Is 2 John 1:7 referring to His Eucharist?

[rcwitness]

I have seen non Catholic commentaries support the interpretation that John is referring to the Christ actually coming as Jesus. I am not necessarily disagreeing with this plain understanding. But it seems to also suggest a possible reference to Holy Communion, no?

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

It just seems a little funny that John says this the way he does, if he means that some deny that Jesus was the Christ.

On the other hand, is he referring to some Agnostics who believed Jesus was not actually human in nature?

[1Lord1Faith]

I would think that if there were people around back then who disregarded the importance of Jesus’ humanity and thought that only Jesus’ spiritual teachings were important… which I think is what John is referring to here…then those people would also not think the Eucharist to be important. So, yes, I think that verse could encompass the Eucharist.

[PNEUMA]

I have seen non Catholic commentaries support the interpretation that John is referring to the Christ actually coming as Jesus. I am not necessarily disagreeing with this plain understanding. But it seems to also suggest a possible reference to Holy Communion, no?

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

It just seems a little funny that John says this the way he does, if he means that some deny that Jesus was the Christ.

On the other hand, is he referring to some Agnostics who believed Jesus was not actually human in nature?

Yes, the flesh and blood of Jesus, was a problem from the very first instance.

[fred_conty]

I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that is a good point.

[rcwitness]

I don’t know of any Teaching that uses this passage as a reference to Eucharist, nor have I seen it used by a Saint.

It just seems like a strange way to phrase the sentence, if he simply meant that Jesus was a man, and the Christ. Does anyone know the grammar (greek) used for “the coming” ? I guess it just seems he should have said “has come” unless he is implying a present or future tense.

I could be on the wrong path here… idk

[Usagi]

I believe the general interpretation is that John was referring to the teachings of some early Docetists, who believed that Jesus’ human body was only an illusion. So they literally taught that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh.

[rcwitness]

I believe the general interpretation is that John was referring to the teachings of some early Docetists, who believed that Jesus’ human body was only an illusion. So they literally taught that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh.

That’s my impression too. It just seems like a very strange position (for the Docetists). I don’t know how they arrived at that conclusion!

What purpose would “an illusion” being crucified have? :shrug:

[Usagi]

That’s my impression too. It just seems like a very strange position (for the Docetists). I don’t know how they arrived at that conclusion!

What purpose would “an illusion” being crucified have? :shrug:

The idea that the material world is outright evil, pops up again and again as a heresy in Christian history. Naturally, if the real God would have nothing to do with nasty nasty matter, then the Incarnation must be an appearance only. I don’t know what the purpose of the Passion would be in the eyes of believers in that teaching.

[system]