.

faithful_servant said:
Because what He was saying was so far outside of the norm that they really didn't understand how a Rabbi could place Himself in the position of God. For what Jesus was saying to be true (that you had to be in covenant with Him in order to be accepted by the Father), would mean that Jesus was God. It struck people to their core and put them into a position of HAVING to decide if they would accept Him for who He was claiming to be.

faithful_servant said:
Yes, I've extensively studied the covenanting ceremony of that time and how it impacted the 1st century culture. When you read passages about sharing wine, bread, coats, etc. they almost always refer to covenants (such as when Jonothan gave David his cloak, he was passing David his authority as heir to the throne as part of a covenant with David, Elijah giving Elisha his mantle, Joseph's coat are more examples). What Jesus and the people were referring to was the final step in establishing a covenant - "This is my body, eat of it and live." The people of that time would have understood VERY clearly that what Jesus was saying was that unless you entered into a covenant relationship with Him, you had no place in Heaven. So when they asked that question, what they were asking was "By what authority does He offer this covenant?" Jesus is stating EXACTLY what was prophesied in Isaiah, that He would bring a New Covenant. Everything He did was done to establish this Covenant, the Cross, the Empty Tomb, His ascension, His teachings, the miracles, all were pointing to this New Covenant written in our hearts. The people of that time were very aware of this and of what Jesus was saying. It's why the Pharisees hated Him - He claimed the authority to do that which only God could do. Even the forgiveness of sin was part of the Covenant.

You can't study 1st century cultural references from a 21st or even 5th century perspective, you have to study them in light of their culture, not ours.

faithful_servant said:
I never said anything about cannibalism. The phrase "This is my body, eat of it and live." was a commitment to sacrifice whatever was necessary to keep a covenant and the terminology would have been very familiar to Jews from about 200 years after Christ back a couple thousand years. This was an ancient ceremony and was well known.

Only one with the authority to enter and complete the terms of a covenant would use the phrase that Jesus used. In this case, the only person who had the authority and ability to keep that covenant is God. The confusion from John 6:42 is that of people who saw Jesus as only the son of Joseph and not as the Son of God. They were questioning His claim to have the authority to make the incredibly bold statement of having authority that only God has.

That's because you've never studied the covenanting ceremony and how it was seen and referred in the 1st century in that culture.

They weren't eating anyone's flesh, they simply understood the language of the covenant, something which you are missing (back to the idea that you have understand the cultural context of the situation).

phattonez said:
Tell me how first century Christians interpreted the passage.

This should get you up to speed...

tosca1 · Oct 17, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Jesus had used so many metaphors to describe Himself. His statement is consistent with His other metaphors. He referred to Himself as "THE SHEPHERD," and yet we know He was a carpenter.

Whether one believes it is a symbolism or the literal body of Christ, does not matter. There's no reason to make an on-going serious argument of it.

The message of Jesus is clear. The importance of the breaking of the bread is clear.

The only thing that matters is that.... we REMEMBER what JESUS had suffered and gave for us.

phattonez · Oct 17, 2014

faithful_servant said:
This should get you up to speed...

See the statements of early Christians:

The Real Presence | Catholic Answers

Ignatius of Antioch said:
"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 said:
"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]).

Catholic Answers said:
In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

phattonez · Oct 17, 2014

tosca1 said:
Jesus had used so many metaphors to describe Himself. His statement is consistent with His other metaphors. He referred to Himself as "THE SHEPHERD," and yet we know He was a carpenter.

Whether one believes it is a symbolism or the literal body of Christ, does not matter. There's no reason to make an on-going serious argument of it.

The message of Jesus is clear. The importance of the breaking of the bread is clear.

The only thing that matters is that.... we REMEMBER what JESUS had suffered and gave for us.

So your position is to ignore the unanimous consent of the early Church. Do you think that's an easily defensible position?

Paleocon · Oct 17, 2014

phattonez said:
So your position is to ignore the unanimous consent of the early Church. Do you think that's an easily defensible position?

The Church Fathers agree with me, sure there might be a few that agree with you, but they all secretly agreed with me, they just never wrote it down.

(Not really what I believe, but you should get the imitation)

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Let's be clear. Who are these "Church Fathers?"

Should we automatically believe what church fathers say, just because they're referred to as, "church fathers?"
Just because they're from that ancient time? There were numerous false teachings even in the times of the Apostles! So please, be specific. Who do you mean exactly by "church fathers?" Like who?

Anyway, the Church doesn't take precedence over the Scriptures.

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Here is one whom I suppose belong to the category of "Church Fathers," since the Catholic Church uses him in their apologetics. Clement of Alexandria.

As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (ibid)

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech.

Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here.
Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence | One Fold Blog

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

More on Clement. Catholic apologists are ignoring the rest of his explanation. It's just another Scriptural teaching that's been taken out of context.

From a Catholic apologist at “StayCatholic.com” I received this:

“It looks like he is saying that he believes in the “Real Presence” but that he can also see some symbolism in it as well. Remember he said: “Hear it ALSO in the following way.” The word also obviously includes both views. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a contradiction. Even in Scripture we have passages that have meanings on a number of levels.” (Emphasis his)

Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language. I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors. And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)

Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)

And Clement concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)

Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence | One Fold Blog

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

Jesus had used so many metaphors to describe Himself. His statement is consistent with His other metaphors. He referred to Himself as "THE SHEPHERD," and yet we know He was a carpenter.

Whether one believes it is a symbolism or the literal body of Christ, does not matter. There's no reason to make an on-going serious argument of it.

The message of Jesus is clear. The importance of the breaking of the bread is clear.

The only thing that matters is that.... we REMEMBER what JESUS had suffered and gave for us.

Phattonez

So your position is to ignore the unanimous consent of the early Church. Do you think that's an easily defensible position?

Click to expand...

My position is to focus on the actual message of Jesus instead of PETTY SQUABBLING over whether the bread is to be taken literally or not, AFTER ALL, THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

The message is still the same: REMEMBER WHAT JESUS HAD SUFFERED AND GAVE FOR US!

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Furthermore:

As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.” And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence | One Fold Blog

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century.

He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi).

Church Fathers and Transubstantiation

Therefore, a differing interpretation.

tosca1 · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
This must be squared away with the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharist to literally be the body and blood of Christ.

[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

The opinion was far from being unanimous! That is, if these are whom you refer to as "Church Fathers."

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, as it is sometimes called, is included in the collection of works known as the Apostolic Fathers, and is one of the oldest documents from the immediate post-apostolic age that we possess. It is an early manual of Church discipline dated from between the late first century and 140 A.D., and it simply refers to the Lord’s Supper as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the elements are transformed in anyway.

Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. 110 A.D.), on the other hand, speaks of the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ which communicates eternal life.

Justin Martyr (100/110-165 A.D.) refers to the eucharistic elements as being more than common bread and wine,2 in that when they are consecrated they become the body and blood of Jesus; yet in his Dialogue with Trypho he wrote that the elements were bread and wine which were inaugurated by Christ as a memorial and remembrance of his body and blood.3 So while he spoke of a change in the elements, it seems that in his conception, the elements still remain, in essence, bread and wine.
Like Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons (140-202 A.D.) clearly believed the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus at consecration,4 but he also stated that the elements were composed of two realities — one earthly and one heavenly, or spiritual.5 He implied that at consecration, though the elements are no longer common bread and wine, they do not lose the nature of being bread and wine.

Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine ‘in memory of his blood’ (Against Marcion 3.19).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340 A.D.) identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ but, like Tertullian, saw the elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities.

However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defence of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was Augustine.
13 He gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture should be interpreted literally and when figuratively. Passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded, and he used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpreted figuratively.14

Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities.
He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.
15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16

"The Eucharist" by William Webster

There were differing interpretations even then.

HOWEVER, THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES DOES NOT INDICATE ANY TRANSFORMATION OF THE BREAD AND WINE!

The Apostles are the original Church Fathers!

So, to proclaim that the bread and wine had become literally the body and blood of Christ when the original Fathers had not indicated at all, would be...........FALSE TEACHINGS!

faithful_servant · Oct 18, 2014

phattonez said:
See the statements of early Christians:

The Real Presence | Catholic Answers

"This is my body, eat of it and live." Even in those earle Church writings, the covenant language still holds. You're assuming that the context of the terms is 21st century, yet it retains the 1st century cultural references where teh bread was referred to as the body of the person offering it. You can't study 1sy century writing from a 21 century perspective.

CrabCake · Oct 18, 2014

faithful_servant said:
"This is my body, eat of it and live." Even in those earle Church writings, the covenant language still holds. You're assuming that the context of the terms is 21st century, yet it retains the 1st century cultural references where teh bread was referred to as the body of the person offering it. You can't study 1sy century writing from a 21 century perspective.

You keep saying that. Yet, when asked for any evidence to back up the claim, you can't seem to find any. I'd love to believe this, but where's the evidence?