Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[oat_soda]

LetsObeyChrist,

If you were to obey christ, you would listen to the church he established. but this is another topic all together. we’re only discussing the substantial presence in the eucharist.

for the third time, here’s my challenge, give me one reference of a church father or early christian writting that supports your view that the eucharist is not literally the body and blood of christ but symbolically means to believe in him.

if the apostles believed this, surely this faith was passed on. where is the evidence?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

LetsObeyChrist, you asked in an earlier post to be shown one text from an early church father that demonstrated transubstantiation. Well, the quote from Cyril below does show the belief underlying transubstantiation. Though the term is not used (it was a philosophical term of the mid-ages that was posited as a theological way to explain the belief that though what looks and tastes like bread/win–the accidents–is really the real presence, the real be-ing–the substance–of Christ:

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia’s quote shoots down the idea that your interpretation of the eucharist as solely symbolic was an apostolic teaching:

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (*Catechetical Homilies *5:1).

Now, I understand that you want to focus on scripture, but to suggest that the Church (starting with the earliest successors of the apostles and going all the way up to 14th century at the earliest) had gotten it dead wrong…to suggest that seems to be that our Lord truly underestimated the Church that he established.

To completely dismiss the Fathers just because they are mere men is not sound. You are a mere man, and you are giving your contrary interpretation of Scripture,… why should I believe you rather than these other men who are closer to the time of Christ?

God Bless and thank you for contributing to an interesting discussion.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

mlaforme:

Nicodemas said" How can a man"

they said " How can this man give us his flesh"

It is a problem of their understanding how he would do this – the same problem as today

I agree, in both cases Christ is misinterpreted:

John 3:4-5 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and *of *the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Here “born of water” refers to the act of repentance during Biblical Baptisms, born of Spirit the reception of the Holy Spirit who purges all sin, granting a new heart and new spirit:

Matthew 3:11 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and *with *fire:

Nicodemus, a Teacher in Israel should have known when we repent and confess allegiance to God His Spirit does the actual work, purging all sin from our souls and carries us into His promised land:

Ezekiel 36:25-29 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses:

So also here, these disciples are slow to understand Christ is not speaking about literal eating:

Matthew 16:5-12 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, *It is *because we have taken no bread. 8 *Which *when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake *it *not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade *them *not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Christ rejected their interpreting His words to mean eating literal flesh quickens or profits and then He interprets the symbols of eating His flesh and drinking His blood as “spirit” and “life”

John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit**, and they are life. *

*As true belief in Christ alone results in eternal life it is clear the Spirit gives life when one truly believes in Christ, obeying the Spirit of Christ’s law (drinking its life, blood) as well as knowing the letter (flesh) of it, the orthodox teaching of the Person and Work of Christ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

<< Christ is misinterpreted:

John 3:4-5 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Here “born of water” refers to the act of repentance during Biblical Baptisms, born of Spirit the reception of the Holy Spirit who purges all sin, granting a new heart and new spirit:
etc. . . . >>

How do YOU know that Christ is MISINTERPRETED and that the explanation you give is what Christ really meant?

How do YOU know that YOU aren’t misinterpreting Him yourself?

 

[kevinfraser]

Curious:

…Jesus didn’t say that he was speaking figuratively, and neither did He here. He didn’t say it was a parable, or a figure of speech. But I don’t see many limbless, eyeless Christians wondering around (except if they’ve been in accidents or victim of disease or something.) :ehh:

---

Unfortunately you don’t see many Catholics worshipping the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, every bit as real as when He walked among us despite the accidents of bread and wine in thanksgiving immediately after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or much of any other time, either exposed in a beautiful Monstrance as befits His Divine Kingship, or reserved and waiting for us in all the Tabernacles of the world. He’s there, but how much do I not go to spend just one hour with Him in reparation? The Passion is Mel’s movie vision of how serious He was about giving us His whole and complete Human and Divine self in every respect. When the Mass is finished, most people think it’s time to chitter-chatter.

 

[Fiat]

Dear LetsObeyChrist:

Could you please clarify what you mean by “true belief in Christ”?
Fiat

 

[kevinfraser]

jkdrum:

by your logic if I would stop beliving in broccoli I would not have to eat it.
josh

Just like George Bush Senior!

 

[Maurelian]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ did correct their interpreting eating literal flesh profits, gives eternal life.

He took the time to explain His words are spirit and life, not flesh.

That only the Spirit gives life, not flesh which is of no avail.

From Catholic Answers’ “Christ in the Eucharist”:

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

For full text, see: catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

Unlike your non analogous syllogism

You’re attributing an ownership of objective logic.

LetsObeyChrist:

my argument

You hang on to that, too. Nobody else wants it.

LetsObeyChrist:

is valid and sound

Do both of those added together make you MORE correct in your mind? After all, as you pointed out, it is YOUR argument. We’re trying to talk you out of it.

LetsObeyChrist:

because the quantity is universal

I’m no engineer, but isn’t a quantity a number and not an adjective?

LetsObeyChrist:

the verbs are something ONLY people can do whereas yours is not. In your syllogism “Swim” is equivocal, fish swim differently than people and many other types of creatures can swim.

So, humans swim validly and fish swim invalidly. Which makes him wrong. I see.

LetsObeyChrist:

My syllogism

Which, as you have insisted is (thankfully) proprietarily, soley, exclusively, and only yours. Go on.

LetsObeyChrist:

operates solely in context of John 6,

actually I think ‘planet Pluto’ or something would be more accurate than ‘John 6’ but whatever. As you’ve qualified, this is YOUR SYLLOGISM: solely and only yours. You alone are responsible for its content. You’re the only ‘little pope’ who told you it’s infallible.

LetsObeyChrist:

only therein do I maintain it is a valid deduction from the data at hand, parsimonous.

I suppose since you own your own syllogism, you can maintain any degree of parsimoniousness you want.

LetsObeyChrist:

Here is a unique kind of belief/eating only true believers can do that results in life to the doers.

Huh?

Fortunately ‘your syllogism’ that you so proudly claim ownership of over and over again whew is only and exclusively yours. I wonder how long before you start shaking dust off your boat oars?

Trying to follow “your syllogism” is like combing hair with peanut butter. IT DOESN’T WORK BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. But, as you’ve established, it’s YOUR SYLLOGISM. Not mine. Whew again.

The Holy Magisterium is the infallible teaching authority on faith and morals guaranteed by Christ to his Apostles through the Holy Spirit at his Ascension. It protects against error from self-styled authorities like–oh right, you don’t have ANY VALIDLY ORDAINED AUTHORITY FROM CHRIST WHATSOEVER. You’re just making stuff up. Thanks for the searchable written record.

LetsObeyChrist:

While it is well you illustrated what Aristotle called an invalid syllogism it is irrelevant and immaterial to mine.

Hey, from all of us down here on the planet’s surface, thanks for taking Personal Responsibility and Ownership of this… uh… THING of yours. You couldn’t have done it without you. And we couldn’t have done it, period. Because it’s exclusively yours. Not even God’s because its origin is your free will and nothing else.

Whew.

OK. So we see that your creed, now that you’ve revealed it to all men here–except didn’t someone tell you you had to keep your creed to yourself to be a Protestant?

–ANYHOOO–

This thing of yours. “Syllogism” you called it. Includes a parting slap in the head for Aristotle because he gets in the way of ALL YOUR STUFF YOU MADE UP. Since you’re answering all these questions about your creed, anyway, does it also allow you to throw out entire books of sacred scripture in the tradition of Martin Luther? Man, that has potential, huh! You could just tell people “your syllogism” doesn’t include the book they’re quoting so it’s invalid. Just like Martin Luther. You notice nobody calls him Saint. Oh well.

That’s only because Martin Luther’s scandalous example to place protestant doctrine including ones you invent yourself from whole cloth, like this one, (a belief without which you cannot belong) on a higher plane of importance than obedience to the validly ordained Shepherds of Christ. How far can that be from melting all your gold into a calf?

 

[Origen]

oat soda:

LetsObeyChrist,
If you were to obey christ, you would listen to the church he established. but this is another topic all together.

On the contrary, I’ve seen this as being the topic all along.

As another poster said very eloquently, this thread is itself a wonderful example of why Church tradition is more reliable than individual’s being given the authority to interpret Scripture.

Scripture is indeed the inspired Word of God, without error. But interpreting what is said, the literal meaning, is the foundation of understanding it as the Word of God in its spiritual sense - so says St. Thomas Aquinas.

The level of literal interpretation requires skills in language and logic.

Many of us early on tried to argue that our dissenting friend had failed to apply the disciplines of language and logic correctly, and that no further progress could be made interpreting the spiritual sense until those errors were corrected.

Our fallen friend scoffed at us. That’s when I exited the conversation. Unfortunately, it looks like some other well meaning people engaged our dissenting friend, which had the unfortunate effect of conceding that (1) scripture passages alone, and outside of the teaching of the Church, are self-interpreting; and (2) any old interpretation of scripture is as a priori plausible as any other one. The latter especially is simply not true. If you start with the assertion that “Christ is the way, the truth and the life, but not the way”, you violate the logical law of non-contradiction. These kinds of errors must be removed before you can continue to unpack the deep spiritual sense of scripture.

I’m merely passing on what St. Thomas Aquinas taught us many centuries before Martin Luther was born.

 

[GregC]

LetsObeyChrist:

As interpreting the Eucharist as Christ meant it does not render it unimportant, your argument is a “straw man.”

The Eucharist is very important, and it is also very important we not yoke unto it Dark Ages philosophical speculation of transubstantiation, a theory not in the NT at all.

You do not have the authority to interpret scripture as you see fit. I will continue to rely on the interpretation set forth by the Church that Jesus Christ gave us all, the same Church which gave us the Bible, after all.

However, I will take issue with your statement that transubstantiation is a “dark ages” philosophical speculation. As has already been shown in this thread, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is affirmed by many church fathers, long before any supposed “dark” age (I am assuming you are referring to the time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance). Can you clarify and support your statement?

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and *they are life. *

And the words that he spoke which are spirit (that causes to quicken or give live) and life ARE “Eat my flesh” and “Drink my blood”

This seems to be the verse that is causing you to veer off the path.

If these words are spirit and life (not symbolic and life) then why don’t you do what Christ says?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

No way do I have the time to read through all of these posts, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned:

In John 6, Jesus also says he came down from Heaven. His listeners had a BIG problem with that as well. But that claim is included, both as a parrallel and a set up for the claim of the real presense. But his listeners KNOW Jesus was born of Mary (and Joseph)–though through Revelation, we know that Jesus literaly came from Heaven. Yes, he was born through Mary–but he came down from heaven. THAT TOO is a hard saying and teaching, and there are so-called Christians who can’t accept that either. I suspect Lets Obey Christ is NOT one of them. So Lets Obey may be straining out one camel and swallowing another.

“Amen, Amen”–I believe it’s used SIX times in this chapter (“It is so, It is so/ It’s a fact, It’s a fact”) When we Catholics take the bread, the Priest/Deacon/Minister presents us the wafer and states/asks “The Body of Christ” and we reply “Amen” (IT IS SO) In other words we say WE BELIEVE – “Believing” is synonmous with the action of eating “True Flesh” If you not eat the wafer, if you do not believ it is now his flesh, one DOES NOT believe in the way He said you must believe. The same applies to the consecrated Wine.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

mlaforme:

You seem to be much more educated than I am so, could you maybe bring your language down a little.

Just as a comparison when Jesus said " You must be born again " is that what he meant?

I will try.

Being born again is the result of having ate Christ’s flesh and drank His blood = true belief.

Mark 16:16 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Baptism is not necessary to salvation(Ac 10:47 cp 1 Cor 1:14); hence it does not say “he that believeth not or is baptized not shall be damned.”

In the Gospels the disciples experience Baptism as something that happens after TRUE belief, after one’s faith causes them to act upon the Gospel of truth.

Hence “believeth and is baptized” is another way of saying “He that truly believes in Jesus and does what He requires shall be saved.”

This distinction between intellectual belief and actually doing what one believes is seen in Jn 6. These disciples are more than willing to profess Christ as long as it does not require they commit themselves to Christ as LORD, as their Saviour from heaven. When Christ touches upon that aspect of what is required THEN they object:

John 6:33-41 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread…

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Believing in Christ as a “good teacher” was OK with them (vs 34), believing in Christ as Saviour from Heaven was unacceptable (vs 41ff).

That would require commitment on their part.

While “eat my flesh…drink my blood” is not “born again” (where God the Holy Spirit has regenerated one so that his spirit is a “new creature” (2 Cor 5:17) with a new heart and spirit that is orientated to obeying God), it is its precursor, what must be before one can be born again.

One must truly believe in Christ as LORD and that God has raised Him upon from the dead (EAT MY FLESH), confessing this publicly (DRINK MY BLOOD) to be born again:

DRA Romans 10:9-10 9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.

 

[burn]

quintessential5:

I’m sure there is much more to say on this issue but I just wanted to add one thought:

The verb used in John’s gospel for “eat” is more akin to “chew” or “gnaw”. This fact indicates the very real act of eating. It is not symbolic of eating in the sense of wholly accepting/believing. I believe you are correct, though, in that Jesus admonishes us to both eat his flesh and blood AND to believe in him. I think you are oversimplifying to say that they are equivalent.

To say they are equivalent is exactly right. Jesus went into great detail explaining it. If he meant to ‘eat’ literally, why didn’t they start eating Him in John Ch. 6? It should be obvious that “eating” is symbolic for believing.

 

[burn]

kevinfraser:

Unfortunately you don’t see many Catholics worshipping the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, every bit as real as when He walked among us despite the accidents of bread and wine in thanksgiving immediately after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

There’s no such thing as “accidents”. That’s terminology from medieval science. We now know that it is still bread and wine through and through, physically. It’s not an optical illusion of some sort…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

burn:

There’s no such thing as “accidents”. That’s terminology from medieval science. We now know that it is still bread and wine through and through, physically. It’s not an optical illusion of some sort…

No, sorry, but “accidents” is a term from philosophy, not science, denoting a property not essential to our conception of a substance (OED).

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jpusateri]

burn:

There’s no such thing as “accidents”. That’s terminology from medieval science. We now know that it is still bread and wine through and through, physically. It’s not an optical illusion of some sort…

An accident is an observable property. For example an apple may be red or smooth or hard. Each of these are its accidents. There are many others. They are the observable properties.

But what it IS, its substance, is an apple.

So the consecrated host has all the accidents of an unconsecrated host but it IS the body of Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps!

 

[Della]

burn:

To say they are equivalent is exactly right. Jesus went into great detail explaining it. If he meant to ‘eat’ literally, why didn’t they start eating Him in John Ch. 6? It should be obvious that “eating” is symbolic for believing.

Well, for one thing, he hadn’t yet offered his body to be eaten–he did that on Holy Thursday at the last supper when he consecrated the bread and wine.

And the only thing that is obvious about your idea of what Jesus meant by “eating” is that it is Protestant–no Protestant wrote, compiled or kept the Holy Scriptures down through the ages. It was the Catholic Church through its Apostles, their successors, and its holy men that did that, so only it has the authority to say what any passage of the Bible means.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

burn:

To say they are equivalent is exactly right. Jesus went into great detail explaining it. If he meant to ‘eat’ literally, why didn’t they start eating Him in John Ch. 6? It should be obvious that “eating” is symbolic for believing.

However, at that time and even today in Mid-East cultures, eating another’s flesh or drinking his blood was symbolic for doing him a great injury, for betraying him. It would seem that Jesus should have chosen a better symbol for belief.

If we take it symbolically, Judas was the only one who obeyed.