Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[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 baptised…

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

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

CANman:

Part II,

Any other verse of Scripture that show the word “spirit” meaning only figurative"?

I freely admit Christ’s words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” have no parallel but using OT phraseology this way is an example of Christ doing what He taught scribes to do:

Matthew 13:52 52 He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.

Jer 15:16

16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

(KJV)

Being called by God’s name = saved; Christ applied this concept of eating God’s Word to Himself as the Word of God among men and says ingesting Him (the true bread from heaven) results in eternal life, salvation.

The phrases “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” while unique are defined in context as true belief as we can verify by inserting that exegesis into the text. You will note it makes perfect sense to the entire context of scripture as well as in this chapter:

John 6:51-65 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man BELIEVETH ON ME (eat of this bread), he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye BELIEVETH ON ME (eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,) ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,) dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth me,) even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that BELIEVETH ON ME (eateth of this bread) shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

 

[ralphinal]

I ask again, if there is nothing there in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in other owrds, we are not literally eating his body and blood, then why does Paul seem so adament in 1 Corinthians that it is literally his body and blood?

1 Cor 10:16 “the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the BLOOD OF CHRIST? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the BODY OF CHRIST?”

It seems to me that Paul sees literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

1 Cor 11:23-29 "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is MY BODY that is for you. DO this in rememberance of me.’ 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.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have no answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. FOR ANYONE WHO EATS AND DRINKS WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, EATS AND DRINKS JUDGEMENT ON HIMSELF.

First, how did Paul know what was said had he not been taught? If he was taught, then he must have been taught a literal understanding of the words of Christ. After all, how can you discern anything other than the literal? If it is not literal, how can falure to discern bring judgement?

I would also like to point out that if you compare the words of Christ at the Last Supper to the use of the same words in the Old Testament, “do this as a rememberance of me” becomes “perform this sacrifice as a memorial sacrifice to me.” How is there a sacrifice if nothing is sacrificed?

Also remeber that in order for the Pascal lamb to have an effect, it had to be eaten by the Isrealites. Both Paul and John refere to Jesus as the Paschal Lamb and Lamb Of God (1 Cor 5:7, Jn 1:29, Revelation). If Jesus is the Pascal Lamb of the New Covenant, then we must EAT HIS FLESH for the sacrifice to have an effect.

As I see it, either you are correct or the Apostles and thus the Catholic Church is correct. Choose wisely, for there are souls on the line.

 

[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.

 

[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…

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Les Richardson:

I was raised a protestant and one of the major and wonderful revelations I had when becoming Catholic was just this issue of the real presence.

The protestant separated brethren are the product of rebellion…

SNIP

My arguments are clear and precise, substituting such drivel for an answer profits neither you (I didn’t bother reading past the SNIP), me, or anyone browsing this thread for answers.

Focus on the questions at hand and leave the propaganda behind.

Then we can have discussions that profit all.

May God grant peace to your house

Al

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

Jer 15:16

16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

(KJV)

Being called by God’s name = saved; Christ applied this concept of eating God’s Word to Himself as the Word of God among men and says ingesting Him (the true bread from heaven) results in eternal life, salvation.

Most of above quote deleted due to length.

LetsObeyChrist:

You have my attention here. Are you saying that what Christ meant was to ingest the Word of God? To know it and accept the Word of God? My question may seem a little simplistic, but I am fascinated and I want to make certain I understand this.

Thanks.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:

LetsObeyChrist:

Not true analogy, you should have expressed it thusly:

"Water from my garden hose gets my lawn wet. Rain gets my lawn wet. Therefore, Water = Rain.Sorry to disagree but I gave a “good” analogy with the same logical form as the original quote (X results in Y ; Z resuts in Y; Therefore X = Z --this form of argument is invalid as my analogy correctly demonstrates). Your counter analogy is invalid and does not have the same logical form as the original. The subject is “Water from my garden hose”, therefore the conclusion is not “Water” but “Water from my garden hose.” So the absurd conclusion logically follows.It is non analogous because, you are comparing dissimilar items, the VERB Turning on with a NOUN, Rain. Therefore the middle term cannot possibly be distributed. The act of turning on the hose doesn’t get your lawn wet as rain does, it only allows water to enter the hose, unlike my syllogism where both eating (verb) and believing (verb) Christ results in life eternal.

1)Turning on my garden hose results in getting my lawn wet. 2)Rain results in getting my lawn wet. Therefore, Turning on garden hose = Rain.In context Christ expressly denies eating literal flesh profits by saying only the Spirit gives life.

Then He says His WORDS are spirit and life (= not flesh)

For His words “eat my flesh” to be “spirit and life” they must be symbols of spirit and life and not flesh.

“It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating =(is a symbol for) Believing (as both result in life to the doer).”

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

However Christ expressly denies eating literal flesh profits, only the Spirit gives life. Then He says His WORDS are spirit and life (= therefore His words “eat my flesh” are “spirit and life” therefore they cannot mean not eating literal flesh)

There it is again. His WORDS are spirit and life. His words “eat my flest” are “spriti and life” …His WORDS? God’s WORD? The Word of God?

Am I getting this right, Letsobeychrist??

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Little Mary:

Most of above quote deleted due to length.

LetsObeyChrist:

You have my attention here. Are you saying that what Christ meant was to ingest the Word of God? To know it and accept the Word of God? My question may seem a little simplistic, but I am fascinated and I want to make certain I understand this.

Thanks.

Not exactly, read it again.

I suggested Christ modified Jeremiah’s thought and applied it to Himself as the Word of God made flesh.

In both eating the Word of God results in salvation.

 

[ralphinal]

Why no response to my post (#42)? I am confused by the lack of response.

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

Not exactly, read it again.

I suggested Christ modified Jeremiah’s thought and applied it to Himself as the Word of God made flesh.

In both eating the Word of God results in salvation.

How do you eat the Word of God?

Jesus said “Eat my flesh” (not an exact quote).

 

[Spiritus_Dei]

LetsObeyChrist:

Both true belief and eating the flesh of Christ results in life. However Christ expressly denies eating literal flesh profits, only the Spirit gives life. Then He says His WORDS are spirit and life (= therefore “eat my flesh” means “spirit and life”, not eating literal flesh)

To quote from my bible’s notes on John 6:64:

The flesh profiteth nothing.

Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they [the Jews] supposed they were to eat His flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit anything. But it would be the height of blasphemy to say that the living flesh of Christ (which we recieve in the Blessed Sacrament, with His Spirit, that is, with His Soul and Divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, He would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

Folks, stop arguing with this nonsense. The heart of the problem is that this is his personal interpretation (prohibited in 2 Peter 1:20), and is based on the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Force LetsObeyChrist to first prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture before accepting his personal opinion based on a heretical notion.

By arguing this foolishness, you have ceded the ground to him on the underlying basis of how he makes his argument (Sola Scriptura), and are playing his ‘game’. Do not cede such, as it is utterly invalid.

 

[Les_Richardson]

LetsObeyChrist:

My arguments are clear and precise, substituting such drivel for an answer profits neither you (I didn’t bother reading past the SNIP), me, or anyone browsing this thread for answers.

Focus on the questions at hand and leave the propaganda behind.

Then we can have discussions that profit all.

May God grant peace to your house

Al

Thank you for your blessing. I apologize for having offended you, and for drivelling on this thread. Actually I was responding to a rhetorical question from Joanna.

By way of humble suggestion, sometimes it helps to step back and look at the big picture, the larger context. The offensive words in the snipped portion are not propaganda but a reference to an historical event upon which my entire early Christian education was based. And if I am offensive you make take it that I am offended, not by you, but by those who set the Reformation in motion, and thusly, through no fault of my own, or my Baptist minister father, was born deprived of the Catholic faith.

And it goes to theological motivation and premises, such as sola scriptura, whereas a reading of the early Church fathers establishes a continuity of doctrine that reinforces the Catholic position of the real presence through the expedient of Holy Tradition not available to the proponents of sola scriptura.

But I can see that you are interested in the Biblical swordplay, so I will step back and watch with interest although I doubt that it really assists anyone looking for answers without the larger context.

When you have leisure you can read the rest of the post, because it does have a contextual resolution.

God bless.:tiphat:

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Little Mary:

There it is again. His WORDS are spirit and life. His words “eat my flest” are “spirit and life” …His WORDS? God’s WORD? The Word of God?

Am I getting this right, Letsobeychrist??

Christ is referring to the words that scandalized, not the Word of God meaning Scipture Bible:

John 6:57-67 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The antecedent of the underlined pronouns refer to Christ’s saying “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” to be quickened.

Hence the reference is to His saying and not the word of God.

He directly denies eating His flesh would profit in that manner, it is the Spirit who quickens.

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is that the symbol “flesh” here is being used in different senses, by the Jews as meaning literal flesh, by Christ as meaning something that renders them spirit and life.

In effect Christ said the flesh or outer covering of His words convey a meaning that is spirit and life.

But these chose to disbelieve Christ’s explanation because they were not enabled by the Father to believe in Christ. They chose to make His enigmatic saying their excuse for not believing in HIM:

John 6:65 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.

 

[mrS4ntA]

ralphinal:

Why no response to my post (#42)? I am confused by the lack of response.

and #44 ?? I guess they’re the stumpers?

 

[metal1633]

If flesh = sinful nature then “eat my flesh” means = “eat my sinful nature”?

Clearly you cannot maintain your position before any prelate or you risk becoming anathema to the Catholic Church.

Your being disengenuous. Or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Whe he contrasted flesh and spirit he was not talking about HIS Flesh which he would give us to eat. Read it again. I said…

He didnt say that at all. Your reading into it your Interpretation. The Words “Flesh and Spirit” when opposed to each other in the NT never mean figurative and literal. Flesh means the sinfull nature of carnal man, contrasted with the nature empowerd by the Spirit. His meaning is clear. Carnal man cannot understand Him, only those of the Spirit can.

YOU, like those who left Him that day, are thinking after the Flesh, not the Spirit. It offends your fleshy human sensibilities to think you must Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. But that is EXACTLY what He meant. He said it FOUR TIMES.

St. Chrysostom says: “Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense…You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing”

Here let my quote that last part again…

“Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense…You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing”

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Little Mary:

There it is again. His WORDS are spirit and life. His words “eat my flest” are “spirit and life” …His WORDS? God’s WORD? The Word of God?

Am I getting this right, Letsobeychrist??

Christ is referring to the words that scandalized, not the Word of God meaning Scipture Bible:

John 6:57-67 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The antecedent of the underlined pronouns refer to Christ’s saying “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” to be quickened.

Hence the reference is to His saying and not the word of God.

He directly denies eating His flesh would profit in that manner, it is the Spirit who quickens.

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is that the symbol “flesh” here is being used in different senses, by the Jews as meaning literal flesh, by Christ as meaning something that renders them spirit and life.

In effect Christ said the flesh or outer covering of His words convey a meaning that is spirit and life.

But these chose to disbelieve Christ’s explanation because they were not enabled by the Father to believe in Christ. They chose to make His enigmatic saying their excuse for not believing in HIM:

John 6:65 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.

In context “ingest Christ for life” is another way of saying “believe in Christ for life” albeit the quality of belief here is total ingestion, really believing and not some mere tasting or mental affirmation.

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ is referring to the words that scandalized, not the Word of God meaning Scipture Bible:

Christ is responding to His own words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” to be quickened.

He denies eating His flesh would profit in that manner, it is the Spirit who quickens.

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is that the symbol “flesh” here is being used in different senses, by the Jews as meaning literal flesh, by Christ as meaning something that renders them spirit and life.

In effect Christ said the flesh or outer covering of His words convey a meaning that is spirit and life.

Again, quote shortened simply for length.

Now it seems you are saying something different. And you are certainly giving your own opinion and interpretation.

Jesus was very clear and you choose not to believe it.