Question for Christians whom don't believe in the Eucharist?

Question

How do you explain John chapter 6 The Bread of Life Discourse: v. 54-57 & 60

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said " THIS SAYING IS HARD; WHO CAN ACCEPT IT?"

The Eucharist is not a matter of filling our bellies with the flesh and blood of Christ but a way of receiving him into ourselves. Jesus never contridicted himself, he was not a flip-flopper. This is as literal as he ever spoke. How can so many of his claimed followers switch and twist his words to make it acceptable to them? With all else that some Christians claim to believe, why is this so far beyond the realm of possiblity or acceptibility?

So you don't believe that the Last Supper was symbolic as establishing the priesthood? Why then didn't Jesus share that special meal with all his followers?

In 6:63 Jesus was emphasizing That our life comes from our spirit or soul not from our flesh or bodies. Thus establishing even more the importance of receiving his flesh and blood which contain his spirit to sustain our souls with life.

Does not a Christian live his life in remembrance of Christ? When Jesus said in Luke "Do this in remembrance of me." Was he not instructing the Apostles to repeat what he had just shown them?

John 6 is most clearly related to the Last Supper "While they were eating Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat this is my body" Then he took a cup, gave thanks and gave it to them saying, " Drink from it , all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgivness of sins." Matthew 26

This question was not meant to lead to a inquistion into the Catholic Church but into the words of Christ and the Eucharist. So sorry many of you hate the Church and find it repulsive. Does not such a vehment hate of something give rise to a question of, Why to hate so deeply?

Christ said, "Father if you are willing take this cup away from me, still, not my will but yours be done." Luke 22

It is not the priest whom commands Jesus, rather that the will of the Father is being done through the consecration presided over by the priest, whom invokes the spirit of Christ down upon the bread and wine by the authority of God Himself Whom so willed that Christ be handed over and offered up for us. Thus transforming the bread and the wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, with the same words, customs and Authority as Jesus. Christ's acceptance of His sacrifice solidifies this truth.
Thankyou for sharing that wonderful, spirit filled wisdom from St. Thomas.

Daydream, I have read some of your other answers to catholic questions. It is quite clear you are anti-catholic. You even answered a previous question similarily. You should spend more time looking into the meaning behind what you use to nail Jesus to the cross with. What you find disgusting and sick ( your words) Jesus came to earth to accomplish. He is not limited in physical or spiritual form. What you despise unknowingly is Christ himself. You have not been able to answer my question only raise addtional questions that are without base or solidarity. Perhaps you were never meant to understand of what it is I speak of, or perhaps your faith is lacking. Either way, God Bless.

Answer 1

I`m sorry if it upsets you but my manuscrpt research revealed that John 6: 33 - 61 was not added until 320 AD.

Jesus never claimed to be the bread of life at any time during his life..!!

Answer 2

Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted.

Answer 3

I think that this can be done without the ceremonies added by humans after Jesus had easily shown it can be done without. Jesus definetly did not want anything for us from the Father without it being within arm's distance at all times. Plus, why do I have to take a 2 year course just to receive communion? The disciples didn't have to. I see catholicism as humans taking something so grass roots and plain to something that now stinks of money and self-importance. That's why. Jesus would not be happy with the history or the current catholic church in my opinion. I am a Christian. God bless.

Answer 4

I Cor. 11 is clear that the Lord wants us to eat and drink for remembrance of Him. So when I partake, I do so remembering His love for me as shown by His sacrifice for me.

When the Lord says that the bread is His body, it represents His body and not the body of a Sabbath lamb. His body is being given to us as a willing sacrifice rather than as a lamb which is being forced.

I just don't know if the discourse in John 6 and the Last Supper are the same thing. After all, Jesus was not talking about the bread and wine of the Last Supper or of the Sabbath lamb. He was talking about the few loaves of bread which miraculously fed thousands. Can you connect the two for me?

Also, about the bread representing receiving Him into ourselves. Jesus already told us how to receive Him into ourselves in John 14 - if we obey Him, then the Father and the Son will live in us. 1 John 4 is also clear in that when we truly love, it is because God is in us loving through us. Anyone can eat the bread, but I see Christ most fully in those who truly love and obey. The doctrine of manifesting Christ in us is more fully expressed and explained in Scripture when it applies to how we live than by what we eat.

For instance, in Col. 1:27-29 we find that Paul wanted to reveal Christ in them and so he labored mightily that it might be so. He labored mightily to bring them to the place of surrendering to love and obedience, not to get them to eat bread and drink wine.

I hope this help you understand why others think differently.

Answer 5

The Lord's Supper is the eternal fulfillment of the Jewish Passover in Christ.

Did not the Jews apply the blood of a REAL lamb to their doorposts?

Did not the Jews eat the flesh of a REAL lamb, exactly as God prescribed?

What do you think would have happened to them if THEY took God's words as merely symbolic?

Jesus spoke clearly and without ambiguity.

The authentic church always knew exactly what he intended them to do, and the church has always done it.

The Catholic church has always known that Jesus wasn't kidding ... especially on the night before he died ... and when he said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" ... he wasn't merely giving us the new covenant ... he was giving us himself ... as the definitive new covenant sacrifice for sin ... body, blood, soul, and divinity ... in which his real presence would be manifest under the appearance of bread and wine ... until the end of time.

And in the Catholic church, it always has been so.

All the other Christian groups must make do with their own limited form of "spiritual communion" which occurs whenever two or more are gathered in Jesus' name ... and that's fine ... as far as it goes.

What is inexcuseable is for them not to understand the difference.

Answer 6

If, by 'believing in the Eucharist' you mean 'believing in the transmutation of the Host,' I don't look to the Bible to explain that.

I've always had a very literal mind, so I never regarded the Communion wafer to be the actual body of Christ; I regarded it as a Communion wafer and a symbol of Christ.

When I grew up and discovered that even some non-Christian religions offer their own form of Communion, I became even more convinced that the wafer is only a symbol.

Answer 7

This is the same question The RCC asked many Christian believers before they put them to death by burning them at the stake or beheading them. Why does the RCC insist that a cracker is the bodily form of Jesus Christ? Why not worship Jesus Christ instead of a cracker?, or many other gods it produces by appointing Patron Saints to be gods to receive prayer and be prayed to in stead of Jesus?, or so many statues to worship instead of Jesus? Why not believe Jesus instead of producing atheist in a Catholic mind camp that reduces the Word of God to a philosophy? If Catholics are atheist why even be concerned with what the Christians believe or do not believe?

Answer 8

I call it communion and I do it in remembrance of Christ who came in the flesh and who's blood cleanses me. However, it certainly is not the real blood or flesh of Christ. He has ascended into heaven. The belief it is really His body and blood is man made.

Answer 9

I believe in it but I don't think I need a Catholic Priest and a large Ceremony to accomplish this. And there are many many others like me. We are in the fold together whether we choose to complicate God's word or not. :)

Answer 10

Every religion that I know of believes in the eucharist. Different religions call it different things. Most call it communion. Mormons call it the sacrament. Very few, mainly Catholics believe in transubstanstation(?).