Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood - video

[SingleMomMonica]

excatholicsforchrist.com/index.php?PageURL=media.htm

Under the Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood link, is a short little video which brings to light some Bible passages which are compared with John 6 as a means of Interpretation which I’ve not heard before.

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on what some truly Catholic responses to this would be. I can always use some sharpening of Apologetics knowledge to evangelize Non-Catholics.

 

[srferdave]

excatholicsforchrist.com/index.php?PageURL=media.htm

Under the Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood link, is a short little video which brings to light some Bible passages which are compared with John 6 as a means of Interpretation which I’ve not heard before.

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on what some truly Catholic responses to this would be. I can always use some sharpening of Apologetics knowledge to evangelize Non-Catholics.

I’m not an expert in apologetics. Although I wish to be some day. But I might be able to give some advise here. First of all, Catholics don’t take everything in the bible literally. We interpret the Bible in such a way that we take what the author is trying to say. In this passage the author, John, was not using a figure of speech. His intent was to tell us what Jesus said. And Jesus was being literal. There is nothing in the Bible that would tell us otherwise. One thing to point out is that after the disciples heard this from Jesus they got up and walked away. They had a hard time with this message from Jesus. So much that they walked away. If He was speaking figuratively then why would it be so hard for the disciples to hear.

There are probably many more passages that explain why we take this literally but I don’t have any off the top of my head.

 

[kathicala]

SinglemomMonica,

I am not an apologist nor a Catholic…yet but God let me know himself in a perpetual adoration room around 20 years ago, that this was truly him…the bread and the wine. The early church was accused of cannabalism, too (I saw the video on cannabalism). In the words of institution Jesus says “This is my body. This is my blood.” Not “This represents my body, this represents my blood.” I doubt this man truly understands what Jesus meant to say or not to say. This man contridicts the very words of Jesus. Jesus spent 3 years with his diciples and then many days after the resurrection explaining and teaching the apostles. I truly believe Christ left His church, throught the apostles, with true understatding of what he meant. Look at the fruit of the apostles…the many millions of us who believe in Jesus Christ. Not everything Jesus said was written in the Bible, and even the Bible says that. But after the resurrection, whatever He told his diciples, the ones who ran away terrified, the night he was crucified, I think they established, taught and handed on to us. I truly believe God has done this great work.

Blessings,
Kathi

 

[Benadam]

I’m not an expert in apologetics. Although I wish to be some day. But I might be able to give some advise here. First of all, Catholics don’t take everything in the bible literally. We interpret the Bible in such a way that we take what the author is trying to say. In this passage the author, John, was not using a figure of speech. His intent was to tell us what Jesus said. And Jesus was being literal. There is nothing in the Bible that would tell us otherwise. One thing to point out is that after the disciples heard this from Jesus they got up and walked away. They had a hard time with this message from Jesus. So much that they walked away. If He was speaking figuratively then why would it be so hard for the disciples to hear.

There are probably many more passages that explain why we take this literally but I don’t have any off the top of my head.

David was repulsed at the idea that his thirst was so important that men would die to relieve it. If he drank the water it would be an act of profound arrogance. Since God is the giver of life it would make the men who blood was shed like idolaters and David himself like a god.

David say’s by his action; I am not worthy to recieve you…

The view in the video is a misenterpretation of types. The type is applicable to the Blood of Christ but only because David would not Drink it. The apologist assumes it to be a type only because the Church made it a Sacrament. The apologist in the video presents an anti-type that is contingent on the existence of the type. If it weren’t for the drinking of Christ’s blood he wouldn’t find a type against drinking it. Not only is that a proof he is wrong, he is teaching to not do something Jesus said to do, whether it be literally understood or not.

 

[Convert66]

Benadam is spot on. I’d like to add to his words on typology that the Passover lamb was the type of the Eucharist in the OT. Adam was the type and Christ (who is greater than Adam) is the New Adam, so then the type (Adam) is always lesser than its fulfillment(Christ). This applies to Joseph; Moses; Joshua; David; Solomon; etc.

The Jews had to kill the lamb, apply the blood for the angel of death to pass over, and then consume the entire thing. Well, if that is the type, then the fulfillment in Christ must be more than a symbol or “type” of His Body and Blood or it too would be redundant, and actually, lesser than even the type, because the Passover lamb was not a symbol to the Jews who participated in Egypt, nor is it even symbolic for the Jews now. It was/is literal flesh and blood that had to be literally spread on the doorposts and literally eaten—all of it consumed.

As the Passover is the type, The Body and Blood must be greater than the type or they are redundant, or even less than the type. Now I am being redundant.

All my best . . .

All my best . . .

 

[SingleMomMonica]

David was repulsed at the idea that his thirst was so important that men would die to relieve it. If he drank the water it would be an act of profound arrogance. Since God is the giver of life it would make the men who blood was shed like idolaters and David himself like a god.

David say’s by his action; I am not worthy to recieve you…

The view in the video is a misenterpretation of types. The type is applicable to the Blood of Christ but only because David would not Drink it. The apologist assumes it to be a type only because the Church made it a Sacrament. The apologist in the video presents an anti-type that is contingent on the existence of the type. If it weren’t for the drinking of Christ’s blood he wouldn’t find a type against drinking it. Not only is that a proof he is wrong, he is teaching to not do something Jesus said to do, whether it be literally understood or not.

Thank you

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Benadam is spot on. I’d like to add to his words on typology that the Passover lamb was the type of the Eucharist in the OT. Adam was the type and Christ (who is greater than Adam) is the New Adam, so then the type (Adam) is always lesser than its fulfillment(Christ). This applies to Joseph; Moses; Joshua; David; Solomon; etc.

The Jews had to kill the lamb, apply the blood for the angel of death to pass over, and then consume the entire thing. Well, if that is the type, then the fulfillment in Christ must be more than a symbol or “type” of His Body and Blood or it too would be redundant, and actually, lesser than even the type, because the Passover lamb was not a symbol to the Jews who participated in Egypt, nor is it even symbolic for the Jews now. It was/is literal flesh and blood that had to be literally spread on the doorposts and literally eaten—all of it consumed.

As the Passover is the type, The Body and Blood must be greater than the type or they are redundant, or even less than the type. Now I am being redundant.

All my best . . .

All my best . . .

Thank you.

I’ve heard that analogy before and believe it to be true; however, I do have 2 questions in regards to it.

1. During the original Passover and all subsequent Passovers before Jesus establised the Church - the Jews were required to paint the door posts with the Blood of the Lamb - yet we drink it but do not paint the door posts. I know we drink it because God told us to in John 6, but why did God have the Jews back then paint the door posts with it, since He knew He was going to have Christians drink the blood in the future?
2. During the original Passover and all subsequent Passovers before Jesus established the Church - it was a requirement that the Jews eat the Entire Lamb and leave nothing left over to the next day - yet during Mass, not all of the Consecrated Hosts are eaten, but some are left over in the Tabernacle to be used at a later date and there is always at least 1 left over at all times…why was it a requirement back then to consume the Entire Lamb, if it was not to be a requirement now?

Do these two substantial differences negate the Old Testament “Prefigurement” of the New Testament in regard to the Eucharist?