Eating His flesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLM08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean the Early Christians believed that they were consuming the flesh and blood of Christ?We have from extra-biblical sources that the ancient Romans believed that Christians were cannibals because they said they ate the Flesh and Blood of their Master!
 
Here yet is another reference to spiritual eating of The Word.

"He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." Deuteronomy 8:3

Manna was bread from Heaven sent by God to sustain life. Now the Word becomes flesh.

*“The Word became flesh *and made his dwelling among us.” John 1:14
I don’t understand how these contribute to your point…first we are told that the Israelites were sustained by “every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” Today, we consume that Word made flesh. If anything, that’s an Old Testament type that foreshadowed its greater fulfillment in the New Testament - a belief in the Real Presence is a fitting and organic progression of this type.

But I think there are some deeper issues of authority that you need to work out before you will be able to accept this “hard teaching.”
 
This is my opinion and only my opinion.Jesus knew he would die the next day. He wanted to share a traditional meal with those He loved. He used that meal to teach them which is in keeping with how He taught over the years, using symbols and parabols.He wanted His followers, including us to NEVER foget what He was about to do for us.He made it VERY clear that when we gathered and shared a meal,the Eucharist, that we remember Him.When we share the Lord’s Supper in our church, it is VERY real to me. As followers of Jesus we are gathered ,share this meal and remember the INCREDIBLE sacrifice He made for each one of us when we did not deserve it.Pretty amazing really.NLM
 
I mean the Early Christians believed that they were consuming the flesh and blood of Christ?We have from extra-biblical sources that the ancient Romans believed that Christians were cannibals because they said they ate the Flesh and Blood of their Master!
That doesn’t mean that these ancient Romans understood Christian practice correctly. Just like the unbelievers among the crowd in John 6. Jesus did in fact correct them when he told them that he was taking his flesh to Heaven.

"Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” John 6:61-62

Jesus said this to get their minds off of the idea of physically eating of his body. You have to remember that ancient Pagan religions had actually practiced eating the flesh of their gods. It doesn’t surprise me that 2000 years later that this is still being debated.

Even if the most devout and qualified Catholic scholars came out and declared that after further study, they believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, they would be declared “dissenters” and probaby excommunicated. So really, for the Catholic Church there is no turning back.
 
Jesus said this to get their minds off of the idea of physically eating of his body. . . .
Even if the most devout and qualified Catholic scholars came out and declared that after further study, they believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, they would be declared “dissenters”
TLM,

Respectfully, it seems as if you are equating “physically eating His Body” with “taking His words literally” and “*Not *physically eating His body” with “taking His words figuratively”.

But to do so is to miss the Catholic view: we take Our Lord’s words literally, and eat his body sacramentally. Even while His Body resides locally in Heaven.

VC
 
TLM,

Respectfully, it seems as if you are equating “physically eating His Body” with “taking His words literally” and “*Not *physically eating His body” with “taking His words figuratively”.

But to do so is to miss the Catholic view: we take Our Lord’s words literally, and eat his body sacramentally. Even while His Body resides locally in Heaven.

VC
Catholics are either eating the literal body and blood of Jesus during communion or they are not. I understand it is not in a cannibalistic manner, but a “sacramental” presence. But this explain a spiritual presence, not a physical presence of the body that hung on the cross at Calvary. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ is present during the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion for all who believe in Him. But this is a spiritual presence.

“But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.” John 4:32

“The word became flesh…” John 1:14 “This meat is my flesh…” John 6:51


When Jesus told the crowd to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6, he was rebuking them for seeking him only for a free meal. He had just performed the miracle of feeding the five-thousand the previous day and many of the people in the crowd didn’t care about who he was, they just wanted breakfast.

"Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.” John 6:26

Jesus was not commanding them to eat his body. He was commanding them to believe in Him and do the will of God. The following verses are critical.

"Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me… "John 4:34

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” John 6:29


Yes indeed this is a hard teaching!
:cool:
 
Catholics are either eating the literal body and blood of Jesus during communion or they are not…
Perhaps it wold be useful to define your terms. What do you mean by “literal” in reference to the body and blood of Christ?

VC
 
TLM maybe if you understood why we have the eucharist you would better understand where we are coming from.

When we recieve the eucharist, we consume Jesus’ Flesh, and we become one body and one spirit with Jesus Christ, which is the epitome of what a christian can experiance here on earth. Being one with our savior.

Your calling the catholic chuch on technecallities, in the way you have been raised to belive in scripture. Instead of taking your own interpretation of the bible and imposing on people(Which what if you are wrong? There are a billion people in this world who believe other wise and maybe a couple million who belive what you teach, what does christ teach about leading his children down the wrong path?) look at the facts.

Fact #1- Jesus Said you must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood. -Yes this could have been symoblic if it would not have later been addressed

Fact#2- Jesus said take this is my BODY, eat it! -OHH NOW I GET IT.

Fact#3 - Saint paul warns of bringing condemnation to ourselves if being in sin and taking the Eucharist. -Why would he be talking about bread alone, what makes that bread special? Should we becareful if we eat pancakes then? They have bread, would we condem ourselves eating pancakes?

Fact #4 - The early christians who had the most direct ties to Paul peter, JESUS CHRSIT himself were acused of be canibals. Your saying “you” 2000 years later got it right and the people at the time of Christ got it wrong, and “you” can read God’s mind and Peter and Paul and John were all wrong when they themselves experianced this.

Fact#5 - You say that the early christians were wrong, Well do you not think that one of the apostles, one of the early founders of the church would have called everyone out and said this is wrong! No they didnt, but, Paul’s letters are all about writting to the early churches and teling them what they are doing right and WRONG and no where I mean no where does he say you are wrong the eucharist is a symbol.

May God guide you to truth my friend.
-Pax
 
TLM,

While I await your response regarding what you mean by “literal body and blood”, perhaps I can also add another question.

You said:
There is no doubt in my mind that Christ is present during the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion for all who believe in Him. But this is a spiritual presence.
I’m curious about this. What have you mentioned so far that indicates that Christ is present at all, spiritually or not? And if you can point out to me where you find Christ’s spiritual presence, can you describe to me how it is unique in the Lord’s Supper? Or is it?

VC
 
TLM,

While I await your response regarding what you mean by “literal body and blood”, perhaps I can also add another question.

You said:

I’m curious about this. What have you mentioned so far that indicates that Christ is present at all, spiritually or not? And if you can point out to me where you find Christ’s spiritual presence, can you describe to me how it is unique in the Lord’s Supper? Or is it?

VC
The Communion meal itself is a a sacred moment of fellowship where Christians call to mind the life and sacrifice of Our Lord. However, since there is absolutely no way to justify connecting John 6 with the Last Supper without completely disregarding the context of the passage, I do not believe that anything unique happens to the communion wafer during the Lord’s Supper.

It’s strange that the Church clings to Aristotle’s 300BC substance theory (accidents & substance) that is based on ancient Greek philopsophy and not science.

Most people aren’t aware of this, but Greek religion of Aristotle’s time encompassed 14 major gods and goddesses: Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Dionysus, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Demeter, Hestia, and Hades.

The religious practices of the Greeks extended beyond mainland Greece, to the islands and coasts of Ionia in Asia Minor, to Magna Graecia (Sicily and southern Italy), and to scattered Greek colonies in the Western Mediterranean, such as Massalia (Marseille). Greek religion tempered Etruscan cult and belief and had a heavy influence on the later Roman religion.

Once one starts peeling back the layers on the onion of history, it’s not hard to understand where many religious practices come from. Some pagan religions even practiced ritualistic eating of their god long before Christianity ever existed.

Yes, I understand that Christianity overcame paganism, but why in the world would the Church continue to cling to this theory? Can anyone explain this?
:confused:
 
I do not believe that anything unique happens to the communion wafer during the Lord’s Supper.
I understand that this is what you believe. But what I asked is why you believe that Christ is “spiritually present” at the Lord’s Supper.

Also, if Christ is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper, is this unique to the Lord’s Supper?

I also want to put in another plug for my previous question about your definition of “literal body and blood”.

Thanks,
VC
 
The Communion meal itself is a a sacred moment of fellowship where Christians call to mind the life and sacrifice of Our Lord. However, since there is absolutely no way to justify connecting John 6 with the Last Supper without completely disregarding the context of the passage, I do not believe that anything unique happens to the communion wafer during the Lord’s Supper.

It’s strange that the Church clings to Aristotle’s 300BC substance theory (accidents & substance) that is based on ancient Greek philopsophy and not science.
Yes, I understand that Christianity overcame paganism, but why in the world would the Church continue to cling to this theory? Can anyone explain this?
:confused:
Why does *It Is Ancient Greek Philospohy *equate with *It Is Wrong *in your eyes? :confused:
“Can any thing of good come from -]Nazareth/-] Greece?”

I understand that you do not share the Church’s belief in the Real Presence – But why do you insist that it must be explained in *scientific *rather than *philosophical *terms? :confused:

tee
 
Why does *It Is Ancient Greek Philospohy *equate with *It Is Wrong *in your eyes? :confused:
“Can any thing of good come from -]Nazareth/-] Greece?”

I understand that you do not share the Church’s belief in the Real Presence – But why do you insist that it must be explained in *scientific *rather than *philosophical *terms? :confused:

tee
Yes, I believe that mixing ancient pagan philosophy with Christianity is terribly wrong. Eating the flesh of God was a practice of the ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions. This is not conspiracy stuff. Even non-religious (people without an axe to grind) historical research show this to be a fact. Surely Christ wouldn’t model his Sacred meal after this… would he? Did he?

Understanding John 6 in context and realizing that Jesus was speaking figuratively eliminates the need to embrace pagan philosophy and practice within the worship of Jesus Christ.
🤷
 
Yes, I believe that mixing ancient pagan philosophy with Christianity is terribly wrong. Eating the flesh of God was a practice of the ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions. This is not conspiracy stuff. Even non-religious (people without an axe to grind) historical research show this to be a fact. Surely Christ wouldn’t model his Sacred meal after this… would he? Did he?
Here are two places to start is answering your query:
  1. Is Catholicism Pagan? (answering the “pagan influence fallacy” that you seem to be proposing)
and
  1. The Catholic Church embraces all that is Good, True, and Beautiful. If a philosophical system gets at the truth, expresses it correctly to the limits of its ability, then the Church embraces it. The Church might amplify it, but she doesn’t reject truth simply because it isn’t from a nominally Christian source. All truth comes from Christ.
But, again, your disagreement with the source of the doctrine of transubstantiation seems a bit besides the point. What we need to get at is what you mean when you say it is “not the literal body and blood” and what you mean when you say Christ is spiritually present.

VC
 
Here are two places to start is answering your query:
  1. Is Catholicism Pagan? (answering the “pagan influence fallacy” that you seem to be proposing)
and
  1. The Catholic Church embraces all that is Good, True, and Beautiful. If a philosophical system gets at the truth, expresses it correctly to the limits of its ability, then the Church embraces it. The Church might amplify it, but she doesn’t reject truth simply because it isn’t from a nominally Christian source. All truth comes from Christ.
But, again, your disagreement with the source of the doctrine of transubstantiation seems a bit besides the point. What we need to get at is what you mean when you say it is “not the literal body and blood” and what you mean when you say Christ is spiritually present.

VC
Simply put, for many reasons, the changing of the communion wafer into the actual body and blood of Our Lord does not make biblical sense.

Perhaps there is a difference between the word “actual” and “literal”… but that to me would seem to be really splitting hairs.

Christ is spiritually present whenever we may gather… for that matter, wherever we may be at any given time.
🙂
 
Simply put, for many reasons, the changing of the communion wafer into the actual body and blood of Our Lord does not make biblical sense.
Well, that is certainly in dispute. Millions don’t agree with you. I understand if that is the conclusion you have drawn based on your own lights. I think, though, that perhaps you might be misunderstanding the actual doctrine.
40.png
TLM08:
Perhaps there is a difference between the word “actual” and “literal”… but that to me would seem to be really splitting hairs.
Yes, there is a difference and it might prove important! Let’s drop the term “literal” then. “Actual” meaning “really” might better convey what you are getting at?
TLM:
Christ is spiritually present whenever we may gather… for that matter, wherever we may be at any given time.
Two things about the above point, and if you can address them separately I would appreciate it:
  1. Why do you say Christ is spiritual present at the Lord’s Supper? Do you glean that from John 6? Or some other scripture?
  2. If from some other scripture, what do you make of the John 6 discourse? If Christ is spiritually present always, and never in a unique way at the Lord’s Supper, then why this business about eating his body and blood?
Thanks
VC
 
Yes, I believe that mixing ancient pagan philosophy with Christianity is terribly wrong. Eating the flesh of God was a practice of the ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions. This is not conspiracy stuff. Even non-religious (people without an axe to grind) historical research show this to be a fact. Surely Christ wouldn’t model his Sacred meal after this… would he? Did he?

Understanding John 6 in context and realizing that Jesus was speaking figuratively eliminates the need to embrace pagan philosophy and practice within the worship of Jesus Christ.
🤷
Which mystery relgion there were a number of them. Very little is known about since they left no source material and rituals and liturgies were verbally passed from iniate to iniate.
Was it the Mithraic, Eleusian, Dionysian, Orphic or the ones based on isis or osiris? please clarify.-From the theology website
Fellowship Meals

Sharing meals was a common religious activity in paganism, Judaism, and Christianity, and there are certain similarities in all these meals. The significance of the “communion,” however, was different in each case. The weekly memorial of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the specific note of thanksgiving (Eucharist) in the prayers of consecration provide no pagan counterparts.

from Paul and the mystery religions"The first argument against this view is the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that just because two things exist side by side, that one must be the cause of the other. As one theologian has written, the History of Religions School had the tendency “to convert parallels into influences and influences into sources.”{5} Causal connection is much harder to prove than proximity. The mere fact that other religions may have had a god who died and then came back to life in some manner does not mean that this was the source of Christian ideas, even if it can be shown that the apostles knew of this other set of beliefs.
Some scholars, hostile to Christianity, tend to exaggerate, or invent, similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions. British scholar Edwyn Bevan writes:

Of course if one writes an imaginary description of the Orphic mysteries . . . filling in the large gaps in the picture left by our data from the Christian Eucharist, one produces something very impressive. On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there.{6}

An example might be the practice of the taurobolium in the cult of Cybele or Great Mother. This initiation rite, in which the blood of a sacrificed bull is allowed to pour over a neophyte, is claimed by some to be the source of baptism in Christianity. Arguments have been made that the language “blood of the lamb” (Rev. 7:14), and “blood of Jesus” (1 Peter 1:2) was borrowed from the language of the taurobolium and criobolium in which a ram was slaughtered. In fact, a better argument can be made that the cult borrowed its language from the Christian tradition.

The cult of Cybele did not use the taurobolium until the second century A.D.; the best available evidence for dating the practice places its origin about one hundred years after Paul wrote his epistles.{7} German scholar Gunter Wagner points out that there was no notion of death and resurrection in the cultic practice.

After noting the change in meaning that the taurobolium experienced over time, scholar Robert Duthoy writes:

It is obvious that this alteration in the taurobolium must have been due to Christianity, when we consider that by A.D. 300 it had become the great competitor of the heathen religions and was known to everyone.{8}
Stop getting your theories and theology from Jack Chick magazines and similar slimeYour theory is complete ****.
 
Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for “doing the will of God.”
No. In the first century and to this day in the Middle East, that phrase only a metaphor for inflicting grievous injury.
 
but then why did Jesus let the disciples leave when they were shocked He said we need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood? if He was speaking figuratively, why didn’t He correct them?

**also, the entire early Church believed in the Eucharist… St Justin Martyr said in around 150 AD that “we were taught” it’s literal… he lived so early in Church history and perhaps knew the Apostles, so it was likely he was taught this by the Apostles themselves. No early Church Father believed the Eucharist is symbolic…
**
Also, if it’s symbolic…why do we need to eat bread and wine to remember His sacrifice? why not simply remember?
Hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good old argument. Its much better to interpret Scripture yourself and completely ignore Tradition. What did the apostles and followers of Christ know anyway. Jesus only gave Peter figurative authority.

And besides. None of this Tradition nonsense. Didn’t you hear? Sola Scriptura. Its in the Bible…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top