Eating His flesh

[TLM08]

No. In the first century and to this day in the Middle East, that phrase only a metaphor for inflicting grievous injury.

Yes, in some parts of the Old Testament that usage is found, as Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” points out . But catholic apologists who make this claim are wrong about that! They fail to see that Christ uses this “flesh eating” metaphor here to illustrate “doing the will of God”.

***"…For my flesh is meat *indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:55

“… I have meat to eat, which you know not. The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.” John 4:32-34**

I have meat to eat…My flesh is meat…My meat is to do the will of God? Did Jesus really just say that? Look, I did not figure this out on my own. Bible scholars have known this for centuries… But this obvious error surrounding the communion meal will remain forever since the Church cannot reverse herself on this and Catholics must believe everything the Catholic Church has previously declared as dogma. The passage in John 6 revolves not around eating the body of Jesus… but doing the will of God!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

***"…For my flesh is meat ***indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:55

“… I have meat to eat, which you know not. The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.” John 4:32-34

I have meat to eat…My flesh is meat…My meat is to do the will of God? Did Jesus really just say that?

TLM,

Maybe you should explain? If Christ says that he has meat (food), and that his meat (food) is to do the will of God. . . what do you make of Christ saying that his flesh is meat (food)?

Why would Christ’s flesh and blood be food when doing the will of God is food?

Look at your string of quotes: “I have meat to eat. . .MY flesh is meat. . . My meat is to do the will of God.”

“I have meat to eat. . . My meat is to do the will of God” seems to make sense. But interjecting “my flesh is meat” doesn’t make sense in there does it? Or does it? Care to explain?

(Of course, Christ didn’t string these things together as you did, I’m just wondering how you explain it to yourself).

Thanks
VC

 

[TLM08]

TLM,

Maybe you should explain? If Christ says that he has meat (food), and that his meat (food) is to do the will of God. . . what do you make of Christ saying that his flesh is meat (food)?

Why would Christ’s flesh and blood be food when doing the will of God is food?

Look at your string of quotes: “I have meat to eat. . .MY flesh is meat. . . My meat is to do the will of God.”

“I have meat to eat. . . My meat is to do the will of God” seems to make sense. But interjecting “my flesh is meat” doesn’t make sense in there does it? Or does it? Care to explain?

(Of course, Christ didn’t string these things together as you did, I’m just wondering how you explain it to yourself).

Thanks
VC

The unbelievers among the crowd in John 6 were seeking Jesus for a free meal instead of eternal life. As Jesus began to rebuke them. They brought up manna that their fathers ate in the desert.

*“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." *

Our job is to come to him and* believe *in him… not eat him. Remember, he is rebuking a hungry crowd!

“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. "

Here yet again we have Jesus telling the crowd to do the will of God in plain language, just like:

“Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.”
John 4:32

My meat is my flesh is easily understood when you get back to Jesus being the “Bread of Life”… just like manna, he was sent from heaven to sustain life. But this bread (Jesus) sustains eternal life, not earthly life.

*"…and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the (eternal) life of the world. " *

This is tough stuff, but once you realize that Christ is trying to get this hard hearted crowd to forget about sandwiches and focus on who he is and what he is here to do… (and that’s to give his life on the cross as a ramsom for mankind, and that is the will of the Father,)… it all starts to make a lot more sense.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[JustaServant]

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 ****.

I was wondering how long it would be before the Hislop/Chick lies started showing up. This is one confused dude.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Here yet again we have Jesus telling the crowd to do the will of God in plain language, just like:

"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
John 4:32

My meat is my flesh is easily understood when you get back to Jesus being the “Bread of Life”… just like manna, he was sent from heaven to sustain life. But this bread (Jesus) sustains eternal life, not earthly life.

*"…and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the (eternal) life of the world. " *
. . .

I hope this answers your question.

No, not really.

You linked Christ saying “I have meat. . .my meat is to do the will of the father” with “my flesh is true meat”.

If “meat” is to do the will of God. . . why is Christ’s flesh true meat?

VC

 

[TLM08]

No, not really.

You linked Christ saying “I have meat. . .my meat is to do the will of the father” with “my flesh is true meat”.

If “meat” is to do the will of God. . . why is Christ’s flesh true meat?

VC

We have to be careful not to let the word “true” throw us off.

Remember, Jesus said;
“I am the*** true ***vine…” John 15:1

It was the Father’s will that Jesus gave his flesh (meat) on the cross. Jesus said in John 4:32 that his “meat” was to do the will of the Father. Remember, the context of the entire discussion centered around Jesus rebuking a breakfast seeking bunch amid the disciples.

“Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” John 6:64

Christ’s flesh indeed true meat because it was God’s* will *that his Son become “flesh”.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” John 1:14

 

[TLM08]

I was wondering how long it would be before the Hislop/Chick lies started showing up. This is one confused dude.

Yes, I think the accusation that Catholicism is nothing but dressed up paganism is unfair. However: many pagan practices did indeed look quite similar to distinctly catholic practice. The Madonna holding the divine Child…Isis holding her divine son Horus being only one example.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

We have to be careful not to let the word “true” throw us off.

Remember, Jesus said;
“I am the*** true ***vine…” John 15:1

But He never pointed to a vine and said it was his body.Christ called himself “the door” “the vine”, etc --but this is distinct phrasing from “This is my body” – there has been much admirable explanation on this topic if you look it up here on the forums. Let’s leave that discussion for another time.
TLM:

It was the Father’s will that Jesus gave his flesh (meat) on the cross.

. . .

Christ’s flesh indeed true meat because it was God’s* will *

that his Son become “flesh”.

Ok, thank you TLM. You’re interpretation is that:

a) Christ said that “I have meat”
b) Which Christ explained as “my meat is to do the Will of the Father”
c) And this means when Christ says “my flesh is meat” that this is because it was God’s will that the Word become flesh.

Apologies, but this seems like a tortuous explanation. If “meat” (food) always corresponds to “doing the will of God”, then “my flesh is meat” is hard to explain. And further more why EAT his flesh?

I think a more open assessment of the texts indicate that there is more going on here. And, when one takes it in conjuction with what Christ did on Holy Thursday, and in conjunction with the practice of the early church . . . The Catholic position seems quite sound.

You don’t have to agree, of course. Thanks for the discussion.

VC

 

[TLM08]

TLM08;5638340:

We have to be careful not to let the word “true” throw us off.

Remember, Jesus said;
"I am the*** true ***

vine…" John 15:1

But He never pointed to a vine and said it was his body.Christ called himself “the door” “the vine”, etc --but this is distinct phrasing from “This is my body” – there has been much admirable explanation on this topic if you look it up here on the forums. Let’s leave that discussion for another time.

Ok, thank you TLM. You’re interpretation is that:

a) Christ said that “I have meat”
b) Which Christ explained as “my meat is to do the Will of the Father”
c) And this means when Christ says “my flesh is meat” that this is because it was God’s will that the Word become flesh.

Apologies, but this seems like a tortuous explanation. If “meat” (food) always corresponds to “doing the will of God”, then “my flesh is meat” is hard to explain. And further more why EAT his flesh?

I think a more open assessment of the texts indicate that there is more going on here. And, when one takes it in conjuction with what Christ did on Holy Thursday, and in conjunction with the practice of the early church . . . The Catholic position seems quite sound.

You don’t have to agree, of course. Thanks for the discussion.

VC

Why EAT his flesh? Again, the crowd had just witnessed Jesus feeding the five-thousand the day before and were seeking Jesus for more free food. Jesus was simply rebuking them for seeking only to satisfy their empty stomachs and not eternal life through belief in him. It makes sense to me, but then again, you also are free to disagree.

And a big Thank You back at ya… and you are quite welcome… I enjoyed this discussion as well.

 

[juliamajor]

You know as much about theology as you know about mythology- which is basically nada.
Mother and child images have been around since the beginning of time.It is an archetype- it means many things to many people.According to your reasoning a picture of my son as a baby with me is some kind of pagan imagery

Things can be similar without being the same.

 

[TLM08]

According to your reasoning a picture of my son as a baby with me is some kind of pagan imagery.

As far as I know, nobody prays to you and your son… So this is not really a good example. Some catholic apologists reason that these images should be viewed in the light that Christianity did not absorb paganism, but replaced it as it eventually became the official religion of the Roman Empire. This is a matter of history, not religious bigotry.

I do believe that Mary is with her Son in Heaven and that they are very close. For that matter I don’t have a problem with asking her to pray for and with us. The Hail Mary prayer is actually quite biblical in itself.

But this is a really getting off topic.

 

[whm]

If you want biblical evidence of the practice of the Eucharist refer to

Corinthians 11:27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

11:28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

11:29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

11:31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;

I think that the real reason for the rejection of the Eucharist is that it is incompatible with the theological tolerance of sin in the protestant theology. (not saying they don’t dislike sin only that their theology is more tolerant of it)

 

[TLM08]

If you want biblical evidence of the practice of the Eucharist refer to

Corinthians 11:27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

11:28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

11:29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

11:31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;

I think that the real reason for the rejection of the Eucharist is that it is incompatible with the theological tolerance of sin in the protestant theology. (not saying they don’t dislike sin only that their theology is more tolerant of it)

If you go back and read the context of this passage, you will see that Paul was chastising those who were turning the Lord’s Supper into a selfish drunken gluttonous party. This was becoming a problem in the Church at Corinth, and Paul had had enough of it!

"…When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not." 1 Cor 11:20-22

In all christian charity, I must tell you that the passage you quote has nothing to do with “eating the flesh of Christ”… or even being in a “state of grace”. Furthermore, if you look, you will see that even Paul is still referring to this meal as “bread”… Context should never be ignored.

 

[whm]

If you go back and read the context of this passage, you will see that Paul was chastising those who were turning the Lord’s Supper into a selfish drunken gluttonous party. This was becoming a problem in the Church at Corinth, and Paul had had enough of it!

Sounds unworthy to me.

In all christian charity, I must tell you that the passage you quote has nothing to do with “eating the flesh of Christ”… or even being in a “state of grace”. Furthermore, if you look, you will see that even Paul is still referring to this meal as “bread”… Context should never be ignored.

Here is the context

11:23 -26 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the 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 remembrance 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.”

Seems to me to be talking about the body and blood of Christ. Do you have a different interpretation?

 

[TLM08]

Sounds unworthy to me.

Here is the context

11:23 -26 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the 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 remembrance 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.”

Seems to me to be talking about the body and blood of Christ. Do you have a different interpretation?

Scripture does not support a literal interpretation of “This is my body”. This is the point of this entire thread.

 

[whm]

It is your opinion that scripture does not support “the body”

Then why do those who eat it unworthily bring judgment on themselves? Aren’t they already saved once and for all? Why should they examine themselves before receiving? It all sounds very Catholic/Orthodox to me.

Why should we not take it literally? There is ample evidence that the Church believed this well before the list of books in the Bible was officially determined. I believed this before I even became a Catholic after reading most if not all of the New Testament. It is the interpretation that I feel and believe, yet it differs from yours as of today and agrees with yours when you chose your handle. I put my lot with St. Augustine, Mother Teresa, St. Francis, St. Paul and the words of Jesus Christ himself.

I put my lot with a Church that doesn’t ignore the direct words of Jesus Christ “whoever divorces his wife and marries another hereby commits adultery” Why did so many churches change there mind on this? To conform to the will of the people or to the will of God? My point is that there are many churches that ignore these direct words of Christ and don’t believe in the Eucharist. They can’t be right on both.

 

[nlm]

If you want biblical evidence of the practice of the Eucharist refer to

Corinthians 11:27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

11:28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

11:29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

11:31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;

I think that the real reason for the rejection of the Eucharist is that it is incompatible with the theological tolerance of sin in the protestant theology. (not saying they don’t dislike sin only that their theology is more tolerant of it)

Your closing statement concerning the Protestant’s tolerance of sin is an interesting one.Can you give an example of such a theology . Even if that were so, help me understand how that would tie into the rejection of the Eucharist.NLM

 

[whm]

Your closing statement concerning the Protestant’s tolerance of sin is an interesting one.Can you give an example of such a theology . Even if that were so, help me understand how that would tie into the rejection of the Eucharist.NLM

Perhaps my wording was not perfect, I tried to make it clear that I was speaking about theology and not individuals. It is not meant to say that protestants are necessarily more sinful or don’t think sin is bad. Granted there is a variety of theologies out there from the “once saved always saved” on one end to Lutherans and Anglicans on the other end of the Protestant spectrum.

The basic idea is that theologically a protestant can commit a very bad sin, die and go straight to heaven under once saved theology. Now if you believe that you are going to receive the Body and Blood of Christ right after say viewing porn or committing murder and knowing it a grave offense against God, how can you approach him and receive His Body which was sacrificed (the same one sacrifice on the cross) for you knowing you just committed one of the sins that caused his sacrifice? The Catholic response is that you can’t you must formally restore your relationship with God before receiving him (although many Catholic sadly do not and still receive him). When the reformers removed the concept of reconciliation it created an incompatibility with the belief in the Eucharist. This is the tie in with the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11.

It is interesting to me that say Lutherans that do seem to believe in some sort of need of reconciliation have a closer understanding of the Eucharist whereas the once saved camp generally has very little emphasis on the Lords Supper.

 

[nlm]

Perhaps my wording was not perfect, I tried to make it clear that I was speaking about theology and not individuals. It is not meant to say that protestants are necessarily more sinful or don’t think sin is bad. Granted there is a variety of theologies out there from the “once saved always saved” on one end to Lutherans and Anglicans on the other end of the Protestant spectrum.

The basic idea is that theologically a protestant can commit a very bad sin, die and go straight to heaven under once saved theology. Now if you believe that you are going to receive the Body and Blood of Christ right after say viewing porn or committing murder and knowing it a grave offense against God, how can you approach him and receive His Body which was sacrificed (the same one sacrifice on the cross) for you knowing you just committed one of the sins that caused his sacrifice? The Catholic response is that you can’t you must formally restore your relationship with God before receiving him (although many Catholic sadly do not and still receive him). When the reformers removed the concept of reconciliation it created an incompatibility with the belief in the Eucharist. This is the tie in with the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11.

It is interesting to me that say Lutherans that do seem to believe in some sort of need of reconciliation have a closer understanding of the Eucharist whereas the once saved camp generally has very little emphasis on the Lords Supper.

Thank you for the expanation. Let me start by saying I do not belong to a denomination which teaches the " once saved always saved" theology. It’s quite the opposite. WE are accountable to GOD for our sins. If I commit a very bad sin and die…only God can deal with that. HOWEVER … things look quite grim from a human perspective if you know what I mean!!! We do leave that up to God and His GRACE. Who knows what happens at the moment just prior to death. As for communion, this is how things happen in our denomination. PRIOR to the sharing of the Lord’s Supper, the minister is QUITE clear when he says the following," You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do TRULY and EARNESTLY REPENT of your sin and intend to lead a new life, following the commandements of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near with faith, and take this holy sacremant to your comfort, and meekly make your humble confession to Almighty God." In the “Discipline” of our denomination ,it is writen that,“It is EXPECTED that the minister shall CAREFULLY admonish the people that ONLY those who are in RIGHT relations with God AND with their neighbors should come to the Lord’s table, and that others should come ONLY IF in doing so they are expressing repentence and seeking forgiveness.” You are correct that not all denominations deal with is the same way. This is our way. Thanks again.NLM

 

[whm]

Thank you for the expanation. Let me start by saying I do not belong to a denomination which teaches the " once saved always saved" theology. It’s quite the opposite. WE are accountable to GOD for our sins. If I commit a very bad sin and die…only God can deal with that. HOWEVER … things look quite grim from a human perspective if you know what I mean!!! We do leave that up to God and His GRACE. Who knows what happens at the moment just prior to death. As for communion, this is how things happen in our denomination. PRIOR to the sharing of the Lord’s Supper, the minister is QUITE clear when he says the following," You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do TRULY and EARNESTLY REPENT of your sin and intend to lead a new life, following the commandements of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near with faith, and take this holy sacremant to your comfort, and meekly make your humble confession to Almighty God." In the “Discipline” of our denomination ,it is writen that,“It is EXPECTED that the minister shall CAREFULLY admonish the people that ONLY those who are in RIGHT relations with God AND with their neighbors should come to the Lord’s table, and that others should come ONLY IF in doing so they are expressing repentence and seeking forgiveness.” You are correct that not all denominations deal with is the same way. This is our way. Thanks again.NLM

NLM, thanks for sharing that, your church has a lot of similarities to our beliefs.