The Body and Blood are Symbolic

[Eden]

kujo313:

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”.

When did I ever say Jesus did not use metaphors? I most certainly did not! If you read my posts on this again you will see that I show how when Jesus does use metaphor his audience knows it’s metaphor. They don’t say, “Are you really made of wood?”

But when He instituted the Eucharist, they know it’s not metaphor. That is why they say, “This is a hard saying” and walk away. Jesus doesn’t correct them! He doesn’t say, “No, you are wrong! It’ only symbol!” He lets the disciples leave Him and asks if the others will leave as well. It could not be clearer that what is happening in John 6 is not symbolism.

 

[mtr01]

kujo313:

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”.

I will ask the same question I ask of everone who uses this line of argumentation: when did “spiritual” become a synonym for “symbolic”? I mean, after all, God is spiritual, yet he is not symbolic, right kujo?

Are more accurate way of reading this passage is to realize that our Lord is speaking spiritually as opposed to carnally…not that he is speaking symbolically.

 

[JoeyWarren]

mtr01:

I will ask the same question I ask of everone who uses this line of argumentation: when did “spiritual” become a synonym for “symbolic”? I mean, after all, God is spiritual, yet he is not symbolic, right kujo?

Are more accurate way of reading this passage is to realize that our Lord is speaking spiritually as opposed to carnally…not that he is speaking symbolically.

oooooooooh! very good!

 

[TobyLue]

Since those that claim that “I am the Bread of life”, “I am the door”, and “I am the vine” are just metaphors I will ask for the third time

I’m still waiting for somebody 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.

 

[Coder]

The truth of Catholic teaching of the Eucharist is readily shown on many levels. The fact that it was ever called into question so many centuries ago was a serious error.

I will start with one. This one point alone is enough to settle the question but I have much more. Toby’s point is also excellent.

Jesus said “the flesh profits nothing”. Therefore Protestant communion which is nothing more than a piece of earthly bread (i.e. flesh/matter) profits nothing.

 

[onmywayagain]

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.

There is a big difference that you may be missing between the use of parables and what John 6 is saying. There is a very distinctive word that is used in almost every parable. The word is “like”. The word “like” is not even used in any part of John 6 when it is talking about the Body and Blood. In the parables it starts out by saying, “the Kingdom of Heaven is like.” But when Jesus is speaking of the Body and Blood the word “is” is not followed by the word “like.” The word “like” makes all the difference in the world when trying to understand what is being said about the Body and Blood in John 6.

Let me give you an example. Your Faith your is like an exercise program. Now am I saying that it is an exercise program or am I comparing it to an exercise program. Jesus in no way was speaking symbollically and or trying to make a comparison.

 

[GroovyCatholic]

Hi all! I am new to this site and what I would consider myself young in my deep study of the Catholic faith, but I am a little bit suprised no one has mentioned the fact that even from a historical sense where one’s own religious background is taken out of it, people can find evidence of the early Christians belief in the Eucharist becoming the actual body and blood of Christ. In history books (and I wish now that I could find my notes and give the exact title, author, etc. of some of the ones I have found) it is clearly stated that many nonChristians believed that this “new Christian religion” promoted cannibalism. This was a huge reason so many people wanted early Christians persecuted. (Granted, that is NOT what Jesus was promoting, nor what Catholics believe, but you can see how they got that idea from the true Catholic belief.) If Jesus’s teaching was that the act of Communion was simply symbolic, I would think many a new Christian would have made sure to clear that up before they were put to death for their beliefs. And if these believers, who were taught by the very men that walked and talked with Christ, held so firmly to the belief of the actual body, blood, soul and divinity present in the Eucharist, why would we change it? If you are a nonCatholic reading this thread, we Catholics know this is a tough belief, because as someone mentioned earlier, it goes against everything you seem to know as possible…but God is the God of miracles, and He did this for us, because he loves us beyond compare. Please be patient with our answers, pray about it earnestly, and don’t ever stop searching for His truth. We love you, and we’re glad you’re here, no matter what your reason.

 

[mschrank]

Yeah, they are symbolic- people (including Luther) just believed that they were literal for some 1700 years! Stupid Christians! John was an idiot blinded by the traditions of men but Zwingli was a genius who knew the Bible.

 

[lizaanne]

The Body and Blood are Symbolic

Yes they are – everywhere but in the Catholic Church. That’s where we have the True Presence of Jesus Christ.

~Liza

 

[Metaron]

Great post, Eden! Well illustrated.

Questions for those who think the Body and Blood were ‘merely symbolic.’ Why did disciples leave and follow no more simply over a ‘ceremony?’ What is there that is scandalous about a ‘symbolic ceremony?’ They didn’t have time to celebrate it? It would add too much extra time to the Sunday service and people wouldn’t be able to get home in time to remove the pot roast from the oven? What?

You must explain the reaction of the listeners. It doesn’t jive with the “symbolic explanation.”

Lisa

Right on. And besides, the Protestants who don’t believe in the real Presence are basically siding with the disciples who left Jesus over this issue, by not believing that Almightly God would give Himself to us in Holy Communion.

And another thing, the Passover sacrifice in the OT was not considered complete until those at the table had eaten of the sacrificial lamb.

 

[Metaron]

Yeah, they are symbolic- people (including Luther) just believed that they were literal for some 1700 years! Stupid Christians! John was an idiot blinded by the traditions of men but Zwingli was a genius who knew the Bible.

Yes, the liberal, Humanist, Zwingli. He attacked the custom of fasting during Lent. He also was very anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran, and anti-Anabaptist.

 

[Claudius]

I think it is rather clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically .

No he wasn’t. To say this is to stop being Christian is indeed you ever really were one to begin with. The Eucharist is Jesus. Plane and simple. There is no room for error on this point, at all. If you deny the Eucharist then you become Judas who fell because he could not believe that Jesus is the bread of life come down from heaven. That is what you MUST believe in order to even say you believe in Jesus. No one who does not believe in the Eucharist is able to truely call Jesus their Lord. You reject him, but still call on him is to take his name in vain.