SPLIT: How could Jesus be speaking literally here?

[StrawberryJam]

4thelamb,

Your argument is baffling me. You say that Jesus is not interested in our physical bodies. Where do you get this information from? Certainly he would be more interested in their spiritual growth more, but to say he is not interested in our physical bodies is going a bit too far, and speaking for him. That is such a bad habit to get into.
Jews most certainly took care of their bodies, and Jesus would have also.
The bible states the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. So, why wouldn’t Jesus want us to also? Why did he multiply the fishes and loaves for the crowd that was getting hungry?
To compare the Catholic Eucharist to a powerbar once a week is rude and insulting. Not to mention most catholics I know personally go to Mass more than once a week! Can you participate in corporate worship more than once a week? Can you daily if you desired?
Objecting simply based on “why is it necessary?” is very weak. Jesus said and did many things and many not recorded according to the bible and I am sure not a single person here on earth perfectly understood what he was trying to get across all the time. He knows why he said it. You don’t need to know why, and it does not have to make sense to you. Isn’t this one of the things you will know more about when in your eternal afterlife with him? Why reject what he is telling you when he wants you to get there? Perhaps it is very very important to reaching that goal.

 

[Odell]

This is a theory not a biblical teaching, although Christ’s death and ressurection was representative of the Jewish Passover. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. But that reality has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Did the Jews have to eat the Lamb or not?

When Jesus said he is the Bread of Life he wasn’t confining that meaning to simply to a physical meal. Jesus meant His is eternal food for the soul! Not for our physical stomachs. Jesus said He gives Living Water. Those who receive Christ’s Living Water will never thirst again. That’s because Jesus is saying He can SATISFY THE SOUL!

The problem is this idea most protestants have is the ideology of disembodiment. As a person, man is spiritual. The body has to be understood “as a sign of the person, AS a manifestation of the spirit.” We do not have a disembodyment of spirit and body we have a union of the two

He’s not interested in our physical bodies! He cares about our eternal destination.

My body will be with me where ever my eternal destination may be. If he does not care for our bodies they would be left behind.

He promises that He is the source for our eternal nourishment when He says He is the Bread of Life. When He says He gives Living Water. To miss this is to miss it all!

Oh I think so. I think Jesus said something to this sort. “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man you have no life in you.”

Christ is not physical food you eat like a powerbar once a week so you can remain in a “state of grace” as long as you have His flesh in your stomach. The Lord’s Supper is symbolism for a much much larger need that’s being met when we are in Christ Jesus!! An eternal need. .

God is Flesh and Spirit. This is his fullness. We are flesh and spirit in our fullness you can not seperate the two. Our bodys manifest the spirit this is how God made us and this is the body we are feeding.

Better yet how can one be fully united to God if they are just spiritually? Is he not Flesh and Spirit in His fullness?

The Eucharist is where the fullness of ourselfs is united with the fullness of God (flesh and spirit) You cant get any more in Christ Jesus than that.

When the spirit is feed the body is feed vise versa.

 

[RosaryFan]

How can Jesus be speaking literally when he said, “this IS my blood which IS shed,” and He had not gone to the cross yet?

at least that first communion was symbolic of a future event.

It was not symbolic of a future event. At the last supper, Jesus truly turned the bread and wine into His body and blood. Remember, God is not bound by time. He applied His passion, death, ressurection to that moment in time at the last supper. Much the same way His passion, death and ressurection are brought present for us at each and every Mass which is celebrated at all different times all over the world every day. Jesus said He would be with us until the end of time. That is what He meant.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Jews were protected if they had blood over their doors in one story in the bible.
They were passed over.
Perhaps, and I am just taking a guess at this- the blood of Jesus in you physically is a protection of sorts. The body and the blood would be even more protection.
A mark only visible to the destroyer.
Who would have no choice but to pass them by unharmed.
He may only be able to reach the “doors” of those who do not have the blood, nor are in the body of Jesus to be protected from his destruction.
Just tossing it out there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Pax]

4thelamb in Christ,

In response to my post #5 concerning the Passover and the Eucharist you said:

This is a theory not a biblical teaching, although Christ’s death and ressurection was representative of the Jewish Passover. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. But that reality has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Why would it that even be a nessessary thing? It has nothing to do with what Christ said it was for. He said “Do this in remembrance of me”. Why is it necessary for us to eat his actually body for us to remember what he did for us? When Jesus said he is the Bread of Life he wasn’t confining that meaning to simply to a physical meal. Jesus meant His is eternal food for the soul! Not for our physical stomachs. Jesus said He gives Living Water. Those who receive Christ’s Living Water will never thirst again. That’s because Jesus is saying He can SATISFY THE SOUL! He’s not interested in our physical bodies! He cares about our eternal destination. He promises that He is the source for our eternal nourishment when He says He is the Bread of Life. When He says He gives Living Water. To miss this is to miss it all! Christ is not physical food you eat like a powerbar once a week so you can remain in a “state of grace” as long as you have His flesh in your stomach. The Lord’s Supper is symbolism for a much much larger need that’s being met when we are in Christ Jesus!! An eternal need. And Jesus wanted us to remember that! That’s why He says we are to always do it. He says we will never hunger or thrist for anything again…FOREVER! Don’t you see, its the most important event that’s ever taken place in the history of existance! It means we are forever in Him, completely forgiven, and that we get to share in His eternal inheritance as children of the Living God.

Others have responded to you very well and I would only add a few comments. First of all, it is “necessary” because Jesus gives us the meaning as explained by Catholics and He instructs us to consume his body as real food and his blood as true drink for eternal life. (See John 6)

I utterly fail to see how a mere symbol is greater than the real presence of Jesus.
Likewise, I utterly fail to see how a mere symbol will accomplish what is accomplished by the reality.

We are indeed in Christ Jesus. Likewise, we are temples of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, we are a new creation and we are children of God. Each of these realities are related to one another and none of them excludes or trumps the other. God gives Himself to us on many levels. The fullness and completeness of God’s love includes giving us Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. There is nothing in the scriptures that indicates that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Moreover, the literal understanding as taught by Catholics is what has been understood from the beginning of the apostolic era.

God bless.

 

[RosaryFan]

This is a theory not a biblical teaching, although Christ’s death and ressurection was representative of the Jewish Passover. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. But that reality has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Incidentally, 4thelamb, the Jewish Passover as it is celebrated throughout all of history is, in fact, not symbolic either. The Jewish people believe the Passover to be a Memorial, which means that the moment in time is brought present to them each time they celebrate the Passover meal. This is the same way our Eucharistic meal is celebrated at the Mass, which is how the Passover and the Eucharist are paralleled. Their celebration of the Passover is not symbolic and neither is our celebration of the Eucharist. We believe Jesus’ passion and death are brought into our present time at Mass and the Jews believe the Exodus is brought to the present time at their Passover meal.

 

[crazzeto]

How can Jesus be speaking literally when he said, “this IS my blood which IS shed,” and He had not gone to the cross yet?

at least that first communion was symbolic of a future event.

How could Jesus not be speaking literally, as to not speak literally would disregard the fulfillment of the passover which he so carefully otherwise setup… It would also show great carelessness and disregard for his Jewish audience in his word selection in John 6 when he said

Joh 6:53 (6:54) 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

when Jesus knew very well the Torah said:

Deu 12:23 Only beware of this, that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is for the soul: and therefore thou must not eat the soul with the flesh:
Deu 12:24 But thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water,
Deu 12:25 That it may be well with thee and thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

and thus he knew very well that the conventional understanding of the law was giving great discomfort to his listeners. Indeed, if the Lord wasn’t speaking literally he would be indited of having neglected his moral obligation to set the record straight in John 6 when:

Joh 6:66 (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

So I ask, how could Jesus have not been speaking literally?