Real flesh and blood?

kelly1

Greetings all.

Following on from a discussion with Wolfsbane, I'd like to debate the literal vs symbolic interpretation of Christ's Body and Blood given to the apostles at the last supper. Naturally coming from a Catholic POV, I take this literally. When I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I'm not comitting idolatory by worshipping "wafers and wine". Jesus promised to remain with us to the end of ages and He didn't just mean this spiritually.

So let's start with John 6:47.

47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

"The bread that I will give is my flesh"

When Jesus said these words, the apostles and disciples must have looked at each other and wondered, is the Master losing His marbles? Is He going bonkers? And Jesus continued and very explicitly said that He was talking about His literal flesh and blood. By the time He had finished, many of listeners couldn't take it any longer and walked away, no doubt saying that Jesus was a mad-man.

The second thing about this statement is that Jesus used the word "will". He was of course referring to the last supper when He would say the following words:

Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Jesus didn't say, this is a symbol of my body or this represents my body. He said this IS by body.

If in John 6, Jesus was speaking figuratively, why did His disciples walk away? Why did He ask the apostles if they too wanted to walk away? Obviously they couldn't understand what He was saying at the time. That wouldn't become clear until the last supper. Why didn't Jesus say, "Hang on! I didn't mean it literally! Come back!". Instead He let them walk away because He spoke the truth and they couldn't believe what they were hearing and Jesus didn't force His teaching on them.

Can anyone present of good argument in light of this as to why we should take Jesus' words symbolically?

I don't mean to be condescending in any way, but I would ask people to read the words of the Gospel carefully with an open mind. Leave your particular beliefs aside for a moment and read what the Gospel says.

God bless,
Noel.

AtomicHorror

It's little wonder the Romans were so freaked out by Christianity when it first arose. On a very superficial level it must have seemed like a cannibalistic vampire cult.

I was raised a catholic, but I always took the body and blood as symbolism. That we must be wholly imbued with Christ in order to attain salvation.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I was raised a catholic, but I always took the body and blood as symbolism.

Is that what you were taught or what you believed?

kelly1

Is it just my perception or is this forum really quiet these days? Where's the buzz?

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Is that what you were taught or what you believed?

The philosophy of it was never specifically taught to me. I formed my own belief.

Bduffman

Well I'll chip in here as this is a favourite topic of mine. I am always amazed at the amount of 'catholics' who don't actually believe in the bread & wine being literally body & blood. Its not that they don't believe it though - its that they genuinely don't think that it is the catholic teaching & that it should only be taken as symbolic. They always assume that I must have gotten it wrong myself!
For those who do know its catholic teaching, I find its a subject that they don't like to talk about much. Is it possibly due to embarrassment?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Where's the buzz?

Controversial views are no problem -- would you like some?

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The philosophy of it was never specifically taught to me. I formed my own belief.

I find it upsetting that young children making their first Holy Communion believe the Eucharist to be "holy bread". The standards of catechesis need a serious overhaul.

Bduffman wrote: »

Well I'll chip in here as this is a favourite topic of mine. I am always amazed at the amount of 'catholics' who don't actually believe in the bread & wine being literally body & blood. Its not that they don't believe it though - its that they genuinely don't think that it is the catholic teaching & that it should only be taken as symbolic. They always assume that I must have gotten it wrong myself!
For those who do know its catholic teaching, I find its a subject that they don't like to talk about much. Is it possibly due to embarrassment?

Yes, I think people are embarassed to believe in something so unbelievable. Leaves us open to ridicule.

If people can believe in the virgin birth, why not the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament? With God all things are possible...

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Greetings all.

Following on from a discussion with Wolfsbane, I'd like to debate the literal vs symbolic interpretation of Christ's Body and Blood given to the apostles at the last supper. Naturally coming from a Catholic POV, I take this literally. When I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I'm not comitting idolatory by worshipping "wafers and wine". Jesus promised to remain with us to the end of ages and He didn't just mean this spiritually.

So let's start with John 6:47.



"The bread that I will give is my flesh"

When Jesus said these words, the apostles and disciples must have looked at each other and wondered, is the Master losing His marbles? Is He going bonkers? And Jesus continued and very explicitly said that He was talking about His literal flesh and blood. By the time He had finished, many of listeners couldn't take it any longer and walked away, no doubt saying that Jesus was a mad-man.

The second thing about this statement is that Jesus used the word "will". He was of course referring to the last supper when He would say the following words:



Jesus didn't say, this is a symbol of my body or this represents my body. He said this IS by body.

If in John 6, Jesus was speaking figuratively, why did His disciples walk away? Why did He ask the apostles if they too wanted to walk away? Obviously they couldn't understand what He was saying at the time. That wouldn't become clear until the last supper. Why didn't Jesus say, "Hang on! I didn't mean it literally! Come back!". Instead He let them walk away because He spoke the truth and they couldn't believe what they were hearing and Jesus didn't force His teaching on them.

Can anyone present of good argument in light of this as to why we should take Jesus' words symbolically?

I don't mean to be condescending in any way, but I would ask people to read the words of the Gospel carefully with an open mind. Leave your particular beliefs aside for a moment and read what the Gospel says.

God bless,
Noel.

Hi, Noel. I'm just back for a day away with my family, so I can't get to this post tonight, but my last on the previous thread contains relevant material. Maybe this is a start to answering your queries:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Noel, true Christians meet to remember the Lord's death by breaking bread and drinking wine, as He commanded. The bread represents His body, the wine His blood. Taking them we proclaim that He died for us. No re-offering of Him, no worshipping the bread and wine. We worship Christ who is in heaven. The only sense He is on earth is by His vicar - the Holy Spirit whom He sent to bring His prescence and the Father's prescence into our hearts.

Christ asked us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, not bread and wine.

Quote:
Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Does reading this not cause you some uneasiness about what you believe? No matter how you try, you can't change Christ's word to suit your own beliefs. He didn't say "take this bread, which represents my body and eat...".

Depends how you understand language. Note that Jesus took bread, said Take ye, and eat. That means You take this, and eat it. Eat the bread. Likewise with the wine.

It is what He then says about the bread and wine that matter. He says the bread is His body, the wine, His blood. We have now to ask ourselves if this is meant literally or metaphorically. You seem to think it must be either literal or simile - but metaphor is just as likely, and requires no 'this represents'. An example from Christ's other words:
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Do you think He meant He is literally a vine and we literally branches? Or did He mean He is like a vine, and we its branches?

A further guide for our interpretation is this: Christ was standing in His body and blood, so could not be in the bread and wine. Christ's body is not omnipresent. It is currently in Heaven, not on Earth. One Day He will return here.

Again, we should go to the passage that speaks specifically of His body and blood being eaten by His people, to see what they tell us:
John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Note the literal meaning which the Jews took from His words. Then note Christ's explanation. Eating Moses' bread led to death. Eating His bread leads to not dying. Did He mean those who ate Him would not die just as Moses and the people died? No, for those who eat Him have to be raised up at the last day. The physical is not meant. But the spiritual is - eternal life.

So is Jesus speaking of eating His physical body when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood - or eating Him spiritually? Spiritually - he who believes in Me has everlasting life; It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Incidentally why do you think Christ asked us to symbolically eat and drink His flesh and blood?

To remember Him, His suffering for us; and to proclaim that His death was for us. It is an act of devotion for His people, to stir up their affections, and an act of fellowship with His people, to stir up their love for one another. It is not an act of atonement, an offering to pay for our sins.

I think I might just start a new thread on this subject.

There certainly is a lot to be discussed. For example:
Do you believe I am accursed from Christ because I deny the bread is the whole person of the Lord Jesus?

Splendour

Hi Noel,

the reference to the flesh and blood goes back to the book of Exodus where we read the origins of the Passover. Here the Jews are told to slaughter a lamb,and sprinkle the blood on their lintels so that when God is slaying the first born in Egypt, he will 'pass over' the houses with the blood on them.
The Jews are then told to roast the lamb, eat it and, get this bit, they are not to break any of the bones.

This act was a precursor and is a symbolism of what Jesus would do for us on the cross; hence his alluding to the eating of the flesh and blood. He is the ultimate passover lamb. His blood spilled,his body sarcrificed without any bones being broken, so we can escape death. It is no great coincidence that Jesus celebrated the last supper on passover night...

Though I was once a practicing Catholic, I always had problems believing in Transubstantiation.

pookie82

kelly1 wrote: »

I find it upsetting that young children making their first Holy Communion believe the Eucharist to be "holy bread". The standards of catechesis need a serious overhaul.

...

I find it upsetting that young innocent children with impressionable minds are led to receive the "body" of Christ at all, right after confessing all of their horrific, seven year old sins of course. I'm not an atheist and I was raised a Catholic. I feel there is perhaps a god of some kind, but I think it's truly hideous that I should be expected to tell my child they're going up to receive the ACTUAL BODY of Christ when I know it not to be. If they're intelligent kids who question the impossibility of this or point out its absurd nature, I'm supposed to say "Oh you don't ask questions, honey. That's the way the god thing works. Just nod and learn." That anyone would willingly mislead a child like that is incredibly upsetting. It's one thing to believe what you believe after years of thinking about it and reading about it and developing your faith. It's quite another to just impose this upon a child who has not had the chance to see through it yet.

Bduffman

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I think people are embarassed to believe in something so unbelievable. Leaves us open to ridicule.

If people can believe in the virgin birth, why not the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament? With God all things are possible...

Well lets be honest here - if someone believes that bread is turned into flesh, then a virgin birth is hardly a stretch of the imagination is it? If you believe in any of those things with no more proof than the opinion written down in a few old books then you would believe in anything IMO. Just a glance at the wide range of interpretations across all christian religions (& even across individuals within those religions) shows how flawed it is.
I mean, do you actually believe you are eating flesh at mass every Sunday?

Run_to_da_hills

Even as a former Catholic I had issues with this doctrine and how they idolized a round piece of wafer as if it was something supernatural. As a kid in the 60ies I accidentally dropped a host out of my mouth and it rolled across the floor. The service came to a complete standstill, an old woman covered it with a hanky until a priest to pick it up. It looked exactly like a crime scene with everyone looking over.

I would now take the broken piece of bread and wine as mere symbols to remember of what Christ did on the cross by offering his body and blood as a sacrifice for my sins. I also believe that church wine should not be fermented as this was a symbol of impurity. Many churches today use ordinary unformented grape juice.

I cannot see anything wrong with collecting any of the left over of this bread and feeding it to the birds after the service has finished and pouring the unused wine back into the bottle where it came from.

Some churches used unleavened bread others would break pieces from bread rolls. I do not know where the idea of a round wafer came from, but it is certainly found no where in scripture.

Akrasia

This whole subject indicates to me the gulf between reality and wishful thinking in religious thought.

Catholics are supposed to believe (and there are a about a billion of them) that there is a physical and real transformation into body and blood at the consecration.

This is the perfect example of believing something when all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

There is no physical change in the bread or wine. They are exactly the same after the consecration as they were before, but catholics are supposed to believe in a physical change, so many people literally switch off their reason and just believe it because they're told to.
Its one of the reasons I abandoned catholicism. It's right up three catching your father dressing up as santa on christmas eve to leave your presents under the tree. You can believe one of two things. Santa is a fantasy, or your father is the one true santa clause.

edited to say: I know that there are all kinds of somersaults by theologens to explain why there is no apparent change in the physical properties of the bread and wine, but the point still stands. We are being expected to believe that there has been a physical change without any physical changes actually happening. Its orwellian doublethink at its purest

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Depends how you understand language. Note that Jesus took bread, said Take ye, and eat. That means You take this, and eat it. Eat the bread. Likewise with the wine.

Note He also blessed the bread which is that action which transform the bread into His body. Jesus effectively said "Take my body and eat it". It's as clear as day - "This is my body".

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is what He then says about the bread and wine that matter. He says the bread is His body, the wine, His blood. We have now to ask ourselves if this is meant literally or metaphorically. You seem to think it must be either literal or simile - but metaphor is just as likely, and requires no 'this represents'. An example from Christ's other words:
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Do you think He meant He is literally a vine and we literally branches? Or did He mean He is like a vine, and we its branches?

This is of course a metaphor.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A further guide for our interpretation is this: Christ was standing in His body and blood, so could not be in the bread and wine. Christ's body is not omnipresent. It is currently in Heaven, not on Earth. One Day He will return here.

Certainly that's only possible for us humans but Jesus is not limited in that way.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, we should go to the passage that speaks specifically of His body and blood being eaten by His people, to see what they tell us:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Note the literal meaning which the Jews took from His words. Then note Christ's explanation. Eating Moses' bread led to death. Eating His bread leads to not dying. Did He mean those who ate Him would not die just as Moses and the people died? No, for those who eat Him have to be raised up at the last day. The physical is not meant. But the spiritual is - eternal life.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."


Christ gave a very clear instruction here that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. How do you suppose we are to do this? If the bread an wine are merely symbolic, how would they give us everlasting life?

"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life"

Please consider this carefully. I ask you again, why did Jesus' disciples leave Him after what He said? Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they wanted to leave too?

wolfsbane wrote: »

So is Jesus speaking of eating His physical body when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood - or eating Him spiritually? Spiritually - he who believes in Me has everlasting life; It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

You can't eat a body spiritually, makes no sense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do you believe I am accursed from Christ because I deny the bread is the whole person of the Lord Jesus?

I believe it is through Holy Communion that we become fully united with Christ's body in some physical sense. I doubt very much is that makes you accursed.

kelly1

Just to summarize/clarify my main arguments:

1. "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

The previous passage must be taken literally. It makes no sense to understand it symbolically. What would be the use in eating something representing Christ's body? How does ordinary bread give eternal life? Jesus made it plain that the Jews ate manna in the desert and died because it was ordinary bread. It makes far more sense the Jesus' body would give us everlasting life.

2. Why, at the last supper, did Christ say "This is my body" (and "this is my blood")? Why didn't He say, "when you eat supper together, remember me by eating bread"? How is bread supposed to remind us of His death on the cross?

3. Why did some of Jesus' disciples leave him when they were told they understood Jesus to be speaking symbolically about eating and drinking His flesh and blood? Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they wanted to leave too?

I would appreciate straightforward and direct answers to these questions please. I know the symbolic interpretation seems more likely but we have to look at what scripture says and not change it's meaning to suit our beliefs. Please read John 6 with an open mind.

God bless,
Noel.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Just to summarize/clarify my main arguments:

1. "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

The previous passage must be taken literally. It makes no sense to understand it symbolically. What would be the use in eating something representing Christ's body? How does ordinary bread give eternal life? Jesus made it plain that the Jews ate manna in the desert and died because it was ordinary bread. It makes far more sense the Jesus' body would give us everlasting life.

When you find a conflict between scripture and physical evidence, why do you choose to believe what makes 'sense' in scripture, but are perfectly willing to accept something that doesn't make sense when you look at the evidence.

Something can't be physically body and blood if it has all the physical properties of bread and wine. Something can't be transformed physically during a religious ceremony if it doesn't undergo any physical transformation.

You're ignoring reality to try and fit into what the bible says

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

When you find a conflict between scripture and physical evidence, why do you choose to believe what makes 'sense' in scripture, but are perfectly willing to accept something that doesn't make sense when you look at the evidence.

Something can't be physically body and blood if it has all the physical properties of bread and wine. Something can't be transformed physically during a religious ceremony if it doesn't undergo any physical transformation.

You're ignoring reality to try and fit into what the bible says

All Christian believe that Jesus in the only Son of God and that He was born of a virgin and that He had the power to raise people from the dead and control the weather. So why is it impossible for these same people to believe that Jesus can't transform bread and wine into His body and blood while keeping the appearance the same as before? Surely that's not beyond the power of God?? Aren't we putting a limit on God's power by saying that transsubstantiation is impossible??

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

Can anyone present of good argument in light of this as to why we should take Jesus' words symbolically?

God bless,
Noel.

Cannibalism on a sunday morning is neeee pretty. eat wafers..less calories

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Just to summarize/clarify my main arguments:

1. "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

The previous passage must be taken literally.

Only because your faith lies in the hands of men, and these men are telling you that this has to be.

It makes no sense to understand it symbolically. What would be the use in eating something representing Christ's body?

Because, just like at passover, it is an expression of faith. Faith in the sacrafice of Christ. Also faith in who he was/is.

How does ordinary bread give eternal life?

It doesn't.

It makes far more sense the Jesus' body would give us everlasting life.

It has.

2. Why, at the last supper, did Christ say "This is my body" (and "this is my blood")?

Why did he say, I'm a vine?

How is bread supposed to remind us of His death on the cross?

Bread does not remind us. We remind ourselves, and reinacting the last supper, is an expression from our hearts. An act of faith. We can eat bread and wine any time, yet its not symbolic. However, when we offer it up in memory of our Lord and King, its an act of faith in him.

3. Why did some of Jesus' disciples leave him when they were told they understood Jesus to be speaking symbolically about eating and drinking His flesh and blood?

Because their faith was weak. Rather than have faith in him, and go along with it, they just assumed he was promoting canibalism and walked away. Probably freaked out.

Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they wanted to leave too?

Because they woul;d have had the same thoughts as others did, but had the faith to trust in him.

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

So why is it impossible for these same people to believe that Jesus can't transform bread and wine into His body and blood while keeping the appearance the same as before? Surely that's not beyond the power of God?? Aren't we putting a limit on God's power by saying that transsubstantiation is impossible??

No, just round these parts they call Magick Witchcraft.. i believe it can be done..

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

All Christian believe that Jesus in the only Son of God and that He was born of a virgin and that He had the power to raise people from the dead and control the weather. So why is it impossible for these same people to believe that Jesus can't transform bread and wine into His body and blood while keeping the appearance the same as before? Surely that's not beyond the power of God?? Aren't we putting a limit on God's power by saying that transsubstantiation is impossible??

With God nothing is impossible as we read in Matthew 14:14-21 i.e. Jesus can multiply 5 loaves and two fishes and feed 5000.

But a priest? He is just an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume with several years training in religious doctrine. There is a difference between what Jesus can do and what an ordinary man can do. I would well believe that Jesus himself would certainly have the power to change any wine into blood and any bread into flesh but him only and not anyone else on this planet.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Only because your faith lies in the hands of men, and these men are telling you that this has to be.

Jimi, please don't tell me where my faith lies. My faith is in Christ.

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't.
....
It has.

What did Jesus mean when He said ""Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life". Read the words = "eat the flesh"! The followers of Jesus didn't eat the body which hung on the cross did they? How do you thing we are supposed to follow Christ's commandment to eat His flesh and drink His blood?? Please answer this directly.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why did he say, I'm a vine?

You're not making a fair comparison. Here's an example where Jesus was misunderstood to be speaking literally and He corrected the listeners. He made it clear that He wasn't speaking about a new physical birth.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The same can't be said of the passage in John 6. Jesus let His disciples walk away and made no attempt to say that He was speaking figuratively. In fact He stressed again and again that He was referring to His physical body and blood.

JimiTime wrote: »

Bread does not remind us. We remind ourselves, and reinacting the last supper, is an expression from our hearts. An act of faith. We can eat bread and wine any time, yet its not symbolic. However, when we offer it up in memory of our Lord and King, its an act of faith in him.

You could take it that way except that Jesus said "This IS my body", "This IS my blood". Matthew 26:26 is the fulfillment of what Jesus was talking about in John 6.

JimiTime wrote: »

Because their faith was weak. Rather than have faith in him, and go along with it, they just assumed he was promoting canibalism and walked away. Probably freaked out.

They walked away because they were in no doubt that Jesus was speaking literally. They thought He was mad. They obviously had faith in Jesus or they wouldn't have been disciples in the first place.

JimiTime wrote: »

Because they woul;d have had the same thoughts as others did, but had the faith to trust in him.

Yes they had greater faith and they must have believed that all would become clear later. And it did at the last supper.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With God nothing is impossible as we read in Matthew 14:14-21 i.e. Jesus can multiply 5 loaves and two fishes and feed 5000.

Yes, absolutely.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

But a priest? He is just an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume with several years training in religious doctrine. There is a difference between what Jesus can do and what an ordinary man can do. I would well believe that Jesus himself would certainly have the power to change any wine into blood and any bread into flesh but him only and not anyone else on this planet.

OK, so do you accept that possibility that Jesus performed these miracles at the last supper? Note that Matthew, Mark and Luke all say "This is my body". with nothing to indicate any symbolism.

Jesus also said "14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer."

Why did Jesus desire to eat the last supper with His apostles so much? The reason for this is that Jesus was about to give them the greatest gift He could possibly give them and that was His entire self. It was a total outpouring of His love for them. If there was some greater gift that He could have given us, He would have done so.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

All Christian believe that Jesus in the only Son of God and that He was born of a virgin and that He had the power to raise people from the dead and control the weather. So why is it impossible for these same people to believe that Jesus can't transform bread and wine into His body and blood while keeping the appearance the same as before? Surely that's not beyond the power of God?? Aren't we putting a limit on God's power by saying that transsubstantiation is impossible??

Is it possible for god to create a square circle?

If something is exactly the same as it was before, its not transformed. If something is made of wheat and water, its not flesh.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With God nothing is impossible as we read in Matthew 14:14-21 i.e. Jesus can multiply 5 loaves and two fishes and feed 5000.

Yes, absolutely.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

But a priest? He is just an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume with several years training in religious doctrine. There is a difference between what Jesus can do and what an ordinary man can do. I would well believe that Jesus himself would certainly have the power to change any wine into blood and any bread into flesh but him only and not anyone else on this planet.

OK, so do you accept that possibility that Jesus performed these miracles at the last supper? Note that Matthew, Mark and Luke all say "This is my body" with nothing to indicate any symbolism in any account.

Jesus also said "14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer."

Why did Jesus desire to eat the last supper with His apostles so much? The reason for this is that Jesus was about to give them the greatest gift He could possibly give them and that was His entire self. It was a total outpouring of His love for them. If there was some greater gift that He could have given us, He would have done so.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, so do you accept that possibility that Jesus performed these miracles at the last supper? Note that Matthew, Mark and Luke all say "This is my body". with nothing to indicate any symbolism.

Jesus also said "14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer."

Why did Jesus desire to eat the last supper with His apostles so much? The reason for this is that Jesus was about to give them the greatest gift He could possibly give them and that was His entire self. It was a total outpouring of His love for them. If there was some greater gift that He could have given us, He would have done so.

I would take the passage from Matthew, Mark and Luke, I.E "this is my body" solely as metaphorical. Jesus used several metaphors through out scripture describing himself as "a door", "the shepherd", "and the bread of life". Etc.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would take the passage from Matthew, Mark and Luke, I.E "this is my body" solely as metaphorical. Jesus used several metaphors through out scripture describing himself as "a door", "the shepherd", "and the bread of life". Etc.

Why do you take it as a metaphor? How do we fulfill Jesus' request to eat and drink His flesh and blood in John 6:54-55? There is no way you can claim John was symbolic, metaphorical etc.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

Six times Jesus talking about eating His body! There is absolutely no symbolism involved.

So I ask again, why would Jesus ask us to eat and drink symbols of His flesh and blood? What good is eating symbols of Christ's flesh and blood??? It makes no sense at all.

People, please don't gloss over John 6 becase you think you know what it means or you've read it countless times. Please read it with fresh eyes.

BTW, you seem to have missed my question "do you accept that possibility that Jesus performed these miracles at the last supper?". I don't mean to badger you but this is important.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

It makes no sense at all.

You're right. Therefore you should conclude that someone somewhere has made a mistake, not that a miracle happens in every catholic mass to 'transform' bread and wine into 'body and blood' without any evidence of any transformation.


Another thing that makes no sense is that god would deem it essential (or even good) that we eat the body and blood of his human son and then have to go to the trouble of turning his body and blood into bread and wine (yes, thats what happened, not the other way around) so that we can eat it without feeling disgusted and sick.

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

You're right. Therefore you should conclude that someone somewhere has made a mistake, not that a miracle happens in every catholic mass to 'transform' bread and wine into 'body and blood' without any evidence of any transformation.


Another thing that makes no sense is that god would deem it essential (or even good) that we eat the body and blood of his human son and then have to go to the trouble of turning his body and blood into bread and wine (yes, thats what happened, not the other way around) so that we can eat it without feeling disgusted and sick.

Akrasia, can I make it clear that this thread is intended for Christians. This discussion makes no difference to you either way.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, please don't tell me where my faith lies. My faith is in Christ.

Unfortunately Noel, I don't believe this to be the case. I stuck to your remit in your summary to be direct. Its up to you to weigh up the info. Your decision has been made for you. I don't see you changing it, as it will fly in the face of RC doctrine, which is where your faith truly lies IMO.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

Akrasia, can I make it clear that this thread is intended for Christians. This discussion makes no difference to you either way.

I have not been posting on this one, only reading, but I did not realise it was supposed to be christian only.

MrP

kowloon

If human flesh and blood do taste like ice cream wafers and cabernet sauvignon I think we all have one less thing to worry about on those long plane trips over the Andes. :pac:

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately Noel, I don't believe this to be the case. I stuck to your remit in your summary to be direct. Its up to you to weigh up the info. Your decision has been made for you. I don't see you changing it, as it will fly in the face of RC doctrine, which is where your faith truly lies IMO.

The only reason people don't take Matthew 26 and John 6 literally is because of their inability to believe that Christ was talking literally about His real flesh and blood. What people believe doesn't make any difference to the truth of the matter. They react in the same way as the disciples who walked away because they couldn't handle what He was saying. So rather than face the truth, people feel compelled to assume that Christ was speaking metaphorically simply because it makes no sense to us. Of course Jesus used lots of symbols but John 6 wasn't one of those times.

I believe in God without ever having seen Him. Faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is a similar leap of faith.

kowloon

kelly1 wrote: »

So rather than face the truth, people feel compelled to assume that Christ was speaking metaphorically simply because it makes no sense to us. Of course Jesus used lots of symbols but John 6 wasn't one of those times.

You're playing it loose with the above word.
I don't know anyone who takes it literally.




"Obviously it's not to be taken literally, it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products"

kelly1

kowloon wrote: »

You're playing it loose with the above word.
I don't know anyone who takes it literally.

You can't really call yourself Catholic and not believe in the Eucharist.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

Incidentally, it's not just the CC that teaches this. So do the Orthodox Churches and the Anglicans.

kowloon

Do you believe in the choirs of angels and demonic possession?
All part and parcel. If the catholic church require 100% adherence to the rules there would be but a handful of catholics left.

kelly1

kowloon wrote: »

Do you believe in the choirs of angels and demonic possession?

Yes

kowloon wrote: »

All part and parcel. If the catholic church require 100% adherence to the rules there would be but a handful of catholics left.

I have no problem with any of the "rules". I don't consider doing God's will a burden.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

The only reason people don't take Matthew 26 and John 6 literally is because of their inability to believe that Christ was talking literally about His real flesh and blood.

Inability to believe? I have the ability to believe, but conclude that your churches conclusion is wrong.

What people believe doesn't make any difference to the truth of the matter.

100% agree.

They react in the same way as the disciples who walked away because they couldn't handle what He was saying.

Or maybe they are the same as the ones who stuck around and got the meaning.

So rather than face the truth, people feel compelled to assume that Christ was speaking metaphorically simply because it makes no sense to us.

It only makes sense to those who have been spoonfed that its literal. Even then, I'm sure you don't actually understand but just believe it because your faith brokers have told you to.

Of course Jesus used lots of symbols but John 6 wasn't one of those times.

Because your faith brokers have said it so, thats all. Because your faith lies with the RC church, you trust what they tell you. I suppose in some ways, you are to the RC church, what the apostles were to Jesus. You don't quite get it, but you have faith in what they claim to be, so trust them.

I believe in God without ever having seen Him. Faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is a similar leap of faith.

Why do you blieve in God?

BTW, i just seen your post asking for christian only response. I'd recommend you put that in your OP, so that its clear to all. otherwise it could get messy:)

kowloon

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes

I have no problem with any of the "rules". I don't consider doing God's will a burden.

I was going to go along the lines of how some rules are accepted, some not and it's hypocritical to pick and choose and then condemn others for choosing differently.
Thats not going to work now. Well played sir!

kelly1

kowloon wrote: »

I was going to go along the lines of how some rules are accepted, some not and it's hypocritical to pick and choose and then condemn others for choosing differently.
Thats not going to work now. Well played sir!

Caffeteria Catholicism is all too common.

MrPudding

I admire your dedication, it is not for me obviously, but I can see how important it is to you.

I hope you don't mind a personal question. Are you married with children?

MrP

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Depends how you understand language. Note that Jesus took bread, said Take ye, and eat. That means You take this, and eat it. Eat the bread. Likewise with the wine.
Note He also blessed the bread which is that action which transform the bread into His body. Jesus effectively said "Take my body and eat it". It's as clear as day - "This is my body".

This was merely the act of thankgiving proper for every meal. Note the various descriptions of the occasion given:

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

No miraculous changing of the bread and wine - just thanksgiving. If one insists the blessing is a separate act, then one must admit the wine missed out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is what He then says about the bread and wine that matter. He says the bread is His body, the wine, His blood. We have now to ask ourselves if this is meant literally or metaphorically. You seem to think it must be either literal or simile - but metaphor is just as likely, and requires no 'this represents'. An example from Christ's other words:
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Do you think He meant He is literally a vine and we literally branches? Or did He mean He is like a vine, and we its branches?
This is of course a metaphor.

Glad you see how Christ used such language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A further guide for our interpretation is this: Christ was standing in His body and blood, so could not be in the bread and wine. Christ's body is not omnipresent. It is currently in Heaven, not on Earth. One Day He will return here.
Certainly that's only possible for us humans but Jesus is not limited in that way.

The Bible says:
Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

If Christ comes to us at every Mass, there is no such thing as us awaiting His Second coming. It must have occurred it the first Mass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, we should go to the passage that speaks specifically of His body and blood being eaten by His people, to see what they tell us:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Note the literal meaning which the Jews took from His words. Then note Christ's explanation. Eating Moses' bread led to death. Eating His bread leads to not dying. Did He mean those who ate Him would not die just as Moses and the people died? No, for those who eat Him have to be raised up at the last day. The physical is not meant. But the spiritual is - eternal life.
Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

Christ gave a very clear instruction here that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. How do you suppose we are to do this? If the bread an wine are merely symbolic, how would they give us everlasting life?

We eat His flesh and drink His blood by believing in Him, entrusting ourselves entirely to Him, being converted.

The bread and wine do not give us eternal life - Christ does, believing in Him does. We eat and drink at His Table to show that He died for us, that we have been saved by His atoning sacrifice on Golgotha.

Please consider this carefully. I ask you again, why did Jesus' disciples leave Him after what He said? Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they wanted to leave too?

They left because they took Him to mean it literally. Jesus asked the apostles to test their understanding and faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So is Jesus speaking of eating His physical body when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood - or eating Him spiritually? Spiritually - he who believes in Me has everlasting life; It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. You can't eat a body spiritually, makes no sense.

Yes, you can: you can believe in and love the person with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Do you believe I am accursed from Christ because I deny the bread is the whole person of the Lord Jesus?
I believe it is through Holy Communion that we become fully united with Christ's body in some physical sense. I doubt very much is that makes you accursed.

You need to sort things out between your conscience and your Church:

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. [emphasis mine].
The Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session
http://history.hanover.edu:80/texts/trent/ct13.html

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Just to summarize/clarify my main arguments:

Thanks, Noel - a helpful summary.

1. "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

The previous passage must be taken literally. It makes no sense to understand it symbolically. What would be the use in eating something representing Christ's body? How does ordinary bread give eternal life? Jesus made it plain that the Jews ate manna in the desert and died because it was ordinary bread. It makes far more sense the Jesus' body would give us everlasting life.

The eating of bread and wine at His Table is to remember Him - as He said. Not to ingest eternal life by physical means. It is those who have already obtained eternal life (by having the Holy Spirit regenerate them) who gather at the Table.

2. Why, at the last supper, did Christ say "This is my body" (and "this is my blood")? Why didn't He say, "when you eat supper together, remember me by eating bread"? How is bread supposed to remind us of His death on the cross?

Because it referred back to the John 6 passage - Christ is the bread from heaven - and it referred back to Jeremiah 31, where the New Covenant was promised. The covenant had to be ratified by blood - and the wine spoke of the blood of that covenant, Christ's blood shed on Golgotha.

3. Why did some of Jesus' disciples leave him when they were told they understood Jesus to be speaking symbolically about eating and drinking His flesh and blood? Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they wanted to leave too?

I've answered this directly in my last post, but let me add something here:
Why did Christ let so many desert Him on a misunderstanding of His words? Why not call them back and say, I didn't mean it literally?

Same reason He spoke to the multitudes in parables - that the elect would wait to have it explained, but the rest would remain in blindness:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Or another example:
John 2:18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

I would appreciate straightforward and direct answers to these questions please. I know the symbolic interpretation seems more likely but we have to look at what scripture says and not change it's meaning to suit our beliefs. Please read John 6 with an open mind.

I hope I have been straightforward and direct, and I do so appreciate and agree with your sentiment here on the handling of Scripture. It is God's word, and we must gladly submit to it.

God bless,
Noel.

You too, my friend.:)

BrianCalgary

If I may, albeit quite late into the discussion. I'll tell of my own journey on this issue.

I was confirmed in the Anglican church and the essence of the communion bread and wine was not discussed that I can remember. When taking communion I understood that I was taking the body and blood of Christ.

As time wore on and I started to atend RC church I held to that viewpoint but didn't understand it as literally it is not flesh and blood at the altar.

Then while attending an Baptist church I went the route of it being fully symbolic of body and blood as it does not change.

When attending an Alliance church (where we still go) I was very disatisfied with my own reaction to communion. It was very empty. I went back and read and reread the passages where Jesus says: 'take and eat, this is my body' Matt 26:26 and 'this is my blood of the new covenant' Matt 26:28, I came to realise that the communion was more than just symbolic and that the communion wine and bread had to be more.

So as of now I have concluded that Christ is present within the communion. He instituted it and instructed us to do it in memory of Him. When we take communion we are becoming one with Christ as His body and blood enter into ours. His soul nand ours joining.

I can't stand when detractors start talking about flesh and blood and cannabalism, that is done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding that Jesus is God. They are spiritual and that communion brings our spirits together.

And I'm not done in this journey either as I'm not completely satisfied as to what is going on at the Lord's table as we celebrate.

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

I admire your dedication, it is not for me obviously, but I can see how important it is to you.

I hope you don't mind a personal question. Are you married with children?

MrP

Yes I am and I taught my children not to call Holy Communion "holy bread" as their teacher has apparently been telling them!

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I am and I taught my children not to call Holy Communion "holy bread" as their teacher has apparently been telling them!

"Holy bread" I never heard it being called that before, thats a new one for me.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I can't stand when detractors start talking about flesh and blood and cannabalism, that is done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding [...]

Christianity is one of many religious systems which incorporate rituals involving the consumption of food. The underlying belief in the majority of these is that the act of consumption grants the consumer access to the attributes of the consumed, or in the case of the ritual consumption of enemies, a kind of final power over the (former) enemy.

In belief systems which are less abstract than christianity, this can involve cannabalism in place of theophagy, but the same general belief in ritual access or acquisition seems to apply.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

Thanks, Noel - a helpful summary.

The eating of bread and wine at His Table is to remember Him - as He said. Not to ingest eternal life by physical means. It is those who have already obtained eternal life (by having the Holy Spirit regenerate them) who gather at the Table.

The memorial is only part of it. John 6 makes it clear that we must eat and drink Christ's flesh and blood and it is through this that we receive eternal life. I'm not making this up, it's there in scripture. Eating a symbol cannot give eternal life, can it? This is a crucial question!

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because it referred back to the John 6 passage - Christ is the bread from heaven - and it referred back to Jeremiah 31, where the New Covenant was promised. The covenant had to be ratified by blood - and the wine spoke of the blood of that covenant, Christ's blood shed on Golgotha.

The bread that Christ referred to here is the symbol. Christ can't be bread, can He? The manna from Heaven was the old bread which didn't bring eternal life. Christ is the new bread which does bring eternal life. We literally eat Christ!

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've answered this directly in my last post, but let me add something here:
Why did Christ let so many desert Him on a misunderstanding of His words? Why not call them back and say, I didn't mean it literally?

OK, you said "They left because they took Him to mean it literally". Christ was very emphatic in John 6 that He was talking about real flesh and blood. In verse 54, Jesus says "Amen, amen" to indicate that He was speaking literally.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

Note the phrase, "he that eateth me"! This cannot be a reference to bread!!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Same reason He spoke to the multitudes in parables - that the elect would wait to have it explained, but the rest would remain in blindness:

Or another example:
John 2:18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

The first example doesn't apply because Jesus wasn't using a parable. The 2nd doesn't apply either because scripture explains that Jesus was speaking figuratively. You can't say the same of John 6 or Mt 26.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You too, my friend.:)

Thanks!

JimiTime

Even if Jesus was speaking literally, and that night, he handed out actual pieces of his flesh, well then we are all doomed, because all you and every other church goer have is bread and wine.

Although i do recall you saying in the past that it is 'literally flesh and blood, but it still looks, tastes, smells, and has all the make up of bread and wine.' To the extent, that Christs blood is actually alchaholic, and you can't drive your car if you've drank a certain amount of it. Literal or symbolic? Well unless Christ is made of wafer, and fermented grape juice flows through his veins, its 'definite' that its not literal in any church I've ever been in.

Also, Why is it that we must literally eat his physical body, and literally drink his physical blood to achieve everlasting life? IE. Why does he require this canabalism? (Sorry Brian, but eating the flesh of another human is canabalism.)

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, Why is it that we must literally eat his physical body, and literally drink his physical blood to achieve everlasting life? IE. Why does he require this canabalism? (Sorry Brian, but eating the flesh of another human is canabalism.)

It is not done to achieve 'eternal life'. Luke 22:19 Jesus says to do it 'in remembrance of me'.

Eternal life comes by the grace of God through your faith.

It is NOT cannabalism because you are taking bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice). There is no flesh and blood.

In having said that though, Jesus instituted two rites (for wont of a better word); baptism and the Lord's supper.

The Holy Spirit is present in baptism. The question I ask then is 'if the Spirit of God is present in the one then where is the presence of God in teh second?'

Jesus does say that 'this is my body', 'this is my blood', it's pretty straight forward. We also know that when we partake we get bread and wine.

So what did Jesus mean when He said what He did?

I still contend that it has to be more than symbolic. Jesus has to be present within that bit of bread and that sip of wine.