Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

[Eden]

I would encourage anyone who was taught that the Eucharist is symbolic but after reading this thread has wondered about the Real Presence to listen to Fr. Corapi’s two-part series on the Eucharist called “Eucharist: Source & Summit”. You will need RealPlayer to listen. Click on the link below, scroll to the bottom where it says “Audio Programs” and click on Fr. Corapi’s series.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html

 

[joshua_b]

Why is it that EVERYONE present when Jesus proclaimed that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood took him literally, and He let those who could not accept this teaching leave without ever explaining to them the “alternate, symbolic meaning” of His words ? The Apostles took Him literally, his disciples took Him literally, the unbelievers present took Him literally, and yet, a millenium and a half later, everyone feels they have been enlightened enough by the Holy Spirit to claim that it was NOT to be taken literally. This “symbolic interpretation” is a heresy that is reminiscent to Gnosticism and Arianism. These are some of the heresies that prompted John to write his Gospel; why do you think that this premise of eating Jesus’ flesh is brought out in the Gospel of John like it is in no other Gospel ? Plainly and simply, it was because John felt neccessary to refute the heretical belief that the Eucharist was merely “symbolic”. That is historical fact, and anyone who claims that the Eucharist is merely “symbolic” is in alignment with the early heretical Christian movements, whether they are aware of it or not. I challenge anyone to find any Christian writing of the period either during or directly after the Apostolic age that speaks of the Eucharist as anything less than the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[joshua_b]

Furthermore, anyone who refuses to accept this as anything but literal needs to step back and realize that God is infinitely too profound for us to comprehend in His fullness, and it would do them well to just accept that God does not always fit neatly into our little mental box we like to put Him in for the comfort of our only having to deal with His reality in nice, easy to understand terms.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

joshua_b:

Why is it that EVERYONE present when Jesus proclaimed that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood took him literally, and He let those who could not accept this teaching leave without ever explaining to them the “alternate, symbolic meaning” of His words ? The Apostles took Him literally, his disciples took Him literally, the unbelievers present took Him literally, and yet, a millenium and a half later, everyone feels they have been enlightened enough by the Holy Spirit to claim that it was NOT to be taken literally. This “symbolic interpretation” is a heresy that is reminiscent to Gnosticism and Arianism. These are some of the heresies that prompted John to write his Gospel; why do you think that this premise of eating Jesus’ flesh is brought out in the Gospel of John like it is in no other Gospel ? Plainly and simply, it was because John felt neccessary to refute the heretical belief that the Eucharist was merely “symbolic”. That is historical fact, and anyone who claims that the Eucharist is merely “symbolic” is in alignment with the early heretical Christian movements, whether they are aware of it or not. I challenge anyone to find any Christian writing of the period either during or directly after the Apostolic age that speaks of the Eucharist as anything less than the Real Presence of Christ.

I am hoping that someone can answer for me why Jesus’ words in John 6:54 “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life;…” are not to be accepted as fact or taken literally. To me this seems confusing. As I said above, this should prove eternal security, with all one needing to do is take Catholic Communion. Why the flip flop? “has eternal life” is Jesus himself in error? I am interested to hear explanations as to why the bread IS flesh and the drink IS blood but then “has eternal life” is not assurance of such.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

joshua_b:

Why is it that EVERYONE present when Jesus proclaimed that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood took him literally, and He let those who could not accept this teaching leave without ever explaining to them the “alternate, symbolic meaning” of His words ? The Apostles took Him literally, his disciples took Him literally, the unbelievers present took Him literally, and yet, a millenium and a half later, everyone feels they have been enlightened enough by the Holy Spirit to claim that it was NOT to be taken literally. This “symbolic interpretation” is a heresy that is reminiscent to Gnosticism and Arianism. These are some of the heresies that prompted John to write his Gospel; why do you think that this premise of eating Jesus’ flesh is brought out in the Gospel of John like it is in no other Gospel ? Plainly and simply, it was because John felt neccessary to refute the heretical belief that the Eucharist was merely “symbolic”. That is historical fact, and anyone who claims that the Eucharist is merely “symbolic” is in alignment with the early heretical Christian movements, whether they are aware of it or not. I challenge anyone to find any Christian writing of the period either during or directly after the Apostolic age that speaks of the Eucharist as anything less than the Real Presence of Christ.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to believe in transsubstantiation…which I believe is different than the Real Presence. I am not a doubting Thomas, just that as Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruit”, to me a church that has had such bad fruit, needs to prove it more.

Anyway, would there be a conention to John 6:40 and John 6:54…that everyone which sees the son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40)

Whoso eats my flesh…has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:54)

The same end result happens by doing both. It’s there a connection then? Something symbolic? Would a Catholic agree that all they have to do is “and believes on him” may have everlasting life?

 

[joshua_b]

Catholics would contend that “believing” includes believing that we are to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man”. We are not allowed to pick and choose, as Catholics, which parts of the NT we will believe and which we will discard. The Catholic Church emphasizes taking Scripture as an inerrant whole, which means that no one verse can cancel any other verse. Belief is not merely a feeling or an intellectual profession. “If you believe in Me, you will keep my commandments”. To me that is a pretty clear definition of what “belief” entails, and one of the commandments Jesus gave us was to eat His flesh. I can fully sympathize with your lack of acceptance as it took me years to come to terms with the Real Presence, but as I stated in my little tirade (sorry to everyone for that btw) God is sometimes beyond our finite human comprehension, and we would all do well to take Him out of our comfortable little mental box we try to make Him fit into.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

mbol. We are partners of the one actual body

Hi there, excuse my ignorance. Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. How do we know which Aramaic word Jesus used?

 

[admiral]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone thought thru what the Eucharist is???

concidered this from the Catechism of the CC…

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

Romans 3:28 (New American Standard Bible)

28 we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a discreptancy here???

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Hi there, excuse my ignorance.

No problem.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. How do we know which Aramaic word Jesus used?

I believe this is in reference to the Peshitta Aramaic New Testament. It has been recorded that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Palestinian Aramaic) and translated by the apostles into Greek.

“For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 24:6)”

Is that what you were asking?

 

[Eden]

admiral:

Just out of curiousity, has anyone thought thru what the Eucharist is???

What is the Eucharist? The consecrated Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

Is that what you were asking?

Hello Eden, thank you for your reply. I was just wondering how you knew which Aramaniac word Jesus used as he spoke?

Eden:

However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello Eden, thank you for your reply. I was just wondering how you knew which Aramaniac ( )
word Jesus used as he spoke?

I don’t understand your question. The (Palestinian) Aramaic words Christ used would have been recorded in Matthew in the original New Testament text which has been documented as having been written originally in Palestinian Aramaic. That would have been the language of Christ as well. It was later translated into Greek. Do you not believe that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit? It seems perhaps that you are saying that Matthew was in error when he wrote in Aramaic what Christ said. This would get into a larger question as to whether or not you believe the Bible to be inspired.

 

[Fredricks]

I did read posts 14-15 and its premise is that Jesus did not explain BUT HE DID. Posts 14-15 address how literally Jesus was speaking. Yes, he was. That was his intention AND THEN he explained what he meant by all that, like he is prone to do.

Lets go back to what the Bible says again:
Jesus teaches it, clearly his talking about that he is the way to eternal life.

JESUS SPEAKS 6:29-58
They take it literally. He knows they will. He speaks it literally BUT EXPLAINS IT SPIRITUALLY LATER ON. You have to read the WHOLE THING.

Jhn 6:59 *These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. *
JESUS STOPS

Jhn 6:60 *Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? *
DISCIPLES DO NOT LIKE IT

**Jhn 6:61 ** *When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend * you?

It is how Jesus taught, “what you do not get it…again”.

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS

The flesh profiteth NOTHING. THE WORDS I SPEAK ARE SPIRIT
You cannot get around this. Of course the first part of his discourse was taken literally. He spoke it literally, just like when he said you must be “born again” and then he explained it. They did not get it. They almost never get it. Thats why he explained what he means. The flesh profiteth NOTHING. The WORDS I speak to you are SPIRIT and they mean eternal life.

Jhn 6:64* But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. *

Jhn 6:65 *And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. *
Jesus is the way to eternal life.

Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Imagine that, they did not like it and left.

**Jhn 6:67 ** *Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? *

Jhn 6:68 *Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. *
PETER GETS IT. His words are eternal life, nothing about his flesh. Why do you ignore Peter when he disagrees with your theology?

Jhn 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Amen Peter.

 

[Fredricks]

Peshitta Aramaic New Testament

There is not one shread of proof that the Peshitta is the original Aramaic text written by Matthew. That IS NOT official, or even unofficial, Catholic doctrine as well.

 

[joshua_b]

If this is so apparent, then how could the Apostles and the first students of the Apostles have gotten it wrong ? I fall back on my original challenge to find any Christian writings of the period directly after the Apostolic age that reveal the belief of anything less than the Real Presence in the Eucharist .

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

I don’t understand your question. The (Palestinian) Aramaic words Christ used would have been recorded in Matthew in the original New Testament text which has been documented as having been written originally in Palestinian Aramaic. That would have been the language of Christ as well. It was later translated into Greek. Do you not believe that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit? It seems perhaps that you are saying that Matthew was in error when he wrote in Aramaic what Christ said. This would get into a larger question as to whether or not you believe the Bible to be inspired.

Sorry you probably already answered it. I thought the New Testament was origianlly written in Greek. Therefore, I wondered how you knew which Aramaic word Jesus used.

However, as I understand in your response, The Book of Matthew was first written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. This would then answer my question as to how you knew which word Jesus used…as it was written in Aramaic first.

I never knew that, thank you. (that it was originally written in Aramiac first)…hense the “please excuse my ignorance” comment. Thanks again for your response.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Again, I am hoping that someone can answer for me why Jesus’ words in John 6:54 “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life;…” are not to be accepted as fact or taken literally. To me this seems confusing. As I said above, this should prove eternal security, with all one needing to do is take Catholic Communion. Why the flip flop? “has eternal life” is Jesus himself in error? I am interested to hear explanations as to why the bread IS flesh and the drink IS blood but then “has eternal life” is not assurance of such.

I will start another thread under Apologetics on this.

 

[Fredricks]

joshua_b:

If this is so apparent, then how could the Apostles and the first students of the Apostles have gotten it wrong ? I fall back on my original challenge to find any Christian writings of the period directly after the Apostolic age that reveal the belief of anything less than the Real Presence in the Eucharist .

Because it WAS NOT the Eucharistic sacrifice that Catholicism turned it into.
Please read the whole thing, Catholicism usually only uses the first verses:

1st Cornthias 11th chapter

For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus* took a loaf of bread**, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is given* for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it.” 26 For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.
27 So if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, that person is guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup. 29 For if you eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, not honoring the body of Christ,* you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.
31 But if we examine ourselves, we will not be examined by God and judged in this way. 32 But when we are judged and disciplined by the Lord, we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So, dear brothers and sisters,* when you gather for the Lord’s Supper, wait for each other. 34 If you are really hungry, eat at home so you won’t bring judgment upon yourselves when you meet together.*’

It was not intended to be buffet, eat eat eat, early Christians were already, unfortunately messing it up. Paul was saying, guys this has meaning, wait for each other and EAT together. If you are so hungry that you cannot wait, slow down. Wait for each other to begin eating the bread.
The Bible does not teach what you guys do.

 

[Gnosis]

The reason I personally think Christ said “whoso eats my flesh and drinks my blood” and very much made this sound literal was because he was speaking of his sacrifice on the cross. As I said before, Jesus was known to use hyperbole, and while he usually did explain conufusing phrases and speeches to his disciples, this is not the style of the gospel of John. The entire book of John is rife with such confusing and perplexing statments, Jesus is constantly making assertions of himself that he does not feel the need to explain any further.

Jesus says “this bread is my flesh which i give for the life of the world”. I don’t think he meant “everytime a priest blessed a piece of bread it turns into my flesh”. But rather Jesus was speaking of the cross. When he died he literally did give up his flesh, and in his very physical death all humankind was given life. His pure and sinless life was poured out on the cross to be consumed by humanity for the forgiveness of sins. So in that very literal sense, he did offer up his flesh for us, and his flesh did give us new life. However, it is not an act that needs to be repeated on a weekly basis. The eucharist, or consumption of bread is to commemorate or remember the actual physical sacrifice Jesus made that gave us life.

 

[Eden]

Gnosis:

The reason I personally think Christ said “whoso eats my flesh and drinks my blood” and very much made this sound literal was because he was speaking of his sacrifice on the cross. As I said before, Jesus was known to use hyperbole, and while he usually did explain conufusing phrases and speeches to his disciples, this is not the style of the gospel of John. The entire book of John is rife with such confusing and perplexing statments, Jesus is constantly making assertions of himself that he does not feel the need to explain any further.

Jesus says “this bread is my flesh which i give for the life of the world”. I don’t think he meant “everytime a priest blessed a piece of bread it turns into my flesh”. But rather Jesus was speaking of the cross. When he died he literally did give up his flesh, and in his very physical death all humankind was given life. His pure and sinless life was poured out on the cross to be consumed by humanity for the forgiveness of sins. So in that very literal sense, he did offer up his flesh for us, and his flesh did give us new life. However, it is not an act that needs to be repeated on a weekly basis. The eucharist, or consumption of bread is to commemorate or remember the actual physical sacrifice Jesus made that gave us life.

I suggest you research the Sacrifice of the Mass (from Catholic sources for accuracy).

Here is one to get started so you can see the connection between the Eucharist and Calvary:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp