B
- Status
N
ncgolf
Guest
You are being disingenious … as if that kind of miracle occurs with great frequency … people coo over the 69 Mets as a miracle … a miracle would have been with 9 blind men.
You have it wrong … I didnt say it Jesus did … so that is why you must consider it … for if I did say that it would indeed be nonsense. Jesus’s word is effacious … that is it does what it intends … if Jesus says you are healed …you are healed …no need to go the doctor … right. If he says your sins are forgiven … they are … and if His father says let there be light … well you get the picture.
You seem to think so.
He said He was the living bread come down from heaven … and my flesh is true food and my blood true drink.
You’re closer … it is his presence truly, but really Jesus did not say that He was in the bread …read it again … John 6:51 … “I am the living bread” … not many men spoke the word I am very often … it had special meaning … the word in is not mentioned … be careful how you quote the Lord.
You say it’s not … that is certainly not how the Catholic Church sees it.
Then why are you here … your arguments are not persuasive and they lack a certain depth … I answer not to convince you but for others to see.
You are certainly free to go about your life … no one here forces you to be here.
but …
You did not answer the question … why would they doubt … why the firestorm of controversy with what Jesus said …
look at the other accounts of Jesus’s metaphors … I am a door … I am the vine … why no outcry from those?
Why did no disciples leaving when He said he was a door?
Read John 21 24:29 … 29 says "Jesus said to him, ‘Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.’ " There is blessedness for believing and not seeing … it’s called faith.
A
alanjeddy
Guest
Bill,
I really think you are now a card carrying member of the LDS.
This is brilliant. When did you come up with this idea . After 18 holes in the club house pub downing a cold brewsky or taking a whack at bukowski?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
after hitting the ball well any way trying not to be wasting time have a good sunday and keep your head up and may Our Lord bless you and by the way you do a very good job
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)
Your flesh is of no avail in this matter my friend!
**John 6:62
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. **
M
mfbukowski
Guest
All you guys can do is repeat the same scriptures over and over. It says gnaw. The non believers left him. etc etc etc.
There are other interpretations that actually make sense. You can repeat the same things forever and that doesn’t make them true. You have no arguments whatsoever other than repeating the same scriptures over and over. Yawn. There is no way to prove your position. “But he said 'for this is my body”. Yes he did. But it doesn’t mean literally.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
that is man-made doctrine that is not even older then 500 hundred years.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Isn’t that all we have … Catholics get accused on not using enough Scriputre … and now we are accused of believing because we use Scripture …
and your only response is a rant … at this rate your next response will be about some family member wearing combat boots.
You show your true colors for all the world to see.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Ok … I had my rant so we are even … if you want we can reset and go over this again … if not then just decline.
Proving is not the point of this exercise … Scripture cannot prove anything … it is not like science where proof is the measuring stick.
Now … your first statement could be true … that is why we are here but you must understand how Catholics interpret Scripture. The whole of the Bible is used so any chapter and verse can be used to support a position. You do this when reading a novel … what happened in Chapter 1 may or may not tell you something about Chapter 24. It is the reader’s obligation to make this connection … and the author depends on it to make his story coherent.
Maybe it would have been a lot easier if the title of the book we are discussing would have been … “A Short History on the Salvation of Man” by God. Well it sort of is like that in a sense.
What we seek is the intent of the author … remember who the author really is, that is important … so to try to understand intent you can use other tools such as what type of audience does the author write to … the timeframe of the incident. You can look at the characters involved … is the behavior consistent. Inconsistency in behavior can be used to help us decipher if the behavior is believable or not.
There is not an instruction manual for us to decipher the Bible so it would be unfair not to hear differing opinions but in the end you will choose which one for you seems most plausible.
You say there are other interpretations that make better sense … well using some of items I mentioned earlier … present them … supported by Chapter verse etc. so we can go back and read your supporting documentation … I will do the same but it may take a bit as the family is beginning to come down with the flu and with it all the associated unpleasantries.
I will agree though that if John 6 was all that was available for us to understand what we believe as Catholics … I do no think it would be enough … so using John 6 as a basis what other Scriptural support is availalble for us to make intelligent interpretations of the author’s intent.
I will tell you my intent upfront … I do not do this to convince you … but to present a case that the Catholic belief in the Eucharist is supported in Scripture and reasonable. I do not do this for your benefit per se but for others who may not join the discussion but read what is going on.
I will make one other stipulation … the name calling will have to cease … and each will make a diligent effort to understand the other … if you cannot do this then going forward is pointless and I will not. If you do agree then I agree to abide by my restrictions.
So do you agree?
A
alanjeddy
Guest
Let’s face it you have been soundly exposed as a very weak interpreter of John 6. You have been shown by me and others, That Jesus is speaking about His real flesh, the language used to express eating, the Greek word that even you can now understand, the reaction of the Jewish audience leaving Him, You never have proven that Jesus is talking metaphorically. Do it , I have given you compelling arguments that corroberate Jesus’ real Presence in the Eucharist. You haven’t done the same. You can’t you don’t have the oratory or debating skills. I would love to get you one on one. You would be exposed as you already have been.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
MFBUKOWSKI you must remember we are Cathloic it said what it said we do not change the bible.please tell us what is your interpretation of verses 1-cor 27-29 and what you think it is sayingand why
A
alanjeddy
Guest
Oh my word, The human mind can not comprehend the miracles that Jesus performed. You are trying to comprehend bread changed into Jesus flesh when as a Catholic you even denied heretically His real presence. It would appear that in large measure you are like the doubting Thomas who has to put his hands in Jesus’ wounds before you can believe. If Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead and walk on water, restore sight to the blind, multiply the loves, change water into wine, resurrect His own body from the tomb, ascend into heaven, then how do you fail to see that Jesus could change bread and wine into His body and blood. He said Hoc est corpus meum do you remember your Latin? This is my body. He didn’t say this is a symbol of my body.
Would Jesus lie? Would He ever be able to lie? The answer is no He was, like His mother, without blemish.
If he were speaking symbolically, why didn’t He call back his scandalized audience. He even asked His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too? Everyone knew what Jesus meant. Whenever we try to comprehend, through the strictures of the finite mind, the omnipotence of God we fall way short of the mark. We must trust in God and know that Jesus doesn’t lie. Our faith is built on trust for we walk by faith not by sight. Some people have to see to believe. If seeing is the only way we believe, then our faith is not very strong. If you have to see to believe then go to all the records of Eucharistic miracles where the human heart tissue flesh and the blood stained hosts have remained alive, some through the centuries.
Oh Holy Spirit come and speak within the heart of those who doubt and those who do not believe.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
It`s quite sad to see how protestants believe the Flesh of Jesus that was humiliated, scrouged, damaged, and destroyed profited nothing.What Bible are you reading?? Jesus may not have argued with them but after they started grumbling HE asked if they were offended. Then asked what if they saw HIM return from where HE came. In other words if you saw ME return to Heaven would you then BELIEVE I am who I say I am. It is the Spirit that gives life the flesh means nothing or accomplishes nothing. The words I just spoke are Spirit and Life. It’s at this point that they decided to leave. How much more arguing do you want
Yeah Jesus is going to give a command to a Jewish community that violates HIS own Father’s law which originally was given to (HELLO) the Jewish community.
A
alanjeddy
Guest
I have received that revelation
John 8:44
John 8:44
A
alanjeddy
Guest
John 6 can only be interpreted with the real Presence of our Lord. The greek word used is trogo= to chew or gnaw on flesh. See my post to bukowski on this thread. Protestants often try to refute the Catholic belief in Christ’s real Presence by talking about the later verse in John 6, The flesh is of no avail, it is the spirit that gives us life. Jesus is not talking about His own flesh that He will give to us in the Eucharist, He is talking about the flesh of humankind that will rot in the grave or how so many people today are led by the treasures on earth. It is really the spirit or soul that is called to holllliness fed by the flesh of our Lord. (trogo=one meaning flesh) Jesus is not mitigating or trivializing His own flesh.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
There is another thread with some beautiful explanations. I couldn’t possibly say it any better than guanophore, broski234 and ncgolf did.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304781
I will copy a few posts over for you to read.
By guanophore:
I don’t think it is possible to grasp the import of the institution of the Eucharist without an understanding of the amanesis.
The Jewish tradition shared by Jesus and the Apostles had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “…a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.
If you think about the Passover, you will realize that the ritual surrounding it is very strict, and is intended for the rememberance to be participative, and brings those doing it into that which it commemorates. Each year they gathered according to the tradition, using certain prayers, assigned roles, and having prepared the spotless male lamb. They ate the lamb, and became present under the covered lintels. All this is a prefigurment of Eucharist, where we, through amanesis, become present at the foot of the cross. As often as we do this, He makes it real.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304781
I will copy a few posts over for you to read.
By guanophore:
I don’t think it is possible to grasp the import of the institution of the Eucharist without an understanding of the amanesis.
The Jewish tradition shared by Jesus and the Apostles had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “…a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.
If you think about the Passover, you will realize that the ritual surrounding it is very strict, and is intended for the rememberance to be participative, and brings those doing it into that which it commemorates. Each year they gathered according to the tradition, using certain prayers, assigned roles, and having prepared the spotless male lamb. They ate the lamb, and became present under the covered lintels. All this is a prefigurment of Eucharist, where we, through amanesis, become present at the foot of the cross. As often as we do this, He makes it real.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
By broski234:
The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner. By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain. So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures. My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter? Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?
So, what was the author of John 6 trying to tell us? Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when He said to eat His body and drink His blood? Well, let’s look at the evidence. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then please tell me what He meant by saying one must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. A symbolic interpretation of these passages, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?
And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?
Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?
And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.
I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, Catholic Daddy, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.
The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner. By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain. So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures. My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter? Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?
So, what was the author of John 6 trying to tell us? Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when He said to eat His body and drink His blood? Well, let’s look at the evidence. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then please tell me what He meant by saying one must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. A symbolic interpretation of these passages, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?
And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?
Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?
And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.
I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, Catholic Daddy, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
By ncgolf:
Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.
In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.
These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.
Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.
John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.
This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”
Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.
Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.
In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.
These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.
Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.
John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.
This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”
Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
All those who refuse to believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, are those imbedded in John 6:66.
Some try to show that verse 63 shows that the whole chapter is symbolic. However, “It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (63), merely shows that we cannot accept this mystery in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. See John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding. See John 8:15, Rom 8:1-13,15:27, 1Cor 3:1-4,9:11, and 2Cor 10:4.
He who takes “The flesh profits nothing” as an excuse for denying the “True Presence”, denies the incarnation and humanity of Jesus Christ." It is interesting that those who do this are taking one verse and calling it literal by itself, and all the while calling all of the other verses around it figurative, or symbolic.
The word “Amen” is a Greek word (amen) of Hebrew origin which, at the beginning of a discourse means, “certainly”, “surely”, “truly”, “of a truth”, “so be it”? When used as a prefix by Jesus Christ , it is to emphasize that it is a Statement of especial solemnity.
Now, what do you suppose He meant when He emphasized twice, by using a double “Amen”?
“Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of GOD is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:32-33
Notice that Jesus used a double emphasis by beginning these verses with ‘truly’, ‘truly’. Do you ‘truly’ ‘truly’ believe what He said in this verse? Is there any room for symbolism in these verses whatsoever?
“Amen, amen, I say to you, he who believes in me has life everlasting.”
John 6:47
Again, He said ‘truly’, ‘truly’, but of course everyone believes His words in this verse, so everyone ‘truly’, ‘truly’ believes Him here. But, read on for a possible “snag” for some, regarding this verse.
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
N
NDfan
Guest
Benjamin this is way overblown. Jesus gave HIS flesh as a sacrifice for us. No one would ever down play that or state that it profits nothing. You need to stay in context with what Jesus was saying to a bunch of law-abiding Jews. That’s the problem with trying to interpreting scripture in today’s language. To a Jew at this time it was clear they were thinking Jesus was teaching them to literally eat HIS flesh and blood to have eternal life. A command they knew they couldn’t keep because GOD strictly forbid it. Jesus corrects them and states the spirit gives life not the flesh.It`s quite sad to see how protestants believe the Flesh of Jesus that was humiliated, scrouged, damaged, and destroyed profited nothing.
Augustine wrote excellent commentary on John 6 speaking right to this point and I’ll quote:
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”
This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Augustine never asserts John 6 to be an allusion to literally eating flesh and blood at communion.
- Status