Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[steve_b]

LetsObeyChrist:

I don’t believe you are taking the context into full consideration, Christ’s hearers objected to “gnawing His flesh” as being offensive.

Jesus expressly rejects the interpretation ‘gnawing His literal flesh quickens or is profitable’ saying:

John 6: 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Observe Christ defined His words teaching cannibalism for life are “spirit and life.” However that cannot be if it is the “spirit that quickeneth” and not “flesh that quickeneth” as He just seemed to say. He contradicting Himself if now the flesh profits nothing.

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is if we interpret “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” to mean the outer covering, the flesh or literal meaning of His teaching cannibalism, covers the real spirit of His words, that these represent believe in Him and then they are life to the doer.

In other words Christ says “eating the flesh profits (quickens)” and “eating the flesh does not profit (quicken).”

The only way He is NOT contradicting Himself is where the symbol “flesh” refers to different things.

Context indicates flesh as the Jews interpreted it is literal flesh, but symbolic of ingesting the truth about the Person and Work of Christ, “believing” as Christ meant it.

As the Jews meant it, it does not profit as then they would be executed for murder and cannibalism.

As Christ meant it, the Spirit would quicken them after they believed in Christ and so they would have eternal life.

1. According to Strongs concordance, eat, used in this passage, “phago” in Greek, #5315, appears 97 times in the NT. 94 times it means to literally eat, take food, and 3 times it means to eat meat.
2. If “eat” meant “believe” as you say, then half of Jesus desciples wouldn’t say to Jesus “this is a hard statement, who could believe it”. They wouldn’t have left Him over “believe”. But the point is, they understood Jesus exactly, and what He meant. As a result, they went away never to follow Jesus again.
3. When Jesus says my words are spirit and life, the flesh is of no avail, He isn’t undoing what He just said. He certainly isn’t saying HIS flesh is of no importance. He is talking about our flesh. And He is saying my words cover everything, the seen and unseen. In otherwords every possible reality. There are no other realities beyond the seen and unseen. The chilling moment was , Jesus let those desciples go who rejected the understanding of the Bread of Life discourse [Eucharist]. And notice, He didn’t go after them. He didn’t explain Himself further to them. He just let them go.

 

[burn]

Gerry Hunter:

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

Can you give any references, from outside the Catholic Church, that explain “accidents” (philosophy, or otherwise). I think it’s only a Catholic idea; if so, it belongs in the realm of religion or theology, not science or philosophy. Loking forward to some references outside Catholicism…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

burn:

Can you give any references, from outside the Catholic Church, that explain “accidents” (philosophy, or otherwise). I think it’s only a Catholic idea; if so, it belongs in the realm of religion or theology, not science or philosophy. Loking forward to some references outside Catholicism…

Actually, I did.

The “OED” in my posting is short for “Oxford English Dictionary.”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

mrS4ntA:

That’s a good example, actually! When Jesus talked about being “born again” and someone was confused saying, “how can I enter my mother’s womb again” or stg like that, Jesus elaborated/explained it as being A SYMBOLISM of being baptized…

NOT SO with the eating my flesh/drinking my blood sermon! This time even some of His disciples the Apostles were taken aback, and Jesus just let them left in disbelief. He didn’t even explain it to the Apostles, which He was prune to do after a a hard sermon

Incorrect, Christ expressly rejected their idea He said eating literal flesh profits or quickens unto life:

Jn 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Christ says His words ARE spirit and life.

What words are those?

Eat my flesh (=spirit); Drink my Blood (=life).

That is symbolic usage.

As only belief in Christ profits unto eternal life by God’s Spirit (and eating flesh does not), we know Christ’s words were figurative of believing in the letter of Christ’s law and practicing the spirit of it, that results in life eternal.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

As only belief in Christ profits unto eternal life by God’s Spirit (and eating flesh does not), we know Christ’s words were figurative of believing in the letter of Christ’s law and practicing the spirit of it, that results in life eternal.

That is a Protestant presupposition that came into being at the reformation. The Church did not teach it before that, and does not today, with regard to the use of the word “only” in the statement.

This presupposition also leads to the concept of “assurance of salvation” touted by sola scripture Protestants, which, also, the Church did not teach before, and does not teach since, the reformation.

But I think you know that.

Oh, and you still haven’t shared with us your basis for concluding that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant, and therefore authoritative.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

mlaforme:

I believe that Jesus didn’t exactly explain that being born again was baptism, I don’t even know that when his conversation with nicodemas ended that nicodemas understood. I believe that Jesus meant it when he said You must be born again. The next chapter he went out and baptized. I believe that when he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood he meant it. Didn’t know how it could be. Didn’t know that the essence of the elements of bread and wine would be changed to flesh and blood. Except for the fact that Jesus said they would be.

Transubstantiation is an invention of Radbertus (831), a monk in the monastery of Corbie, France and originally fought against by the RCC. Not until th 13th century during the medieval period was it finally accepted.

The idea is not in the Bible.

Jesus did not say the wine became His blood, He still calls it wine after His consecration:

Matthew 26:28-30 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. 30 And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet. (also Mk 14:25)

While Luke places this saying during the Paschal meal (Lk 22:15-18) it is clear from Matthew and Mark the reference is to the wine being used during throughout these events. It appears to me Luke’s account is the more detailed, while the events in Lk 22:21-37 are omitted in Matthew and Mark’s summary, all three agree they went to Mount Olivet after the Eucharist (Lk 22:38; Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26). If this remark applied only to the wine drunk before the Eucharist then it is likely Matthew and Mark would have put the saying where Luke did.

 

[oat_soda]

letsobeychrist,

for the fourth 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?

 

[JohnCarroll]

Dear Lets obey
Catholics see Communion as an act of remembrance but they also see it as Jesus expressed it , as His very self -Body , Blood, Soul and Divinity. Catholics , like all people in the early Church, are quite literal about the Scriptures–when Jesus says it is His body–they say Amen. As a former Evangelical and now as an Evangelical/Catholic I greatly appreciated reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Yes, it is possible to know what the people who knew the Apostles thought about this issue. If you can , find a book of the Early Fathers writings edited by a man named William Jurgens. Evangelicals and Catholics differ of a few issues that are harder than others to explain–but on this issue, the Catholics win hands down. NO one thought any thing like the Evangelical point of view on communion until very recently. To hold your position , you must believe that for one thousand five hundred years every one from the hears of the apostles on got this wrong and only now is the " truth " coming out. If you want to know what the Bible means , read what the readers of those Bible letters thought they meant.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

oat soda:

letsobeychrist,

for the fourth 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?

You confuse ECF’s with the apostles.

The evidence is in the Scriptures.

As a sola scripturaist my TOP authority is scripture and the sayings of men way down on my list, regardless whether they are alive today or in the past.

Divine Scripture is above all.

I am presently trying to “catch up” to all the replies to me. It will take some time before I’m on page three. I’m still working my way through the posts on page 1!

may God grant everyone’s house peace
and patience, it will be some time before I get to everyone.

 

[Little_Mary]

SPOKENWORD:

This argument will probably go on for another 2000 years or until Jesus comes back. Some say naturally others say spiritual. Just maybe we are both right. If not then one of us has lost on some of Gods grace. Because of this mentality I believe it will not keep us from entering into the kingdom of heaven.I guess it will be one of those questions that will be answered in the kingdom.

Spokenword, what you’ve said here hits close to the mark, but
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I guess you could say we take a BOTH, AND approach.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

mrS4ntA:

Remember too that the confused disciples going to Emmaus had “their eyes opened” only when the Resurrected Christ performed the Eucharist.

If the breaking of the bread – the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood – is not so important, why the prominency in this account and the rest? why the stressing in St Paul’s letter and the rest? why the recurring theme in Revelation? why the symbolism of the types in OT also point to the Eucharist?

Your interpretation of the figurative Eucharist left soo many loop holes and questions unanswered…

I’m sure your defeating a straw man (quite well, I might add) was unintentional.

If I said anything that made you believe the Eucharist is unimportant then allow me to make clear it is central to the Christian faith. Our LORD Himself established it.

Therefore proving it is prominent in the NT does not disprove anything I said thus far.

 

[JohnCarroll]

LetsObeyChrist:

You confuse ECF’s with the apostles.

The evidence is in the Scriptures.

As a sola scripturaist my TOP authority is scripture and the sayings of men way down on my list, regardless whether they are alive today or in the past.

Dear Lets

There are a thousand different positions on what the “plain meaning of scripture” is-- on any group of verses. Who made YOU so smart that you finally know what the Lord was getting at ? If sola is so great why doesn’t it work ? Are all the other interpretations wrong because only you are listening to the Holy Spirit? Are you so smart that you know better than the very hearers of those original New Testament letters ( the early fathers)? Sola is just egotism by another name.

 

[porthos11]

LetsObeyChrist:

You confuse ECF’s with the apostles.

The evidence is in the Scriptures.

As a sola scripturaist my TOP authority is scripture and the sayings of men way down on my list, regardless whether they are alive today or in the past.

Divine Scripture is above all.

I am presently trying to “catch up” to all the replies to me. It will take some time before I’m on page three. I’m still working my way through the posts on page 1!

may God grant everyone’s house peace
and patience, it will be some time before I get to everyone.

Hmmm…Call it a gut feel, but I believe that it won’t be long before YOU become a Catholic, and you will be defending the Eucharist with as much vigor as the best fellahs on this forum. :clapping:

 

[agname]

Prefiguration of the Priesthood of Christ:
"And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” (Genesis 14:18-20).

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz’edek” (Psalms 110:4).

Prefiguration of the Sacrifice of the Mass:
“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 1:11).

Our Lord Institutes the Eucharist:
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).

"And as they were eating, he [Jesus] took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-24).

"And he [Jesus] took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:19-20).

"I [Jesus] am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?” (John 6:51-61).

Paul states, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”…“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”…" For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27, 29).

 

[agname]

Our Apostolic Fathers (Early Writings of the Catholic Church):

Cyprian of Carthage (Pronunciation: SIH-pree-un):
"Also in the priest Melchizedek we see the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured, in accord with that to which the Divine Scriptures testify, where it says: ‘And Melchizedek, the King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the Most High God; and he blessed Abraham.’ That Melchizedek is in fact a type of Christ is declared in the psalms by the Holy Spirit, saying to the Son, as it were from the Father: Before the daystar I begot You. You are a Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.’ The order certainly is that which comes from his sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when He offered sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same which Melchizedek had offered, namely bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood" (Letter to Cecil A.D. 253]).

Irenaeus (Pronunciation: ai-rehn-EE-uhs):
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 A.D. 189]).

 

[agname]

The Didache (When translated means, “The Teaching(s) of the Twelve Apostles.”):
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch (Pronunciation: ihg-NAY-shuhs):
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. …They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 A.D. 110]).

Justin the Martyr:
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia:
"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 A.D. 405]).

Augustine (Pronunciation: uh-GUHS-tihn):
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" Sermons 272 A.D. 411]).*

 

[agname]

Vowel Sounds:
· IH - bit, hit
· A - cat, sat
· AH - car, far
· AI - ice, nice, fly
· AU - out, shout, down
· AW - law, saw
· AY - ace, hey, day
· EE - eat, beet, neat
· EH - bread, Fred, Ted
· EHR - air, tear, fair
· ER - bird, heard
· O - home, coat
· OI - boy, coin
· OO - moon, spoon
· OU - book, took, hook
· UH - cut, nut, love
Consonant Sounds:
Consonants sound, as the letter normally sounds, but with these exception(s):
· G - (hard G) gun, lug
· TSH - church, chance, cheep
· ZH - garage, mirage, lodge
Syllable Emphasis
The syllable, on which to put the emphasis, is shown in CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

[agname]

I accept the authority of the Catholic Church in which Christ founded. I follow the interpretations of the Scriptures set forth from Jesus…handed down by Peter and the Apostles…and I will continue to take part in the Eucharist as the sacramental expression of the paschal mystery in which Christ instituted at the Last Supper. I do reject the current Protestant teachings and/or private interpretation(s) based upon their limited knowledge 1,971 years after the fact. I reject Protestant teaching(s) in full…the movement was founded in benightedness.

 

[agname]

Let’s see what the Apostolic Fathers had to say about Scripture and Tradition…

**Clement of Alexandria: **
"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 A.D. 208]).

**Cyprian of Carthage: **
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 A.D. 253]).

**Augustine: **
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius A.D. 400]).

**John Chrysostom: **
"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians A.D. 402]).

 

[agname]

**Vincent of Lerins: **
"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

**"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning”** (The Notebooks A.D. 434]).