Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood

[fhansen]

It makes me a little uncomfortable appealing to the authority of academics on issues that seemed clear to me at the source. Surely when there’s conflict, I should wait with faith that the living God will make the way clear for me, rather than resorting to academic traditions, no?

This is, at its most essential, my problem-- I feel that my prayers WERE answered, and that I was called but too cowardly to answer the calls. Part of my reason for deciding not to answer what seemed to me a shining beacon was that the Catholic clergy warned me against pride, the illusion of private revelation, and so on. I turned away from the Church-- because if what feels like divine inspiration is only the deluded ramblings of an uneducated brain, then where is the motivation to seek or follow it?

Anyway, I ramble and I’m sorry about that. I think I need to read some of the extra-Biblical texts myself-- maybe adding some context will make some of these ideas make sense.

I think you have it backwards here. The academics are involved when one simply picks up a book two millienia after it was written and presumes to interpret it correctly without regard to the lived experience of the group of people-the Church-who first wrote and then later preserved the book (the NT). Anyway, I’ve read highly educated scholars on opposite sides of this issue based on Scripture alone, and have dialogued with people on both sides claiming to be Spirit-led. And yes, the early fathers have much to offer about this.

 

[Carmel]

Another aspect of this topic is the Covenant.
Sacrificial blood sealed the Old Covenant Ex.24:8
" this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" in three of the gospels and in 1 Corinthians
Testament is translated Covenant
A covenant is a solemn commitment guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both covenant parties.
Between God and man it is a relationship with promises of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it. Covenants were often ratified by signs, a solemn oath and a meal.
Sacrifice was often part of the process of ratifying the covenant too - hence the phrase -
to cut a covenant.

 

[rose321]

The Greek word for remembrance here is anamnesis , but this word is almost impossible to translate into English. All the English equivalents ( remembrance, memorial, commemoration ) lay stress on a past event. But anamnesis ( and the Hebrew word which underlies it ) is almost the opposite of this ; it means an action or reenactment by which the person or deed remembered is actually made present - brought into the here and now. The emphasis is not on the past, but on the present.
Another example of anamnesis is the Passover Meal (Seder) celebrated every year by the Israelites. Its a reenactment of the original passover , with the eating of the Passover Lamb which is brought into the present moment . Its ongoing , not just a memory from thousands of years ago.

Respectfully opinion only.

Passover was never a sacrificial Feast day, but they do have an Feast of a Atonement is another yearly Feast Day, our Heavenly Father calls them to gather, to repent>>> in Sept do they not, this is a sacrificial feast day, is it not according to Judaism, still celebrated till this day?

The Passover according to Jesus being Hebrew Israelite was a >>yearly celebration, commanded to be done in memory of when our Heavenly Father took them out of exodus, bondage?

Feast Day of the Passover, was a week long celebration> where our Heavenly Father calls all before him>> to remember what our Heavenly Father had done for them, was it not?

They did not go through another actually exodus did they, of such sufferings while held in bondage, Feast of the Passover was to do so in memory, to recall, to remember that God>>>set them free, he brought about liberation for them and took them out of bondage?

How and why God commands Passover.
Exodus 12:12
Exodus 12:2
13:3

Our Blessed Mother out lived her beloved Son, ( by many years?) lived into old age, did our Blessed Mother >>partake of the Eucharist, if it is literal>> eat the body and blood of her beloved Son also, if lierally or symbolic ? According to their own Torah Laws in the time of Jesus that was a no no, breaking the Torah law was it not? or was it symbolic to her?

Jesus was a Hebrew Israel and according to His Torah Priestly Laws they did not partake of blood right? The blood of the animal sacrifice was poured on the ground right?

Do this in memory?

Apostles, written, seemed to continue observing the weekly Sabbath and entered into Synagogues, (houses of prayers) still did they not and their Temple was not destroyed till 70 Ad almost another 40 years after Jesus died?

Jesus,Apostles times would that not be blasphemy also, according to their own Torah Laws?

Sanhedrin Court the Apostles were brought before and so was Jesus but on what charges?

We have
1 Corinthians 15:56 No flesh and blood shall enter the Kingdom of God

Not to mention all the OT verses Prophets whom Jesus heavily refers to and quotes from, mentioning >>>those who partake of blood>>our Heavenly Father will do what?>> Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, etc Confused is all

Literally or symbolic?
Peace

 

[rose321]

" this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" in three of the gospels and in 1 Corinthians

Respectfully opinion only. Pondering on how the Priestly Laws given celebrated their yearly Feast. Hebrew Israelite Priest did not partake of the blood of the sacrifices did they? Rather they poured the sacrificial animal blood on the ground did they not? For partaking of Blood was a no no within their Torah Laws, Ceremonial Laws, be breaking their Covenant would it not?

Leviticus Priestly Laws given on how they were to offer up a sacrifice is written in OT and many many to many to list of those who partake of blood is it not written within his Spoken Word I will turn my face from those who do? Written in the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, which Jesus heavily refers to in his preaching, teaching and heavily quotes from does he not?

Exodus 32:9 calls them stiff neck people…why?

Why does Jesus being called, known as The Nazerene by Matthew get so angry on the Temple porch with the merchants selling innocent animals to offer up as sacrifices? Animals were a gift from God to us?

What does His Spoken Word written tell us on blood sacrifices?

Isaiah 1:0-11 Hear the word of the Lord you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God your people of Gomorrah! What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord, I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. I do not delight n the Blood of bulls, or of lambs or of goats…

Isaiah 66:3 But he who slays an ox is like one who slays a man…

Jeremiah 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices…yet they did not obey or incline their ear but walked in their own counsel…

Covenant of Noah >>
9:4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is in the blood…
9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human by a human shall that person 's blood be shed for in his own image God made mankind.

1 Samuel 15:22 For you will not delight in sacrifices…

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifices and offerings your did not desire…

James gives out 4 Commandments for gentles did? Written also in St Paul Epistle and in?..

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollution of idols, and fornication, and from the things strangled and from blood.

Sounds like Noah Covenant Laws do they not?

Within his own Spoken Word written all through out the bible, would Jesus being a Hebrew Israelite who obeyed the Torah Laws meant it literally or symbolically?

Written ? All Life is sacred unto me in the blood, destroy it not?
Want to enter the Kingdom obey the Royal Commandments>.Thou shall not…

Peace

 

[Carmel]

Respectfully opinion only. Pondering on how the Priestly Laws given celebrated their yearly Feast. Hebrew Israelite Priest did not partake of the blood of the sacrifices did they? Rather they poured the sacrificial animal blood on the ground did they not? For partaking of Blood was a no no within their Torah Laws, Ceremonial Laws, be breaking their Covenant would it not?

The words of Jesus, our Passover Sacrifice. John 6: 54- 57
" Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you cannot have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day."
It can’t be any clearer than that.
Here is a prophecy from the Old Testament ’ .
Malachi 1:11 For, from the rising of the sun, even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. And you have profaned it in that you say: the table of the Lord is defiled; and that which is laid thereupon is contemptible with the fire that devoureth it

 

[tafan2]

Did you not ask him in reply why it’s ok for him to choose what Jesus taught literally?

 

[rose321]

I’d just like to say that even though Aquinas believed Christ consumed His own body, I don’t find that indicated anywhere in the Bible. I would also be interested in the latest thought about this reasoning by Aquinas.

Respectfully opinion pondering also, would like to know where would Aquinas get such idea after reading the OT and the Torah Laws, Prophets, NT etc about do not partake of blood and where many many other Biblical verses speak on such found within his Spoken Word?
Surly Aquinas read>>
Isaiah 66: But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man

Surely Aquinas being highly learned must of read …
Covenant Laws of Noah? 9:4-7?
Jeremiah 7:22?
Samuel 15:22?
Isaiah 1:10-11?
Psalm 40:6?
Acts 15:20?
Must of known of the 4 Laws given to gentles written in Paul Epistles line up with Noah Covenant Laws?

Noting also when Jesus walked the earth there was no NT not till decades later right? Jesus being a Hebrew Israelite who fully observed and obeyed the Torah Laws, quoting heavily from, referring continually to, His Holy Scriptures the OT right? And rebukes his own Elders, highly learned men within his own Temple scribes=teachers, why?

For Jesus being a Hebrew Isarelite preaching such as being literal, be breaking his own Priestly Torah Laws? Transgress the law thinking it to be literal and not symbolic, spiritual matters, instead?

Just interesting is all where Aquinas gets this concept from is all. Peace

 

[rose321]

The words of Jesus, our Passover Sacrifice. John 6: 54- 57
" Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you cannot have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day."

Respectfully thank you for kind reply when discussing such greatly appreciate and admire one for doing so. Was Jesus speaking about Spiritual matters?

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you brothers and sisters is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen I tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed., in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…

Asking so >>>>what enters the Kingdom?>>Spiritual being, is Jesus speaking about Spiritual matters? It is the Spirit and Word that enters in? Those who believe, live by and obey His Spoken word?

1 Corinthians 10:I -6 Do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless , God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness…

Did our Blessed Mother, being a Hebrew Israelite >>faithfully obeyed the Torah Laws, fully observed all Holy and yearly Feast Days, did she not?

Question, Did our Blessed Mother Mary, who out lived her beloved Son also observed the weekly sabbaths >>>>> literally eat >> drink her Son flesh and blood? Doing so would it break the Torah Laws and the Priestly Laws and The Ten Commandment Law, thou shall not>> also?

In doing so would it not break the Torah Law? Animals sacrifices their blood was poured out upon the ground and the laity did not partake of the sacrifice only the Priest being all Holy on the Altar offered up the sacrifices did they not?

And Noah Covenant Laws>>

Noah 9:4-5 Only, you shall not eat flesh with is life, that is its blood. For your own life blood I will surely require a reckoning : From every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another. I will require a reckoning for human life.

Noah 9:6 Who ever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person blood be shed: for in his own image God made mankind.

Lets not forget the >4 Laws for gentles to obey and given by James, where all agreed even St Paul>>> by the brother of the Lord, written also within St Paul’s own Epistle and identical to the>>> Noah Covenant Law are they not?

Repeated in >>Acts 15:20 but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollution of idols and from fornication and from the things strangled and from blood.

Peace

 

[Carmel]

Simple question Rose
Are you a Catholic? Catholics believe in transubstantiation. That means that during the Consecration , when the Priest pronounce the sacred words " This is my body" " this is my blood " - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus .
If you don’t believe that , then its more likely that you are a jehovah’s witness

 

[rose321]

Simple question Rose
Are you a Catholic? Catholics believe in transubstantiation. That means that during the Consecration , when the Priest pronounce the sacred words " This is my body" " this is my blood " - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus .
If you don’t believe that , then its more likely that you are a jehovah’s witness

Respectfully simple question and will >>truthfully>> answer ones question, yes a Catholic>>> but a Catholic who is questioning and examining this topic question>> Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood, which there are many Catholics who are doing so also are there not?

Jesus also ask many questions to his own Temple Priest? Those being highly learned men? The scribes? The Elders etc did he not why?Jesus even strongly rebuked them did he not in >>Matthew Chapter 23 why? pondering on those things

Interesting how others assume this or that of another?
No not a Jehovah witness either or this or that either. .

But seeking out Truth, free will our Heavenly Father has given us all has he not? Free Will gives us all the right to question, to examine and commanding us also to test all Spirits does he not?

It means the very salvation of our very souls does it not?
If one wants to enter the Kingdom Jesus tells us to obey the Commandments and Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Believe in me I am The Way The Truth and The Life.

Can one give an answer to this simple question also?

Did our Blessed Mother Mary>> who outlived her beloved Son life, also partake eat and drink the blood of her precious son? Searching for answer on this. pondering on

Timothy 3 :16 >> all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient equipped for every good work.
Timothy study study to show thyself approve, even Pope Benedict within his own homilies states >.study study>> also did he not?

Timothy mentions it is for>> Everyone who belongs to God, seek to do so?

Thank you for the question doing so respectfully and I worry not what others think of me, only what my Heavenly Father thinks of me and that I do all that pleases him.

Respectfully toward, Blessings to .Peace

 

[womanatwell]

I’m not familiar with what St. Aquinas said on the matter. I would think Christ was speaking to the future for after his body was beaten, died and risen again. I could be wrong.

In any case, here is an article about it: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-receive-his-own-body-and-blood

Thanks for the reference. The article mentions Bible passages concerning Christ eating with the Disciples at the Last Supper and takes that as an indication that He consumed the Eucharist Himself along with them. I personally don’t think there is a necessary connection, since Christ usually ate with them but only on this special occasion initiated this Sacrament. We all know from the mass His words were directed then to the others.

But, another notable part of the article is when the author, Hector Molina, states that the matter is not settled. I looked Molina up on the link and he has a degree in theology and apparently writes for Catholic Answers and speaks extensively.

 

[womanatwell]

Noting also when Jesus walked the earth there was no NT not till decades later right? Jesus being a Hebrew Israelite who fully observed and obeyed the Torah Laws, quoting heavily from, referring continually to, His Holy Scriptures the OT right? And rebukes his own Elders, highly learned men within his own Temple scribes=teachers, why?

For Jesus being a Hebrew Isarelite preaching such as being literal, be breaking his own Priestly Torah Laws? Transgress the law thinking it to be literal and not symbolic, spiritual matters, instead?

Just interesting is all where Aquinas gets this concept from is all.

Jesus brought about a New Covenant, as you alluded to concerning Paul’s Epistles. In my understanding, Paul expressed that people were not capable of earning their salvation through the Law. Even though the Law was there, individuals fell short. As he writes in Romans 3, God offered Jesus Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood. Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, which He did. But He also called for changes in understanding.

You are right to see this as a very hard teaching for the Jews. This is what we’ve been talking about in John 6, where Christ presented the concept of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Didn’t He even ask His own disciples if they wanted to leave? Maybe that included His mother. But:

"Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:68, NIV).

The followers of Jesus had seen many miraculous things by that time, so perhaps it was not as hard for some of them to adjust as others found it to be.

 

[rose321]

"Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:68, NIV).

Respectfully toward and agree with, one is correct >>whom shall we go, You have the>>Words>>of eternal life. Peace

 

[Benadam]

You needn’t feel judged. Accused of knowingly causing an offense yes. I hope perhaps now you do understand the gravity of the offense vs71 doubted you understood. Which should have been enough for one after God’s own heart to not ever do again. There is no good purpose only bad one’s. It doesn’t serve the transparency in dialogue that speaking plainly seeks. If you include words that close minds in your definition of plain speaking you need a redefinition…

I hope you understand that the term ‘cracker’ when said of the Eucharist to a Catholic is no different than saying that’s what God is…

If you have sorrow about unnecessary offence to fellow humans I haven’t detected that in your words…I hope the Catholic faith doesn’t reduce in your mind the dignityof a human.
.

 

[benjamin1973]

I apologized for saying that someone could eat “as many crackers” as they wanted. That made the Eucharistic wafers sound like party snacks, which I thought in retrospect was highly offensive. For saying that, I’m sorry and a little embarrassed. I’m interested in talking about whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively, not in undermining the sacred nature of that unique Catholic ritual.

As for the word “cracker.” I’ve never eaten a communion wafer, so I don’t know whether they are crunchy, chewy, or soft. However, I did actually look up the ingredients, and the Catholic wafers, if not crackers, are made of the same ingredients as hardtack: flour and water, and have a similar property-- they do not easily spoil.

Taking offense over the word “cracker” is something that is a little surprising for me. My understanding of the Eucharist is that it is the Words of Institution by which a normal wheat product (wafers, crackers, unleavened bread, or whatever it would normally be called) is transformed miraculously into the body of Christ. It seems to me that “just a cracker” should be fine, since the transformation of that simple object into something so much greater is a testament to the power of the Lord in our lives.

But I said if anyone else was offended, I would leave these forums. You have now confirmed that to be the case, so I think I must make good on my promise. Let me in parting say a couple of things:

1. I’ve found the members on catholic.com to be extremely accommodating and intelligent in argument. Thank you for engaging with me.
2. My reason for not joining the Church as a young man, when I often read the Bible several hours a day and was more earnest and diligent in my pursuit of religious truth, is confirmed. Specifically, I find a little too much emphasis on the traditions, rituals, and history of men, and not enough on faith and a personal relationship with the Living God all around us. I don’t mean this as insult, but as my own personal reason for being unable to join the Catholic Church in good faith.
3. I sincerely hope that among the Christian traditions, the Catholic denomination takes hold more strongly. Works of charity and goodwill are needed more than ever, and the Catholic institution is definitely in a position to regain much of its importance in modern Western societies.

Farewell, friends, and thank you. It’s been a pleasure!

 

[cody.helscel]

I feel like I’ve been in your situation before where people misunderstand and misinterpret what I say very often. It happens to me on Facebook. You have not offended me. Rather, it’s on them to work towards understanding what you mean.

I didn’t even think twice about your reference to a "cracker’ as being the wafer.

 

[BoomerangToo]

If I quit this forum because I offended someone, I’d be quitting about every other day. Don’t leave. Stick around and ask more questions. Reminds me of when Jesus said, “You will always have the poor…” only on the internet it should be, “You will always have the perpetually offended!”

 

[rose321]

The article mentions Bible passages concerning Christ eating with the Disciples at the Last Supper and takes that as an indication that He consumed the Eucharist Himself along with them.

Respectfully opinion only pondering on
Did Jesus celebrate the Passover? Pope Benedict one of the greatest theologians, wrote many books, one called > The Last Supper>> hope I got that book Title right,. addressing this?

Maybe he did and maybe he did not? celebrate the supper of the Passover?

First Day of unleaven bread is not the day of>>Passover celebration, meal, is it, which is mention when Jesus tells his Apostles to prepare for the >>>First << Day of unleaven bread?

Passover last for a week 7 -8 days and during those 7 days there are >>>>3 Holy Sabbaths>>> that fall within that one week, are there not?

There are 3 Holy Sabbaths in One week that are celebrated>>> during the>> Passover is there not?

First, Low Sabbath>.First Day of unleavened bread is it?
Second>>High Sabbath>>this is Passover Day, we call Holy Thursday? (One can check out what day next year the Passover falls on? )
Third >.Weekly Sabbath

There was no meat on the plate when Jesus celebrated the <>>First >>>Day of Unleaven Bread was there, nor is there meat on his plate is there, why?.

Next Jesus was a Nazorean or Nazareene and was known and called >>The Nazorean or The Nazareene and mentioned in Matthew Gospel, Jesus was a Nazareene?

What were their beliefs? rituals? how did they live? where did they live? etc>>later they became known as Ebonites also.

James the Brother of the Lord, was a Nazareene who drank no strong drink and was a Vegan, was he not?
This James also was head of the Jerusalem Mother Assembly in Jerusalem for 32 years immed after Jesus death was he not? Written also in St Paul Epistles he meets with this James mentioned in Acts 15: also?

This James brother of the Lord, >>> is the one also who gives St Paul the>> 4 Laws for gentles if they desire to enter the fold of faith and belief, did he not in St Paul Epistles Acts, were all agree also>>gives The Covenant of the Noah Laws to the gentles?

James the Brother of the Lord gives St Paul, St Peter those present in the counsel meeting where all agree? >> The 4 Covenant Laws of Noah to the gentles>>>Genesis 9 :4 -8

Literal or symbolic? Noah Covenant Laws make it clear was it literal or symbolic?

John Baptist >>drank >>no>>strong drink nor ate meat, written we are told he ate only >>milk honey, locust and drank no strong drink did he also?

Prophecy when he comes, he will drink no strong drink?
Prophecy mentions he will come from the Nazir ( means branch >>Nazir etc identical meaning Nazoreene, Nazarenee etc.
Jesus tells us >>>He is the vine we are the branches> Nazir?

Peace just opinion only in searching was it meant Literally or symbolic>> Covenant of Noah makes it clear symbolic does it?
Peace

 

[womanatwell]

Hi rose321,

I’m afraid I have to work on painting my house this morning so I will try to get back to you later today. I do want to give you a few references. Pope Benedict XVI talks about the Last Supper in his book, Jesus of Nazareth Part II. The Catholic Herald has an online article about it at:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/03/02/pope-benedict xvi-the-last supper/

Also, Pope Benedict XVI wrote about Jesus being a Nazarene in his book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. The subject is in the section called “Flight Into Egypt and Return to the Land of Israel.”

 

[rose321]

Pope Benedict XVI talks about the Last Supper in his book, Jesus of Nazareth Part II . The Catholic Herald has an online article about it at:

Respectfully thank you for the info. I have read both books or was it a book and then gave them to other family members to read, a couple of years back I believe.

Have to go over them again thou, believe I remember who I lent it to. Just, was not sure on the title thou, thought it was Jesus of Nazareth >Last Supper, or just Last Supper, but one is correct I now recall Jesus of Nazareth>>Last Supper, where he discusses this.
Do not know why, but I just remember within his book it saying>> when all was examined by Pope Benedict XV1 etc and done, was>>>> Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t,<<<

I remember’s a bit about discussing this book >> with others at the time. So when I finished reading it, I lent the book out for others to read, for they also greatly admired >>Pope Benedict XV1>>>>> as being one of our greatest theologians and enjoy always reading his books.

The reason for writing the book as such and I could be wrong was >>>because of a French Scholar or Theologian questioning> examining>>> if Jesus ate the Passover meal, because it was written within the Bible>>>Greek etc>>>>>.On the first Day of unleaven bread…this meal was eaten.

Thus Pope Benedict might of responded to this and I stand to be corrected on also?

Something like that was taking place at the time, some experts in this field of study, other Scholars or other theologians>>>>> were >>>>questioning and examining this >>if Jesus did eat the Passover meal. >>>>for as it is written within the Bible >>On the first day of Unleaven bread>>this took place >>> .

Anyway >>womanatwell>> Thank you again for your kind, informed reply and hope all is going well with painting the house.

Peace : Enjoyed our discussion also!! lightly_smiling_face: