The Body and Blood are Symbolic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lischou:
Not true. Paul directly addresses the Eucharist in 1Cor. 11:23 - 30. If this is ‘merely symbolic,’ how could one possibly “eat and drink judgement on himself?”

You have this backwards, the bread becomes His flesh.

Christ intentionally causing confusion on a major teaching?!! Not logical. God is purposely providing a way of salvation to humanity and has put it in very simple language: This is my body. This is the cup of my blood. If God intentionally set things up to be purposely confusing He would not be a loving God then would He? And why in the world would He intentionally subject Himself to the Passion if He was just “setting up humanity,” trying to trick them or see which of them would be “smart enough” to figure out His puzzle? Doesn’t fly. Sorry.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I find it instructive that Paul, before speaking of the eucharisrt, discusses the eating of meat offfered to idols as offemsive. This seems to emphasize the reality of the taking of the body and blood of Christ. Beyond that, I find Calvin’s notion of symbolism as explained in his “Institutes.” to be far more realistic than that of the modern Calvinist, for he atttributes a certain presence of the power of Christ to be present, even though Christ is physically sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven. I think modern evangelicals are influenced by Kant and the notion of psycological states, something which goes beyond the nominalism of earlier Protestants like Zwingli.
 
viktor aleksndr:
If that is symbolic the Jesus could have stated "…this is the SYMBOL of my Body…

Why would Jesus speak such things as “Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood” in front of the Jews that he knows that Jews will hate him if that is just a symbolic. Or why did Jesus did not take back what he had said during the sermon when the jews left him on that place because of that teaching?

It is because Jesus taught not of symbols but of truth.
Click to expand...
Viktor - It is apparent you read neither the Chrisian explanation of the bread nor the Bible verses from which it comes.
Jesus explained in verse 63 that the bread was not physical, and some disciples left in verse 66
 
Hey, are you the Bill Jackson known for being anti-Catholic or are you just using that name because you respect what he represents?

“Bill Jackson and Robert Zins, two Fundamentalist evangelists known for their antiCatholic work”

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304drag.asp
 
Semper Fi:
I knew someone would get around to quoting Saint Ignatius for me. 🙂 Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle, the caretaker of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch is a Holy Martyr and died in Rome. We have letters of Mary responding to the letters of Ignatius, so I’m pretty sure he would know the Faith. 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry to jump in the discussion so late, but this reminded me of something someone said on a similar thread a year back, to the effect of “Ignatius was taught by the author of John 6, what would he know?”:rotfl:

For those might be interested in seeing the discussion, here’s the link (Remember this, Mickey?)
 
40.png
Mickey:
Poppycock!
Click to expand...
40.png
JoeyWarren:
Ditto!
Click to expand...
I think Eden did a nice job on Post # 4 of this thread that people should refer (but, to make it easy, here it is)

"So, when I make John 6 symbolic…?

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh ?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat a cracker which is a symbol of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh grape juice as a symbol of my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, the same also shall live by me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, shall live for ever.
60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood is hard, and who can hear it?
62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?
63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Mickey
Respectfully, I also see it that way.
Let me ask you to do something.

Explain what happens to the host that makes it nonsymbolic in your own words.
Click to expand...
Each and every Mass is an annunciation, a proposal brought forth by Jesus through the priest. The priest overshadows the gifts of bread and wine via the Holy Spirit just like the Angel Gabriel said unto Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”. This is why the bread and the wine become the Real Presence. We should be just like Mary and say “How can this be?”, and then say “Be it done unto me according to your word.”. Paul said that we become a New Creation in Christ, and so it is that we are born again at each and every Mass. You can see this when the priest places his hands over the gifts and says, “Come Holy Spirit over these gifts of bread and wine”.
 
Just a little thought here. The Passover Lamb, was it eaten or not? Were those who ate the lamb saved from death?

YEA!
 
Bill Jackson:
Viktor - It is apparent you read neither the Chrisian explanation of the bread nor the Bible verses from which it comes.
Jesus explained in verse 63 that the bread was not physical, and some disciples left in verse 66
Click to expand...
Notice
I sent Bill Jackson an email. His reply back had his organizations stuff in it. I can bear witness that this Bill Jackson is the one in same from the Denver Debate.
 
John Medina:
Just a little thought here. The Passover Lamb, was it eaten or not? Were those who ate the lamb saved from death?

YEA!
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t pick up a hunk of lamb and say ‘this is my body … this is my blood’, he very clearly and specifically picked up the bread and wine. And his companions on the road to Emmaus recognised him in the breaking of the bread, not the carving of the lamb. And St Paul specifies the breaking of bread, not having a spitroast.

Just like instead of saying ‘I am the vine …’ he could’ve said ‘I am the figtree’ or ‘I am the apple tree’ or ‘I am the mulberry tree’. He picked his symbols and that’s what we use.

Otherwise we could eat any part of a traditional Passover meal … the bitter herbs or whatever else … and claim it as his body and blood.
 
The reason given that Jesus didn’t literally mean when He said, “I am the bread of life” is because Jesus also said, “I am the vine”, and “I am the door”. Will somebody please point out to me, cause I’m sure I missed it in my bible, how many disciples left Jesus when He said, “I am the vine”, and how many left Him when He said, “I am the door”? How many said that these were “hard” sayings? I can’t find it. Please give me the chapter and verse.

Thanks
 
Can someone please explain to me way there is a problem with what Jesus said about the bread and wine becoming His Body and Blood. For anyone to take any of His words as symbolic would be a denial of His words all together. We are in no position to say what is symbolic and what is literal. I for one don’t look at His words, any of them, and decided what should be taken literally and what should be seen as symbolic.

Jesus said it for Himself that, “my blood is true drink and my flesh is true food.” Sounds point blank and period to me. All of His words are to be seen and taken LITERALLY.
 
40.png
onmywayagain:
Can someone please explain to me way there is a problem with what Jesus said about the bread and wine becoming His Body and Blood. For anyone to take any of His words as symbolic would be a denial of His words all together. We are in no position to say what is symbolic and what is literal. I for one don’t look at His words, any of them, and decided what should be taken literally and what should be seen as symbolic.

Jesus said it for Himself that, “my blood is true drink and my flesh is true food.” Sounds point blank and period to me. All of His words are to be seen and taken LITERALLY.
Click to expand...
Literally? Why is the bread and wine His Body and Blood yet nobody is plucking out their eyeballs or cutting off their hands?
The Messiah was prophesized to speak in parables.
 
40.png
kujo313:
Literally? Why is the bread and wine His Body and Blood yet nobody is plucking out their eyeballs or cutting off their hands?
The Messiah was prophesized to speak in parables.
Click to expand...
The use of parables as it relates to the Eucharist has already been answered on this thread several times.

AGAIN:

When He did speak metaphorically, the disciples knew it. They did not ask, “Are you really made of wood?” or “Are you really a vine?” because they knew it was metaphor just as we do.

But in the case of the Body and Blood, they know he was not speaking metaphorically. That is why they say this is a hard saying. More importantly, he does not correct their understanding, He emphasizes what He had already said.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.

In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom.
Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood.

But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence.

Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

More links for anyone interested in studying the “Real Presence”:

www.therealpresence.org

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp
 
I’m still waiting for sombody to point out in scripture to me, please. How many disciples left Jesus when he said “I am the vine”, or “I am the door” and that they said these were “hard” sayings? If there was no difference why would they leave on some metaphor as “I am the bread…” but not “I am the vine…I am the door”? It must be somewhere.
 
40.png
Eden:
The use of parables as it relates to the Eucharist has already been answered on this thread several times.

AGAIN:

When He did speak metaphorically, the disciples knew it. They did not ask, “Are you really made of wood?” or “Are you really a vine?” because they knew it was metaphor just as we do.

But in the case of the Body and Blood, they know he was not speaking metaphorically. That is why they say this is a hard saying. More importantly, he does not correct their understanding, He emphasizes what He had already said.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.

In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom.
Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood.

But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence.

Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

More links for anyone interested in studying the “Real Presence”:

www.therealpresence.org

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp
Click to expand...
Could it also mean that we must allow His blood to run through our veins? His shed blood that takes away our sins?
We must live on His blood. The Lamb’s blood was shed for our sins and His blood is life! Without blood, there is no life.
 
40.png
kujo313:
Could it also mean that we must allow His blood to run through our veins? His shed blood that takes away our sins?
We must live on His blood. The Lamb’s blood was shed for our sins and His blood is life! Without blood, there is no life.
Click to expand...
Could it also mean we must allow His blood to run through our veins? You mean symbolically, right? Sure, why not?

But what John 6 does mean, most assuredly, is that Christ is present in the consecrated Eucharist.

For anyone newly interested in the Catholic faith and is looking for somewhere to begin in understanding the Real Presence, here is a book you may enjoy:

"Real People, Real Presence:*** Ordinary Catholics on the Extraordinary Power of the Eucharist**"*

Presented by Cardinal William Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, with a foreword by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR

What can ordinary Catholics teach us about the Eucharist? As a way to deepen our appreciation for this special sacrament and to celebrate the Year of the Eucharist, Cardinal William Keeler invited Catholics to write stories that witness to the power of the Eucharist in their lives. These stories attest to the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, whether at Mass, during visits to the Blessed Sacrament, at Eucharistic Adoration, or while serving as an Extraordinary Minister. This book offers profound testimony from Catholics in the pews to the extraordinary and precious gift of the Eucharist to our church and the world.

www.wau.org/real_presence/
 
40.png
Eden:
Could it also mean we must allow His blood to run through our veins? You mean symbolically, right? Sure, why not?

But what John 6 does mean, most assuredly, is that Christ is present in the consecrated Eucharist.

Why isn’t John 6 symolic? After all, Jesus DID say 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. "

If He was speaking in the spirit, does that mean to take it literally? If so, then send me the link to the newspaper that reports of you plucking out your eye or cutting off your hand.

But you cannot say that John 6 is symbolic because you bound yourself to your religion. You listen to a “pope” who is in the line of Peter, your “cornerstone”.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top