Help me get past cannibalism

[youngsaint]

It makes perfect since that we are abiding fully in Christ when we partake in communion because we being body and soul we abide fully in Christ body and spirit. But why eat his body to be fully united to his body? I know because that is how God has established things but why? I’m looking at more theological reasons there have to be some great minds out there who have discussed this. I want to better understand it as they do.

When we receive his body and blood, we take him in inside of us. We have “his blood” and are then part of his holy family, the church.

 

[SPH1]

Even those who do not believe in the real presence are practicing symbolic cannibalism when they perform their communion service. “This is my body; this is the cup of my blood.” If you want to go on that train, the whole communion service is cannibalistic however you interpret it.

 

[Odell]

I found this. Maybe ythis is why it was hard for some to accept his teaching. They do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I found three passages in the bible that pertain to cannibalism.

Lev 26:29
Jeremiah 19:9
Ezekiel 5:9-10

 

[Louemma]

This thread is a little on the dark side,eating dead people and all
The Lord’s supper is symbolic and it did not require eating of the physcial body,which is probably a good thing because I can’t imagine too many folks taking communion if this was the case.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The Lord’s supper is symbolic

yes, but not only symbolic.

God, the Lord of Creation, has power such that He need not be limited to only bare symbolism.

Hence, the Eucharist.
VC

 

[jpjd]

As to why Christ Himself is the sacrament, Augustine and Aquinas both say that whereas bodily food is incorporated into the body of the one who consumes it, spiritual food, like the Eucharist, incorporates the consumer into the consumed. Thus in consuming the Eucharist we are incorporated into Christ.

I realize you are referencing Augustine and Aquinas, but could you elaborate on this? Is there any other spiritual food other than the Eucharist? and
Why is it that with spiritual food it works in reverse, i.e. the consumer is incorporated in to the consumed?

 

[Louemma]

yes, but not only symbolic.

God, the Lord of Creation, has power such that He need not be limited to only bare symbolism.

Hence, the Eucharist.
VC

I’m not comprehending what you mean.Of course the partaking of the Body of Christ is symbolic and not literally eating a person.If we know the Jewish laws we understand this
(1) Eating people is a grave sin
(2) A Jewish person is considered unclean after touching the dead.
(3) This is why there is an Islamic grave yard outside of the Eastern gate in Jerusalem(interesting reason for this,one can research if interested).A Jew will not walk through the tombs or they are considered unclean,according to the laws of Moses.(Many Jews believe evil spirits live among the tombs,remember the story of Legion,he lived among the tombs)
So with this given history,Jesus being Jew and his disciples being Jewish are not going to be partaking in eating one another.
Completely symbolic.God is not into cannibalism in the sense of literal but spiritual.
This goes under the file with snake handling

 

[VociMike]

I’m not comprehending what you mean.Of course the partaking of the Body of Christ is symbolic and not literally eating a person.If we know the Jewish laws we understand this
(1) Eating people is a grave sin

But what makes it a grave sin? And does that which makes it a grave sin apply to consuming Christ in the Eucharist?

(2) A Jewish person is considered unclean after touching the dead.

Does this apply to Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Louemma]

But what makes it a grave sin? And does that which makes it a grave sin apply to consuming Christ in the Eucharist?

Does this apply to Christ in the Eucharist?

To tell you the truth I will research what this Christ in Eucharist is
But I am 100% certain that Jesus would not have anyone eat a person for real
And how do some come to the belief that it is a literal body eating Lord’s supper?That’s funny but hey,anyone up for cannibalism might get a disease This might shorten the journey a little:thumbsup:

 

[VociMike]

To tell you the truth I will research what this Christ in Eucharist is
But I am 100% certain that Jesus would not have anyone eat a person for real

But why not? What is bad about eating a person for real, and does that bad thing happen when consuming Christ in the Eucharist?

And how do some come to the belief that it is a literal body eating Lord’s supper?

Can you point to any authoritative teaching before the Protestant Reformation that says it is not the real, substantive body of Christ?

 

[Louemma]

But why not? What is bad about eating a person for real, and does that bad thing happen when consuming Christ in the Eucharist?

Can you point to any authoritative teaching before the Protestant Reformation that says it is not the real, substantive body of Christ?

I could say that I am not going on any other teachings,not Catholic,not Protestant but the word of God.Now in having said that,let me ask you, would this literal body of Christ the disciples supposedly ate cooked or did Jesus lop off a finger and the disciples started munching down,oohhh crazy topic

 

[VociMike]

I could say that I am not going on any other teachings,not Catholic,not Protestant but the word of God.Now in having said that,let me ask you, would this literal body of Christ the disciples supposedly ate cooked or did Jesus lop off a finger and the disciples started munching down,oohhh crazy topic

When you read the Last Supper accounts you will read in exactly what form the disciples consumed the real and substantial body of Christ.

 

[Louemma]

When you read the Last Supper accounts you will read in exactly what form the disciples consumed the real and substantial body of Christ.

He broke bread and drank wine.
The bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood.
If you say the disciples literally took a bite out of Jesus then okaaaay

 

[Randy_Carson]

He broke bread and drank wine.
The bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood.
If you say the disciples literally took a bite out of Jesus then okaaaay

Of course they didn’t. However, they still ate the body of Christ and drank His blood. He held his own body in His own hands when He offered the “bread” to the disciples. This is not cannibalism.

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He broke bread

and then said, “This is my body” at which point it was no longer bread.

and drank wine.

Jesus did not drink wine. The scriptures are clear on this point.

The Apostles did not drink wine, either. Jesus said, “This is the cup of my blood” at which point the cup no longer contained wine.

 

[FiberZilla]

To tell you the truth I will research what this Christ in Eucharist is
But I am 100% certain that Jesus would not have anyone eat a person for real
And how do some come to the belief that it is a literal body eating Lord’s supper?That’s funny but hey,anyone up for cannibalism might get a disease This might shorten the journey a little:thumbsup:

There is some very strong language in John 6 that seems to suggest that we are supposed to eat Jesus flesh literally. But careful study of the way Jesus taught, particularly to non-believers who were present makes it clear that Jesus words were a sharp rebuke to these non believers who were seeking nothing more than a free breakfast and not eternal life. These non-believers had just witnessed Jesus feeding five thousand the day before. This was simply the way Jesus taught. There are many examples of this teaching style in John’s gospel.

*“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” John 4:13-15

"Jesus declared: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” John 3:3-4

'Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:52-53)*

Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.” (John 6:31-34)

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” (John 6:41-42)

In none of the above examples was Jesus speaking about physical water, physical birth, physical flesh or physical bread. That does not mean that the Lord’s supper is merely a cracker or wafer with no significance. It does indeed represent the very body and blood of Jesus given on the cross for the salvation of our souls.

 

[FiberZilla]

The Apostles did not drink wine, either. Jesus said, “This is the cup of my blood” at which point the cup no longer contained wine.

I’m sorry Randy, it is still wine. It has great significance and represents the precious blood of the Savior but it is still wine. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15:20 the Gentile christians are commanded to abstain from blood. This command is repeated in verse 29. Christians are not supposed to drink blood.

 

[Cristian_B]

The Apostles did not drink wine, either. Jesus said, “This is the cup of my blood” at which point the cup no longer contained wine.

I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

The fruit of vine is grapes; wine is made from grapes.

 

[Louemma]

Of course they didn’t. However, they still ate the body of Christ and drank His blood. He held his own body in His own hands when He offered the “bread” to the disciples. This is not cannibalism.

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

Randy I know the disciples did not take a bite out of Jesus.I was just having a little fun here
However there are some that may be fundamentalist in the word but common sense will kick in to discerning the word and thus the fundamentalist realize there are parts of the Bible that is symbolic such as eating Jesus or drinking poison or handling snakes.
You are correct about the wine,however we understand that wine was a most common and basic drink in those days and by this we assume they were in fact drinking wine.However what they were really drinking is of no significance but rather what the drink represents and we know the Catholics and Protestants don’t agree over the drinking of real wine so we drink grape juice and that pretty well works out too.
Glad to know that with 6 million Catholics in the world,they don’t eat people periodically:bigyikes: