Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[brkn1]

Jesus IS God. The Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment He spoke.

I know that Jesus is the God Man.
Where did you come up with the idea that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment Jesus spoke?
Every word that Jesus spoke was from the Father. (Deut. 18:18)
How could Jesus be described as coming to fulfill all the requirements of that law, if they are invalid?
Every one of those laws by God were pointing to and preparing for the Messiah, which was Jesus.
God was very specific about the law of no drinking of any manner of blood.
Since we all agree that God is not a God of confusion, it must follow that the law of not drinking any blood still applied at that time.

 

[ibkc]

I know that Jesus is the God Man.
Where did you come up with the idea that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment Jesus spoke?
Every word that Jesus spoke was from the Father. (Deut. 18:18)
How could Jesus be described as coming to fulfill all the requirements of that law, if they are invalid?
Every one of those laws by God were pointing to and preparing for the Messiah, which was Jesus.
God was very specific about the law of no drinking of any manner of blood.
Since we all agree that God is not a God of confusion, it must follow that the law of not drinking any blood still applied at that time.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the old laws. And made new ones. Jesus was very specific that to have eternal life, we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Does that offend you?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know that Jesus is the God Man.
Where did you come up with the idea that the Old Testament laws were no longer valid at the very moment Jesus spoke?
Every word that Jesus spoke was from the Father. (Deut. 18:18)
How could Jesus be described as coming to fulfill all the requirements of that law, if they are invalid?
Every one of those laws by God were pointing to and preparing for the Messiah, which was Jesus.
God was very specific about the law of no drinking of any manner of blood.
Since we all agree that God is not a God of confusion, it must follow that the law of not drinking any blood still applied at that time.

Hello brkn1,

Jesus fulfilled the law by explaining the law because it appears the laws had been misconstrued. For example I offer the following scriptures.

Mark 2:23 - 28
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Keeping the sabbath was, as we all know, one of God’s commandments. This commandment had evidently been misconstrued, as Jesus is pointing out to the Pharisees.

You contend Jesus would not have told his apostles to drink his blood because of the old law. We have explained that Jesus is the new covenant and was in a process of replacing the old covenants with his teachings. One of the verses you offered up as proof that the law was clear about not drinking blood was Leviticus 17:11, which explained why they should not drink the blood.

**Lev 17:11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul. **

Leviticus 17:11 specifically explains the blood may be used for an expiation of the soul.

If as you say, Jesus was not replacing old law, wouldn’t He still have instructed those sinners around Him to use blood from beasts as an expiation of the soul so their sins would be forgiven them, instead of forgiving them Himself?

Below are scriptures where Jesus told people their sins were forgiven.

**Mat 9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Luk 7:48 And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. **

This the scribes did not believe and thought evil things about Jesus.

**Mat 9:3 And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts? **

To me, this is an example of Jesus was, at the time, implementing or demonstrating the new covenant through He, Himself, forgiving sins.

Since He knew He was going to be the sacrificial lamb, He gave new instructions on using the blood of that lamb according to the new covenant he was bringing about.

Once more, I kindly ask that you address other posts I have made to you in this thread. I have put in a considerable amount of time reading, researching, reflecting and posting to provide information for your consideration and would certainly appreciate in hearing your thoughts.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Hello brkn1,

Jesus fulfilled the law by explaining the law because it appears the laws had been misconstrued. For example I offer the following scriptures.

Mark 2:23 - 28
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Keeping the sabbath was, as we all know, one of God’s commandments. This commandment had evidently been misconstrued, as Jesus is pointing out to the Pharisees.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

The key verse is (Mark 2:27): “…The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”

Jesus was not invadidating the Law that work was not to be done on the sabbath. Jesus was pointing out that the letter of the Law was not meant to be enforced if it imposed unnecessary hardship on a man that was trying to follow God’s Law.
The example of the Pharisees used about the plucking of corn was not even a correct example of breaking the Law. Jesus and His disciples were not harvesting the corn with a sickle etc., but rather were obeying the Law that allowed people to pluck the ears with their hand to eat.
An example of the extreme and incorrect imposition of the Law happened when the Jews were attacked once and they were slaughtered because they would not fight on the sabbath. They figured out by the next sabbath, that obeying the Law in that manner was not what God intended and they routed the enemy that tried that again.
Jesus was not breaking, changing, or invalidating the Law of the sabbath. This example can not be used to allow for drinking blood.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The key verse is (Mark 2:27): “…The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”

Jesus was not invadidating the Law that work was not to be done on the sabbath. Jesus was pointing out that the letter of the Law was not meant to be enforced if it imposed unnecessary hardship on a man that was trying to follow God’s Law.
The example of the Pharisees used about the plucking of corn was not even a correct example of breaking the Law. Jesus and His disciples were not harvesting the corn with a sickle etc., but rather were obeying the Law that allowed people to pluck the ears with their hand to eat.
An example of the extreme and incorrect imposition of the Law happened when the Jews were attacked once and they were slaughtered because they would not fight on the sabbath. They figured out by the next sabbath, that obeying the Law in that manner was not what God intended and they routed the enemy that tried that again.
Jesus was not breaking, changing, or invalidating the Law of the sabbath. This example can not be used to allow for drinking blood.

Hello brkn1,

You’re not going to address my thoughts on Leviticus 17:11 and what it meant as compared to our Lord forgiving sins? You disregard my entire thoughts on this being an example of him, being the new covenant therefore replacing the old covenant?

I not understanding why you choose which arguements to respond too or why you avoid others.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

You contend Jesus would not have told his apostles to drink his blood because of the old law. We have explained that Jesus is the new covenant and was in a process of replacing the old covenants with his teachings. One of the verses you offered up as proof that the law was clear about not drinking blood was Leviticus 17:11, which explained why they should not drink the blood.

**Lev 17:11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul. **

Leviticus 17:11 specifically explains the blood may be used for an expiation of the soul.

If as you say, Jesus was not replacing old law, wouldn’t He still have instructed those sinners around Him to use blood from beasts as an expiation of the soul so their sins would be forgiven them, instead of forgiving them Himself?

The blood was never to be used for drinking in order to provide for the expiation of the soul. This argument makes no sense.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The blood was never to be used for drinking in order to provide for the expiation of the soul. This argument makes no sense.

You answer is not satisfactory as the demonstration was to make the arguement that Christ was replacing the old covenant with the new, which you said did not yet come to pass. I presented the arguement of why the Lord changed the covenant to allow drinking his purified blood, but your arguement was he had not yet changed the covenant.

Are you going to respond to my other posts?

I am about ready to give up the arguement. I have spent considerable time to respond with logical, read, researched and reflected over posts just to be ignored or taken out of context as with the example above or in the example you displayed with my questions about the canon of the Bible. To remind you, you said after my post, that I must be trying to give evidence of why the Catholic Bible had the seven “extra” books as you put it. I clarified it so you could see I wasn’t doing that and you still ignored my posts.

It appears that you’ve run out of answers to me. I have tried to communicate with you using an open mind to see how you perceive things and I feel you haven’t shown me the same courtesy.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I found something else that shows, in my opinion, that Christ was, during his life, changing man’s interpretations of the old covenant as well as in the process of making changes by the implementation of the new covenant.

I understand the old covenant did not allow men to drink/consume blood as well as, according to the men of those times understanding, eat certain foods that were not allowed.

Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.
Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:17 And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him:
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.

To me it seems, then Jesus was making all foods clean through the new covenant and not later as some have contended. In my opinion, with these statements the Lord wasn’t instructing anyone against the covenants of God by instructing His apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[mangy_dog]

I’m leaning toward accepting the literal body and blood argument, but am still unsure. I’d hate to have Jesus tell me on the last day that it was only symbolic, and that I had been committing idolatry.

It’s a problem with my conscience, so I’m careful not to embrace it fully without knowing for sure.

Well,

consider this. That story - you know, the one where Jesus has all his disciples around Him (not just the apostles were there). That day Jesus is going on and on about how you have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and that if you don’t, you won’t have life in you because His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink…and He went on and on and on about His body and blood.

Now consider also that He was talking to a people and a time in which blood or contact with blood was horrifying - let alone drinking blood! let alone drinking a man’s blood!!

Their minds must’ve been reeling. And consequently, that day a lot of disciples of Jesus…were not disciples anymore. These were good men, good disciples.

Why would Jesus let them walk away if He meant it as a symbol?

Why didn’t He go after them and say, “Hey, wait!! I meant a symbol of my body and a symbol of my blood”] “you didn’t really think I was talking about my real body and blood - did you?”

Jesus didn’t say anything… But it doesn’t end there! At that moment He turns to his apostles…

Peter, being the de facto spokesperson for the apostles must’ve been getting ear-fulls of comments from his fellow apostles…when suddenly they notice that Jesus has turned to them and asks,

" And you, what are you going to do?"

They too understood the reason for the other disciples leaving and quite frankly and logically probably didn’t blame them but…

Peter said, (and they all were in agreement) “to whom shall we go Lord, you have the words of life.”

Now c’mon home to the catholic church and quit lolly gaggin’ around.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris LaRock
I’m leaning toward accepting the literal body and blood argument, but am still unsure. I’d hate to have Jesus tell me on the last day that it was only symbolic, and that I had been committing idolatry.

It’s a problem with my conscience, so I’m careful not to embrace it fully without knowing for sure.

Chris.

how could you ever know anything for sure. you believe in Jesus by faith right?
so is everything that he thought we are to embrace by faith because we know He spoke the Truth.

"This is the mystery of faith, when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus Christ, until you come in Glory."

the Peace of God the Father and Our Lord the Christ be with you.

 

[brkn1]

I found something else that shows, in my opinion, that Christ was, during his life, changing man’s interpretations of the old covenant as well as in the process of making changes by the implementation of the new covenant.

I understand the old covenant did not allow men to drink/consume blood as well as, according to the men of those times understanding, eat certain foods that were not allowed.

Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.
Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:17 And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him:
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.

To me it seems, then Jesus was making all foods clean through the new covenant and not later as some have contended. In my opinion, with these statements the Lord wasn’t instructing anyone against the covenants of God by instructing His apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

Jesus was not changing scripture. He was fulfilling it.
Jesus said, “If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and (the scripture cannot be broken);” (John 10:35)
God’s word will stand forever.

Before the Law was even written during Moses’ time, God emphasised no eating blood. “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye NOT eat.” (Genesis 9:4)

As for your interpretation that all foods are now clean, there are three verses that I can point to in Acts that strongly disagree with that assumption.
“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and FROM BLOOD,…” (Acts 15:29)

“As touching the Gentiles which believe,…, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and FROM BLOOD,…” (Acts 21:25)

“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and FROM BLOOD.” (Acts 15:20)

An exception would have been noted, if the literal drinking of Jesus’ blood were true. These were new Christians Paul was instructing. The instructions needed to be clear if there were any exceptions, or it would have been confusing to them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus was not changing scripture. He was fulfilling it.

Hello brkn1,

Even though you seem to pick and choose which posts you are willing to respond too, I will address your most recent post for the benefit of those who may be reading through these.

Do you remember when I posted the following?

The law not to drink blood was from pagan sacrifices where they would kill a bull for example and drink it’s blood to receive it’s strength. Drinking the blood of a false God was prohibited. To drink the blood of our Lord, the real God, as he asks, gives spiritual strength instead.

Strangling back then was breaking the neck of the animal, then they ate it.

This pertains to the “to idols” in the scriptures you have provided above. Jews were instructed to slit the throats of their sacrifices which separated them from the pagan rite. Remember the verse you provided from Leviticus. The blood was used for the expiation of the soul. At this point, I again bring up that the covenant was indeed being rewritten by Christ or He would have continued instructing those around him to do this for the forgivness of their sins instead of forgiving sins himself.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then our good be evil spoken of.

Christ’s followers are to abstain from those things he does through good that causes his brothers to stumble. (Note that these were instructions written by St. Paul to the Romans, who were considered pagans in those times…Romans who did sacrifices as in my quote above.)

Act 15:19 For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath.

This comes from the conversion of Jews and Gentiles and the cultural differences. Eating things offered to idols or stangled was not allowed. These instructions were being given to Gentile Christians so they would not cause Jewish Christians to stumble on their path to seeking God because Jewish Christians were well versed with Moses as his writings were read every sabbath. In my opinion, this was to ease the merging of the two cultures.

brkn1 said, As for your interpretation that all foods are now clean, there are three verses that I can point to in Acts that strongly disagree with that assumption.

I am surprised you use verses to continue your argument that eating of certain things was still unclean after I offered you the very words of our Lord saying nothing was unclean in Mark 7:15 - 19. Are you saying there is a contradiction in the Bible? Who was wrong, Jesus or the apostles? I say the apostles were using the teaching of Christ that all foods were now clean as our Lord saw the problems mixing the cultures by sending out the apostles to convert all nations.

brkn1 said,The instructions needed to be clear if there were any exceptions, or it would have been confusing to them.

I can understand what you’re saying here. Several Catholics have brought this up to you repeatedly referencing the teaching of our Lord. Does it get any clearer than what I have bolded below?

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Joh 6:66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

Sounds like many of his disciples were confused in John 6:66, doesn’t it?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Before the law came during Moses’ time, God said the very same thing about eating every moving thing, which He showed in a vision to Peter with the scroll that came down from heaven.
After Jesus fulfilled the Law, many of the Mosaic ordinances no longer applied to the New Testament time of Grace which is still in effect now.
We can go back to the time of Noah in the sense of what we can eat: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” (Gen.9:3)

(Genesis 9:4): “BUT flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye NOT eat.”

God was not talking just about blood sacrificed to idols here. God was not allowing man to eat blood.
You can twist scripture all you want, but God made that law from Noah’s time till now. No eating literal blood.
No one literally ate Jesus’ blood in scripture.
The wine is symbolic of Jesus’ blood; and drinking that wine is not even doing what Jesus told us, when He said to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
We eat His flesh and drink His blood when we come to Him in true faith and believe in Him.
You want to add carnal works to that saving faith, which Romans makes clear can not save us . It is faith alone in Jesus alone that saves, not also carnal works and imaginings of man’s wisdom.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You can twist scripture all you want, but God made that law from Noah’s time till now. No eating literal blood.

brkn1,

brkn1 said, As for your interpretation that all foods are now clean, there are three verses that I can point to in Acts that strongly disagree with that assumption.

Prodigal Son1 said, I am surprised you use verses to continue your argument that eating of certain things was still unclean after I offered you the very words of our Lord saying nothing was unclean in Mark 7:15 - 19. Are you saying there is a contradiction in the Bible? Who was wrong, Jesus or the apostles? I say the apostles were using the teaching of Christ that all foods were now clean as our Lord saw the problems mixing the cultures by sending out the apostles to convert all nations.

I posted the above quotes from both of us to show you, I am not twisting anything. I find your wording to be an uncharitable response. As for both of our entire posts, I will let them speak for themselves.

On the subject of Real Presence, I guess we should just agree to disagree as I see you are going to pick and choose what you are willing to respond to. You have ignored several requests of mine to respond to specific posts, where I spent time reading, researching, reflecting and posting facts. I must assume you have no answers to those issues or you are unwilling to discuss them for whatever reasons.

Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.

Continue your search for God and I will do the same.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

brkn1:

Before the law came during Moses’ time, God said the very same thing about eating every moving thing, which He showed in a vision to Peter with the scroll that came down from heaven.
After Jesus fulfilled the Law, many of the Mosaic ordinances no longer applied to the New Testament time of Grace which is still in effect now.
We can go back to the time of Noah in the sense of what we can eat: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” (Gen.9:3)

(Genesis 9:4): “BUT flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye NOT eat.”

Jesus said that he is the bread of life,and he gave his disciples bread,saying “Take and eat. This is my body”. So either he was sacreligious,or he was the Word incarnate,and was giving a new commandment to be taken as literally as the one in Genesis 9:4.
If the bread and wine are merely symbolic,then Jesus was merely symbolic.

God was not talking just about blood sacrificed to idols here. God was not allowing man to eat blood.

Than why would Jesus even suggest such a thing? Evidently,that is one of the Mosaic ordinances that Jesus made an exception to.

You can twist scripture all you want, but God made that law from Noah’s time till now. No eating literal blood.
No one literally ate Jesus’ blood in scripture.

Where is the word “literal” to be found in scripture? What would “literal body” have meant to the apostles,who saw the risen Christ in the flesh and saw him ascend into heaven?

The wine is symbolic of Jesus’ blood; and drinking that wine is not even doing what Jesus told us, when He said to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

The wine is both symbol of his blood and actually his blood.
But Jesus did not say that the wine is symbolic. He said “This is my blood”.

We eat His flesh and drink His blood when we come to Him in true faith and believe in Him.

Scripture does not say that. Paul says this: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

You want to add carnal works to that saving faith, which Romans makes clear can not save us . It is faith alone in Jesus alone that saves, not also carnal works and imaginings of man’s wisdom.

St. Paul was referring to Jewish ritual works,such as circumcision.
He was not referring to works of charity and mercy and self-sacrifice. Those works are a matter of following the commandments of morality. Doing those works can indeed save us,as is clear from Matthew 25,31-46. Paul warned that unless we continue in God’s kindness,we may be cut off from salvation. To continue in God’s kindness means to keep his commandments. We must not only believe in Jesus,but follow him.

John 15,9-14

9: As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.

10: If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

11: These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.

12: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

13: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14: You are my friends if you do what I command you.

 

[brkn1]

Jesus said that he is the bread of life,and he gave his disciples bread,saying “Take and eat. This is my body”. So either he was sacreligious,or he was the Word incarnate,and was giving a new commandment to be taken as literally as the one in Genesis 9:4.
If the bread and wine are merely symbolic,then Jesus was merely symbolic.

Where is the word “literal” to be found in scripture? What would “literal body” have meant to the apostles,who saw the risen Christ in the flesh and saw him ascend into heaven?

The wine is both symbol of his blood and actually his blood.
But Jesus did not say that the wine is symbolic. He said “This is my blood”.

Your statement about the wine being “both symbol of His blood and actually His blood” demonstrates the confusion that results from not understanding Jesus when He said," It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Go back to (John 6:56). “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
If you insist that “eateth” and “drinketh” are literally physical, then it should follow that you literally and physically have Jesus living inside you and you also literally and physically live inside Jesus.
We know that is literally impossible and what is meant has to do with spiritually dwelling in each other.
The eating and drinking are also meant to be spiritually understood, just as the dwelling is spiritually speaking.

The idea of the bread and wine being symbolic in a spiritual sense does not also require that “Jesus was merely symbolic”. That sort of logic is childish and you know it.

Much of what Jesus said had to do with spiritual matters and that is why many could not understand Him.
A good example of this was in Chapter 5 when Jesus spoke of John as a “burning and a shining light” v.35. This was spiritually speaking.
Jesus told His enemies that, "Ye have neither heard His (the Father’s) voice at any time, nor seen His shape."v.37
This also had to be spiritually speaking, since they probably heard the Father’s voice physically at Jesus’ baptism by John.
Because their ears were not spiritually openned by God to understand, they did not hear God spiritually and were unable to savingly believe in Jesus or the Father’s words.

It follows that the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ words were far more important than any physical understanding of them.
To remain in the physical understanding is to be where Nicodemus and the woman at the well were, when they could not understand Jesus’ words.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The idea of the bread and wine being symbolic in a spiritual sense does not also require that “Jesus was merely symbolic”. That sort of logic is childish and you know it.

Mat 18:3 And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(Genesis 9:4): “BUT flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye NOT eat.”

Pagans would drink the blood of sacrifices thinking it would put the life of the sacrifice inside them. This was for example to gain the characteristics of that sacrifice. A warrior would drink the blood of a bull to gain it’s life in hopes it would aid him in battle.

Catholics drink the blood of the unblemished Lamb of God to have his life within us to gain the characteristics of the Lord within us.

You are very right Anthony022071.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

[brkn1]

Your statement about the wine being “both symbol of His blood and actually His blood” demonstrates the confusion that results from not understanding Jesus when He said," It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Yes,the Spirit bought back to life the body of Christ. And he still exists bodily. He is still the Son of Man. He is still true God and true man. That is how we receive him in the Eucharist – body and spirit.

Go back to (John 6:56). “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
If you insist that “eateth” and “drinketh” are literally physical, then it should follow that you literally and physically have Jesus living inside you and you also literally and physically live inside Jesus.
We know that is literally impossible and what is meant has to do with spiritually dwelling in each other.
The eating and drinking are also meant to be spiritually understood, just as the dwelling is spiritually speaking.

The idea of the bread and wine being symbolic in a spiritual sense does not also require that “Jesus was merely symbolic”. That sort of logic is childish and you know it.

He said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. You say the Eucharist is only symbolic. But Jesus certainly did not say that. Nor did Paul. So you are saying that his body and blood are only symbolic,whether you intend to or not.

Much of what Jesus said had to do with spiritual matters and that is why many could not understand Him.
A good example of this was in Chapter 5 when Jesus spoke of John as a “burning and a shining light” v.35. This was spiritually speaking.

That was not one of the things he said that people did not understand.

Jesus told His enemies that, "Ye have neither heard His (the Father’s) voice at any time, nor seen His shape."v.37
This also had to be spiritually speaking, since they probably heard the Father’s voice physically at Jesus’ baptism by John.

If they had heard God’s voice in a physical way,they would have been afraid and would have obeyed.

Because their ears were not spiritually openned by God to understand, they did not hear God spiritually and were unable to savingly believe in Jesus or the Father’s words.

It follows that the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ words were far more important than any physical understanding of them.
To remain in the physical understanding is to be where Nicodemus and the woman at the well were, when they could not understand Jesus’ words.

The understanding of the Eucharist as Christ’s actual body and blood does not preclude the spiritual understanding. They go together. Christ’s resurrected body was raised by the Holy Spirit,and was an actual,physical body,as the apostles found out when he appeared to them. He ate fish in front of them,and he ascended to heaven in his physical body. There is nothing probable and familiar about a resurrected body that ascends into heaven,and yet it happened. So in regard to the Eucharist,and John 6,56,we can’t limit our understanding of the “physical” and “literal” to what we consider probable and familiar. In regard to heavenly things,including the Eucharist and Christ’s dwelling within,there is no way for us to distinguish between the literal,the symbolic,the physical,the figurative. With earthly things,the truth is fragmented into these categories. But in heaven,and in the Eucharist,the truth is whole. The Eucharist is Christ on earth. If the Eucharist was not really Christ’s body and blood,it would not itself be spritual either. It would just be physical matter to which we impute spiritual value.

As I said before,what would “literal body” have meant to the apostles,who saw the resurrected Jesus in his flesh and saw him ascend into heaven?

See post 140.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=242612&page=10

 

[brkn1]

[brkn1]

Yes,the Spirit bought back to life the body of Christ. And he still exists bodily. He is still the Son of Man. He is still true God and true man. That is how we receive him in the Eucharist – body and spirit.

He said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. You say the Eucharist is only symbolic. But Jesus certainly did not say that. Nor did Paul. So you are saying that his body and blood are only symbolic,whether you intend to or not.

The understanding of the Eucharist as Christ’s actual body and blood does not preclude the spiritual understanding. They go together. Christ’s resurrected body was raised by the Holy Spirit,and was an actual,physical body,as the apostles found out when he appeared to them. He ate fish in front of them,and he ascended to heaven in his physical body. There is nothing probable and familiar about a resurrected body that ascends into heaven,and yet it happened. So in regard to the Eucharist,and John 6,56,we can’t limit our understanding of the “physical” and “literal” to what we consider probable and familiar. In regard to heavenly things,including the Eucharist and Christ’s dwelling within,there is no way for us to distinguish between the literal,the symbolic,the physical,the figurative. With earthly things,the truth is fragmented into these categories. But in heaven,and in the Eucharist,the truth is whole. The Eucharist is Christ on earth. If the Eucharist was not really Christ’s body and blood,it would not itself be spritual either. It would just be physical matter to which we impute spiritual value.

As I said before,what would “literal body” have meant to the apostles,who saw the resurrected Jesus in his flesh and saw him ascend into heaven?

See post 140.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=242612&page=10

Yes, Jesus ascended to heaven as He said He would. He sits at the right hand of the Father right now as He waits for His enemies to become His footstool.
He acts as our Advocate Mediator and High Priest in heaven.

Jesus said that it was expedient for us that He leave earth, or the Comforter would not come. The Holy Spirit indwells true believers and that is how Jesus can also live and dwell in us through the Holy Spirit. Jesus still is physically in heaven though and His indwelling is spiritual, which is even more real than physical.

In (John 16:10), Jesus said, “Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye see me no more;”
Jesus is talking about the physical seeing that can only happen if He were physically present. If the bread were Jesus in a physical form, this verse would not be correct.

Jesus explained that He would leave the world physically in (John 16:28). “…, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

Jesus further explained the physical separation that would occur after His ascending to the Father in (John 17:11):
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,…”
The Apostles and us would still be physically in the world until our death. There is a physical separation right now for us, until we get to heaven or Jesus comes again at the second coming.
Jesus spoke of His second coming as “till I come”.
If the bread were Jesus coming physically as some say, then Jesus has already come many times and “till I come” loses meaning.

 

[anthony022071]

[brkn1]

Jesus said that it was expedient for us that He leave earth, or the Comforter would not come. The Holy Spirit indwells true believers and that is how Jesus can also live and dwell in us through the Holy Spirit. Jesus still is physically in heaven though and His indwelling is spiritual, which is even more real than physical.

Jesus dwells within believers who keep his commandments. He told his disciples to remain in him (that is,by keeping his commandments) and he would remain in them.

In (John 16:10), Jesus said, “Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye see me no more;”
Jesus is talking about the physical seeing that can only happen if He were physically present. If the bread were Jesus in a physical form, this verse would not be correct.

With the Eucharist,we don’t see him in the bodily form that he was in,but he is present under the species of bread and wine.

Jesus explained that He would leave the world physically in (John 16:28). “…, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

He also went to the Father spiritually. He ascended into heaven by the power of the Spirit.

Jesus further explained the physical separation that would occur after His ascending to the Father in (John 17:11):
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,…”
The Apostles and us would still be physically in the world until our death. There is a physical separation right now for us, until we get to heaven or Jesus comes again at the second coming.
Jesus spoke of His second coming as “till I come”.
If the bread were Jesus coming physically as some say, then Jesus has already come many times and “till I come” loses meaning.

It doesn’t lose meaning. The Eucharist is not the personal,human,bodily form of Jesus. It is Christ in person,under the form of bread and wine,but not his personal form.