Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[LetsObeyChrist]

st julie:

Although not recorded there must have been a big sigh of relief from the apostles at the last supper when Jesus said that his body would be bread.

st. julie

He didn’t have to say it, He was still in His body with its blood,

DRA Luke 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Observe He didn’t say the wine became His blood, rather He says it contained the “new testament in my blood” = not literal blood.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

He didn’t have to say it, He was still in His body with its blood,

DRA Luke 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Observe He didn’t say the wine became His blood, rather He says it contained the “new testament in my blood” = not literal blood.

Let’s look at them all.

Luke 22: [20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Matthew 26 [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14 [23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Well, two "my blood of the covenant"s.

We keep pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring, that the belief predates the recording in HolyScripture, and the canonization of the New Testament. You may ignore that, but Catholics know better than to ignore that.

Besides, the Church that declares the doctrine is protected from teaching error, and you. clearly, are not.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

He didn’t have to say it, He was still in His body with its blood,

DRA Luke 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Observe He didn’t say the wine became His blood, rather He says it contained the “new testament in my blood” = not literal blood.

Couldn’t resist…

Nice selective proof-texting, but it simply won’t fly. The slightly different phraseology of Luke (and Paul upon whom Luke depends) doesn’t diminish the force of His words as in each case He explicitely states ‘THIS IS MY BODY’ and two of the four references to blood He says ‘THIS IS MY BLOOD’ The two that say it differently don’t alter the clear meaning here.

Matthew 26:*
26: 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**.”…28 for** this is my blood *of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14
*22: And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”…24: And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. *

1 Corinthians 11
23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."25: In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

SteveG:

Couldn’t resist…

Nice selective proof-texting, but it simply won’t fly. The slightly different phraseology of Luke (and Paul upon whom Luke depends) doesn’t diminish the force of His words as in each case He explicitely states 'THIS IS MY BODY

’ and two of the four references to blood He says ‘THIS IS MY BLOOD’ The two that say it differently don’t alter the clear meaning here.

**Matthew 26:

26: 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**."…28 for** this is my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

**Mark 14

**22: And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."…24: And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

**1 Corinthians 11

**23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."25: In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture *is *given by inspiration of God, and *is *profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is “profitable for doctrine” which is like saying all verses of scripture are like pieces of a puzzle, all of them help complete the picture.

Apparently you believe “majority rules” (good for democracy) is a valid tool for analysis and explanation of Biblical phenomena!

Can you document other doctrines, which can be realized through that very process?

It is evident you don’t have a clue what “blood of the New Testament” means and I find that very interesting. Is that true for all Catholics, don’t any have a clue what this means or is it just you?

KJV Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

KJV Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

KJV Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup *is *the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture *is *given by inspiration of God, and *is *profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is “profitable for doctrine” which is like saying all verses of scripture are like pieces of a puzzle, all of them help complete the picture.

You claim that Holy Scripture offers a “complete” picture. Actually, Holy Scripture is one part of the Deposit of the Faith, not all of it.

I know you’d like to find Catholics who would pretend that is not the case, but you don’t seem to be having much luck at it in these parts. :crying:

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Traditionalist]

I cannot begin to tell how many times I have defended and argued this teaching on the Eucharist. The frustration was at times overwhelming, until I was reminded by my spiritual director about Faith. It is a GIFT from God. No matter how right we know we are, we merely propose God does the rest.

Lastly, I have never known anyone who argued Christ was speaking symbolically in John 6, or who say the passages refer to faith etc.who will claim infallibility. Believe me, I have asked.

 

[twf]

LOC: “I’ll take the personal touch of Christ any day over a rite.”
I find this comment very insulting and condescending. Who are you to say that Catholics do not experience the personal touch of Christ? We do have Christ with us always in a spiritual way…but in the Eucharist, we have Jesus in both a spiritual and physical way. The Eucharist is Christ present in a very special way…a more intense way in some senses. It is not a rite! It is Jesus! Why do so many Evangelicals have an aversion to ritual? The Bible is full of it…even in the New Testament God often uses outward signs, objects, or procedures to convey grace and healing. Take a look here for some examples: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ86.HTM. Just as one example, take a look at Mark 7:32-34. Why did Jesus go through all that ritual? Why did He touch the man’s tongue, and say that word with a loud sigh? If rituals are so bad, why didn’t He just go ‘poof’ and the guy was healed? I know you don’t believe all ritual is bad, but I say that they can bring the faith alive.
We are humans. We learn and respond to events we can experience with our senses. Matter was created by God, and is a good thing. God can and does use matter to convey grace.

On the topic of the thread again, I invite you to look at catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp. Though someone may have already directed you there.

 

[twf]

Please Note: I will not be copying and pasting all portions of your responses to me…to save space.

LOC: Ok, now. I will begin to respond to your responses. I apologize in advance, because I may take a few days to get through all of them.

Your original text is in itallics.
*1)Incorrect, context proves they understood the language is figurative:

John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.*
Yes, Jesus was speaking symbolically here…but the langauage of the Greek, and explicit emphasis that Christ uses, and the obvious understanding of the Jews, demonstrates that He was explaining what these symbolic words meant. The Jews were not stupid. They knew He was speaking symbolically here, so why did they take him so literally later? Because the language and emphasis He used made it obvious to them that He was speaking literally.

2*)Not “obvious,” EXPLICITLY stated by Christ in vss 28f and their response encapsulates the entire event:

John 6: 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?*
Exactly. At this point Christ was still speaking symbolically. He explains that HE is the meat that does not perish. HE is the bread of life. Later on He switches to literal langauge, and the Jews knew it. They were grumbling about how He could give His flesh to them to eat.

*3) These knew better, they were willfully blind to Christ’s signs He is the Messiah, they wanted welfare (vs 26f)

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

Christ then questions their quest for signs (vs 30), would they believe if He ascended into heaven? (vs 63):

30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

John 6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

John 6: 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jesus then explains they cannot believe because the Father hath not enabled them (vss 36f; 65f):

John 6:36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.*
Yes, what you are saying may very well be true, but they still knew that the language was literal. The issue is not whether they were willing to accept Christ or not…it is what He meant regarding ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’. They did not accept that He was the Bread from Heaven, and because of that, they could not accept on faith that it would be made clear to them how they would eat His flesh and drink His blood.

(continued)

 

[whosebob]

LetsObeyChrist:

While some find it hard to believe Christ said eating flesh, meaning His flesh, does not profit or give life, it is clear that must be what Christ said as He would be a loon if He did not respond to the very teaching about flesh that scandalized them. Then He is sincerely answering objections with irrelevancies, something the sane don’t do.

Jumping in late here, but I’ve been watching this thread for a couple of days and just haven’t sat down until now to type this out:

The quoted statements above are the weakest links in LetsObeyChrist’s argument. Yet he restates them over and over again in different ways, particularly the idea that Our Lord would have been a “loon” to respond with irrelevancies.

So one way to correct his misunderstanding of Jesus’ “Bread of Life Discourse” in John 6 would be to prove, or at lease to make a strong case, that the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ response to his listeners’ objections does NOT place “irrelevancies” into His mouth.

Moreover, I would argue that there are a number of notable times in the Gospels when Jesus does respond in a seemingly obtuse manner, BUT the clarity was to come when His statements were actualized. For example, Jesus predicts the torture and death of the Son of Man several times, and the Gospels tell us that the disciples did not understand His words; Peter in fact rebuked Jesus in one such circumstance. When Our Lord suffered and died on the Cross on Good Friday, His teaching was actualized. Even still, true understanding of these events wouldn’t come to the Apostles until the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

Now . . . Our Lord told His listeners that His words are “spirit and life.” And so they are, for by them we are filled with and confirmed in a holy faith that our eating and drinking the flesh and blood of God’s Son will bring us to everlasting life.

But His words in John 6 don’t give us the Eucharist per se. Our Lord and Savior instituted the memorial of His Passion and Death at the Last Supper. The teaching in John 6 therefore is actualized the night before He died. Though, again, the Apostles’ understanding of Our Lord’s actions will be limited until Pentecost; indeed 20 centuries later we have still not exhausted this sacred mystery nor the words of Our Lord that present it to us.

Our Lord was not stating irrelevancies, nor was He a loon. It was simply beyond any human genius, even one intimately familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, much less those with hard hearts, to imagine that God would institue such an awesome rite to fulfill the Jewish Passover and indeed all of the God-ordained OT sacrifices. So John 6 isn’t enough to “get it.” Nor even Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, though that is where his seemingly obtuse or irrelevant statements are realized and actualized. In fact it is, as always, the Spirit that gives clear meaning to Jesus’ words – the Holy Sprit acting in the Church’s Magisterium which has infallibly interpreted John 6 across 20 centuries; the Holy Spirit acting in the heart, mind and soul and body of each believer that believes what Jesus and His Church teach us about the Eucharist and in good faith receives Holy Communion; and the Holy Spirit acting through the ministry of ordained priests that changes the bread and wine into His body, blood, soul and divinity when the words of the consecration are spoken, that is when the Catholic Church obeys Jesus’ command “do this in memory of me” by offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

So that’s my stab at it anyway. What do you think LetsObeyChrist? How did I do?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

 

[twf]

*4)The contrast between the apostles and these sign seekers couldn’t be more clear, God enabled them to see (cp Mt 13:16) therefore they believed!

John 6:67 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? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve?..*
Yes, I agree with all this, but again it has no direct bearing on what Christ meant by "eat my flesh and drink my blood’. I can take this to mean that they could not accept that He could give His flesh and blood to them.

*Christ’s saying did not cause them to stumble, they were already stumbled at believing in Him:

28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?*
This is not true. They were not yet all fully convinced, but they did not actuall leave until He emphasized that they must eat his flesh and drink His blood using literal langauge. If you read verse 60 you see that they leave after realizing how hard this teaching was… also consider that in verse 55 Christ drives home the point by stating that His flesh is real food and that His blood is real drink. Of course they did not accept Him for who He was…but His teaching of ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’ was an important component of their rejection of Him.

 

[twf]

*Jesus says this is why they would not agree He could not be speaking about eating literal flesh for spiritual profit and life as everyone knows it is the Spirit of God who grants life and eating literal flesh profits the spirit not:

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

Clearly the words Jesus spoke ARE spirit and life and not about literal flesh.

vss 25-31 Christ encapsulates belief necessary for quickening but they object and request signs.

Vss 36-37 = vs 65, their disbelief in Christ is because they are not of God.

John 6: 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.

John 6:65-66 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.*
This has been pointed out several times already. The flesh means the carnal or human nature! This is what ‘the flesh’ means in Scripture. He is saying that leaning upon the flesh is of no avail. It is only by the Spirit that we can understand His words. Then He explains why…because His words are spirit and life. He is speaking of spiritual matters…of living matters…not fleshly matters. But you must realize that this does not mean that He is not talking about something that has a physical dimension .What He is speaking of is not of the flesh (human nature), but of the Spirit, but that does not mean it is not physical. Your error is that you are equating physical matter with ‘the flesh’, which is incorrect. Do you not realize that Christ has a physical body to this day and that we will always have a physical glorified body for all eternity? Yet St. Paul calls the physical glorified body a SPIRITUAL body. Please read 1 Cor. 15:35-58. The flesh is the the fallen human nature. This is the context of all the New Testament. When Christ says that His words are spirit and life it does not mean that all matter is worthless, for if this was true, Christ’s death was all in vein! His words are of the Spirit, and are living…and only by the Spirit can you understand it…the flesh will not avail you, but only through the Spirit.
The following verse disproves your theory…Christ is speaking of His flesh in this passage (but not ‘the flesh’, which is the sinful nature):
I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (ASV). Christ says that His flesh will be offered for all the world. Will you suggest that He did not offer His true literal physical flesh? If you are faithful to your interpretation that ‘the flesh profits nothing’ means literal flesh profits nothing rather than that the sinful/human nature profits nothing in understanding and accepting this…then Christ’s offering on the cross was for naught. His literal physical flesh is VERY important and the foundation of our entire faith.

 

[twf]

As for your response to the point regarding the Apostles, I have no comment as it is really an extension of what I have already responded to.

*It did not inflict harm, it proved who were Christ’s:

Ex 16:4 that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, (Ex 15:25; Dt 8:2, 16).

Christ did not seek approval of the crowd, He sought those who were His, the lost children of Israel:

DRA John 6:15 Jesus therefore, when he knew that they would come to take him by force and make him king, fled again into the mountains, himself alone.

It is quite evident throughout Jesus’ ministry that He rejects the casual disciple (Mk 10:25 Lk 14:25-35) and it is clear in this context He purposely repeats the very saying that scandalized them all in order that they manifest what Christ already knew, who were with Him and who were not.*
I agree with you on the surface…except that part of His test was that He forced them to accept or reject that He could offer His flesh and blood to them, that He was Messiah and the only Bread of Life. Your response, however, does not explain why Christ used a metaphor that the Jews obviously misunderstood (as they took it literally…since the symbolic meaning of that phrase was well known). Why would He use a metaphor that would be so confusing in that time and place?

*See #2 above particularly:

It is quite evident throughout Jesus’ ministry that He rejects the casual disciple (Mk 10:25 Lk 14:25-35) and it is clear in this context He purposely repeats the very saying that scandalized them all in order that they manifest what Christ already knew, who were with Him and who were not.*
This is all very well and good…but it does not answer why He would be misleading my using such literal langague…especially after they started to think He meant it literally (he changes part way through). Harsh langague is one thing for testing disciples…but not misleading language.

 

[twf]

I’m running out of time tonight…so I’m going to get to the rest tomorrow or later this week.

But for now, I am going to clarify a very important point. In the Sacrifice of the Mass Christ is NOT re-sacrificed nor re-offered. Christ was offered once. However, His offering is made present before the Father all down through the ages so that it is ever before Him for all generations. Christ is not currently suffering nor currently being offered again and again. The Eucharist is a re-presentation of the one offering that has been made. The Blessed Sacrament transcends space and time. I here include a post I made on another thread:
I highly recommend you check out Dave Armstrong’s book A Biblical Defence of Catholicism. He has two chapters devoted to this topic, in a senses. One chapter on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and another on the perpetual nature of Christ’s sacrifice via the Blessed Sacrament. His site is ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

Christ’s sacrifice is complete, as Hebrews says. Christ was only offered once; however, the sacrament of the Mass transcends space and time. In every Mass, Christ’s one sacrifice is made present on the altar before God; thus, the Mass is continuously drawing from Christ’s one work on Calvary, making the effects of this one work eternal. In Hebrews 13:10, we see Paul refer to an altar. This is sacrificial terminology. Christ, we are told, is a priest forever. So this is true. The one sacrifice on Calvary, is made perpetually made present before the Father. In Revelation we see this. Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7 all speak of an altar in heaven. In the first few chapters of Revelation, we see a Mass in heaven, in a sense. There is liturgy (the continual praises of the living creatures, the elders, and the angels, read chapters 4 and 5), there is an altar, the prayers of the saints are offered up by angels and by saints (5:8, 8:3), and Christ, in John’s vision, is seen before the Father ‘as a lamb that was slain’ (5:6). Christ is no longer suffering, but his sacrifice is made present before the Father. This is a beautiful picture. All down the ages, his one sacrifice is drawn from so that it covers us all.

Romans 8:34 tell us that Christ is interceding before the Father on our behalf. So, this verse says to me, that at the VERY LEAST, Christ is reminding the Father of what He did. Since nothing is impossible with God, and since Christ makes it very clear that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6), why not make the sacrifice perpetually present before God? We are then spiritually nourished as well, and given life.

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

Do the math!

You’re on, since you simply ignore MY posts.

LetsObeyPASTE, your assertion is PURELY about logic, not faith. Nor who has the biggest clipboard. You could paste in the Vulgate of St. Jerome and it couldn’t change the PURELY logical falsehood of your assertion.

So, concede or disprove:
…

Truth = Truth
False = False (or Lie)
.: Truth <> Lie

Truth <> False
False = Lie
.: False + False = False
.: True + True = True
.: False + True = False (or Lie)

God = Truth
Christ = God
.: Christ = Truth

Christ = Truth
Truth <> Lie
.: Christ cannot lie

If Words of Christ = Truth
“This IS my Body & Blood” = Claim of Christ
.: Truth = Claim of Christ

…
If your assertion is

Symbol = Truth
Eucharist = Symbol
Eucharist <> Claim of Christ

Then a Non Sequitur arises as a corollary of your assertion:
Claim of Christ = Lie
Because this is not true. Not even exegetically or hermaneutically. Right, Herman?

For this reason, Symbol <> Eucharist, Truth <> Symbol, Claim of Christ <> Symbol, Christ <> Symbol… etc.

Marty’s house of cards all fall down. Game over. So:

A Challenge. Show logical error in this post or concede that your assertion “Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ” is false. That will mean you won, btw.

You may ignore this post TOO and keep on pastin’ them verses. But I’m not playing anymore. Unless you admit the truth. Then you change threads! And my posts to you change radically. Look around.

God bless you, Mary keep you, and may Pope John Paul II pray for you in Adoration of Christ before the Most Blessed Sacrament!

 

[Ainchel]

LetsObeyChrist:

NAB John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.

Hi LetsObeyChrist!

My, what a fine kettle of fish you have opened! I doubt that I will change your mind, but this is my 1 cent worth of how I understand things. (I doubt that my (name removed by moderator)ut is worthy of being called “my two cents worth,” since your recall of Biblical verses is far superior to my capabilities. Maybe the least I can hope to do is give you a hearty chuckle at my inferior knowledge!)

First of all, to understand John 6:63, let’s look at it in the context of what Jesus said in John 6:61-62 together with verse 63. You tend to jump back about ten verses for it’s context, but I look at the verses directly preceding it for my understanding. Just before these verses, Jesus had just said that we needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood & the disciples said “This saying is hard, who can accept it?”
NAB John 6:61-63 Since Jesus knew his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this [the saying that is hard to accept] shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.

What does the “flesh that is of no avail” refer to? It refers to the eyes that see the Son of Man ascending. When Jesus says “it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail,” he was trying to tell them they should believe what he spoke about his flesh and blood giving eternal life (and that they are true food and true drink), and not wait until he showed them how it will be done. In other words, Jesus is saying "Don’t believe because you see (seeing is something that is “of the flesh”). Believe first (use the faith given to you by the Spirit), and then you will see. In other words, the words “The spirit”(meaning your faith) “gives life; the flesh (meaning believing only because we have seen it) is of no avail” is the same as John 20:29 Jesus said to him (Thomas), "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.

 

[Ainchel]

Hi! It’s me again!

Here are some other thoughts

Now, the next part of this is also a quote of yours from that same posting that I just referred to in my last posting, but I am such a dunderhead that I don’t know how to put it back in as a quote of yours. Please bear with me. I am going to attempt to put the rest of your quotes in bold so that they are more easily discerned from my thoughts.
Your next quote I would like to comment on is:

**DRA 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.

Therefore when Christ says His words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” are “spirit and life” He must be saying they not literal, they refer to an act that results in the hearer receiving the Spirit and life.**

The way that I interpret this is:
“The words” (which you have said in your quote are referring to ‘eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood’)
“that I have spoken to you are spirit” (which I interpret to mean that they are words of faith that we can only believe in with the guidance of the Holy Spirit)
“and life.” (which I interpret to mean that not only are they words that are spiritually true, but that they are also true in some kind of physical way. One part of having “life” means that our senses are being engaged in some way. In heaven, we will have “everlasting life,” and while I am no theologian, I think that when we are in heaven, we will still have some, if not all, of our senses, at least is some kind of way that perhaps only God understands. I am pretty sure that we will at least be able to see, because otherwise why all the descriptions of “streets of gold,” etc unless we were going to be able to see them and enjoy them. Besides, I hope that one day, I will be able to see they face of my Lord).

You see, you interpret “spirit and life” as the same thing, indistinguishable. My thought is that although they are not easily separated once they are joined together, they can still be defined as two different parts. Kind of like flour and water…when they are joined, they cannot be separated because they form a unique entity, but I can still define them as two different parts that went into making the new entity.

I don’t know that we will ever agree on this. You are very knowledgeable in Scripture, so you probably are thinking of at least 10 scriptures that refute my beliefs. But I am too dull witted to change my mind because my mind cannot grasp your wisdom. I can see how you believe “spirit and life” are the same, inseperable, because “spirit and life” are combined so very closely in Christ. I cannot separate my “spirit” from my “life,” so why should you believe that Jesus’ words can be described sepately as “spirit” and “life?” Therefor you reject that Jesus meant his words to be spiritually true as well as true in a physical way. I hope I am not in theological error that you can have something true both in a spiritual way and in a physical way. As I said, you have a much greater command of Scripture than I do, so I am sure that you will have no problem in letting me know how foolish my interpretations are.

 

[Ainchel]

This, I promise, will be my last posting. I am sorry that I am such a pest. Isn’t is true that the dumbest creatures on earth, such as a little bug, are also the most annoying? I am sorry for being so annoying! (But that is not going to stop me from annoying you just a little longer. Just please be gentle when you squash me like a bug with your vast knowledge!) Anyway…

The last thing of yours I wish to quote is:

**He said His words ARE spirit and life, hence, not flesh.

That means the outer covering, the flesh of His words, are not what quickens, the spirit of them, what they figuratively refer to, makes possible the Spirit quicken one into eternal life, grant them Spirit and life.**

Okay, your superior knowledge leaves me a little dizzy because it is so deep. I will readily consent to this. But please explain to this poor little dimwit what you mean by the following: You say that his words are spirit and life, and hence not flesh. You then say that the “words” Jesus are used are mearly the outer covering, and that we need to determine them figuratively. So doesn’t that mean that all of the scriptures we have just quoted are also figures of speech,and therefor not to be taken literally?

What about “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”? Since, by your reasoning, we cannot take the word “flesh” as having a literal meaning, then neither should we allow the word “words” have a literal meaning. Or maybe “words” is literal, but the words “spirit” and “life” are only figures of speach and therefor not to be believed. What words from Jesus are we supposed to take literally, and what words are supposed to take figuratively, and even more important, who has the authority to make those kinds of decisions? Or did Jesus intend for each of us to come up with our own interpretations, and therefor there would be no absolute truth in his words.

One final thought…
This is what I don’t understand about your belief that **“He [Jesus] said His words ARE spirit and life, hence, not flesh.” ** These are your exact words, from the quote above. To this I say, I have spirit and life, and I am also flesh. This is not a figure of speech; it is true! How is it that when Jesus says that his words are spirit flesh, you can so adamantly refute the idea that they therefor are not flesh. Do not we Christians refer to Jesus as The Word of God made flesh?
NAB John 1:14 And the Word became flesh…
According to John, words can be flesh, because the Word became flesh. And if the Word became flesh, could not the Word also become bread and wine? And if the Word becomes bread and wine, then that would have to mean that the bread and wine are Jesus!

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Mr. Ruggerio:
The way I see it–if Jesus really loves us, really loves me, then his presence must be really in the Eucharist. For a relationship as intimate and loving as that it can be no other way. Kinda reminds me of the Carlos Santana song–“make it real or forget about it.”

Those Protestants who argue that the Eucharist is symbolic, or that Baptism is symbolic, really are just watering down Christianity.

It appears you have the situation reversed, it is clear God’s love has less effect upon the believer in real presence Eucharist than among those bound by the wine to “the New Testament in my blood” (Lk 22:20).

Luke 22:20 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup *is *the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Which is a greater manifestation of love? Ingesting transubstantiated Christ giving one a sensible Jesus (whose body and blood are experienced by senses) or being bound by the symbolic blood of the New Testament resulting in Christ’s indwelling who then Personally guides even babes so they know the Scripture (2 Ti 3:15) and are made wise into salvation:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day *that *I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this *shall be *the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

In other words, Which is the greater expression of God’s love?

a)Catholics partake of their real presence Eucharist don’t have their salvation secured thereby and the Bible remains unclear to them.

b)Those who know the teaching of the Eucharist, believe in God’s New Covenant thereby experience the indwelling of Christ who grants them the experience of the ASSURANCE of their salvation (eternal security) because they know the New Covenant of God promised their sin would be remembered no more and God would unveil the Bible so even the least of them would Know God (Jer 31:34) and so be fully equipped for every good work God led them to do.

Answer: b

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

and His Blood would be Wine.



Amen to that!

Actually He says it is the New Testament in His blood which is clear figurative language especially when the context is considered, the fact He was still in His body with its blood when He gave them this cup:

Luke 22:20 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup *is *the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

Actually He says it is the New Testament in His blood which is clear figurative language especially when the context is considered, the fact He was still in His body with its blood when He gave them this cup:

Luke 22:20 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup *is *the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

So at the wedding of Cana, Christ turned water into wine. Was He required to actually provide the grapes? Or was this a supernatural miracle?

So God, is unable to multiply the Body and Blood of Christ like the loaves in the feeding of 5000, so that all may partake. Your faith in God is lacking. We believe with God all thinks are possible.

Now, since you noticed I’m actually posting in this thread, would you mind tackling my posts? Thanks