The Torah, Acts, and the Eucharist

[jurist12]

I Post on another Board besides this one as well that is considered by some to be “anti-Catholic” and when the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation comes up one or two posters bring up the idea that if Christ had told us to drink His Blood and eat His Body then that would be against the Torah (OT) and would disqualify Jesus as The Messiah, since Jesus kept the Law perfectly. Also if the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Christ that would go against what the Apostles decided in the Book of Acts regarding Gentiles becoming Christian in that even though they didn’t have to be circumsized and keep the whole Law they were forbidden to drink Blood and refrain from eating things that were strangled and Idolatry. Hence for the Apostles to teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ then they too would not only break The Law in the Torah (OT) but also their own decision at the Jerusalem Council. Can anyone help me with an answer to this? Thank You. In Christ, jurist12

 

[aSaintoneday]

In the acts times, when they were told at the Council of Jerusalem I believe, were they were to abstain from blood, here is what was going on during the time.

Romans were drinking the blood of bulls to “in there minds” gain the strength of the bull, and show how manly and strong they were. These same Romans also called themselves Christians.

The women of that time were drinking nightingale blood to show off their sensualness, “in their minds” increase their sensualness.

Peter and the other Apostles declared that Jesus’ blood is so so so very important, and holy and sacred, that you can not drink animal blood and also receive the blood of Jesus Christ.

This not only shows that they didn’t condemn the idea that Jesus’ blood was the real deal, but also of how important it truly is.

On the other point about Jesus keeping the law perfectly, Jesus is the New Covenant. Jesus is the new law, and Jesus also over turned Mosaic Law, such as with the “not eating pigs”.

I hope this helps out some, peace and joy!

 

[aSaintoneday]

Jesus said it, it’s settled, and I believe it.

Hallelujah!

 

[JimG]

Jesus very clearly said that he would give us his body and blood to eat and drink. Why do they spend so much time trying to explain it away?

 

[Pax]

jurist12:

I Post on another Board besides this one as well that is considered by some to be “anti-Catholic” and when the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation comes up one or two posters bring up the idea that if Christ had told us to drink His Blood and eat His Body then that would be against the Torah (OT) and would disqualify Jesus as The Messiah, since Jesus kept the Law perfectly. Also if the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Christ that would go against what the Apostles decided in the Book of Acts regarding Gentiles becoming Christian in that even though they didn’t have to be circumsized and keep the whole Law they were forbidden to drink Blood and refrain from eating things that were strangled and Idolatry. Hence for the Apostles to teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ then they too would not only break The Law in the Torah (OT) but also their own decision at the Jerusalem Council. Can anyone help me with an answer to this? Thank You. In Christ, jurist12

In John Chapter 6, Jesus made it quite clear that He would give us His body as food and His blood as drink. Jesus said this at least four times and in several different ways. In verse 51 of the discourse Jesus tells the disciples that the bread He will give them is the same flesh that He would give for the life of the world. If your antagonists believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically then they must also believe that His flesh on the cross was merely symbolic. I would strongly suggest that you read John Chapter six several times and read some of the available tracts on the subject at catholic.com or at jamesakin.com. These things should provide you with plenty of ammo.

I am amazed that your antagonists would try to use the prohibition against eating blood sacrificed to idols as a condemnation of the Eucharist. That is just crazy! You might also do some homework on what the early Church fathers had to say about the Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a first century bishop ordained by the apostle John. While on his way to Rome to be martyred, he wrote a number of letters to the local churches. He wrote one to the Church at Smyrna and makes a direct reference to the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. It’s hard to believe that a bishop ordained by John would somehow get it wrong. There are numerous other quotes from the Church fathers that can also be used. Again, go to the aforementioned websites and you can probably get info on the Church fathers.

 

[trogiah]

Pax:

In John Chapter 6, Jesus made it quite clear that He would give us His body as food and His blood as drink. Jesus said this at least four times and in several different ways. In verse 51 of the discourse Jesus tells the disciples that the bread He will give them is the same flesh that He would give for the life of the world. If your antagonists believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically then they must also believe that His flesh on the cross was merely symbolic. I would strongly suggest that you read John Chapter six several times and read some of the available tracts on the subject at catholic.com or at jamesakin.com. These things should provide you with plenty of ammo.

.

I sometimes wonder what Jesus would think of how people view the Eucharist today.

After the discussion on those who found it difficult to accept Jesus teaching “I am the bread of Life”, Jesus said the following:

“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.”

To me this suggests that Jesus was not trying to convince his followers about the fleshly (is that a word?) reality of the Eucharist but about the spiritual reality of it. And I firmly believe that the spiritual reality is by far the more important reality.

In chapter 4 of the gospel of John we read the following:

“Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”
But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.””

Here Jesus is talking about doing God’s will as though that act is the means by which he feeds himself. Is it possible that when he talks about us “feeding on his flesh” that he means the same kind of feeding that he does by doing God’s will?

I believe this to be the case.

We feed on Jesus - spiritually, physically, really and truly - when we listen to his words and follow his example. We need this kind of food as much and more than we need bread to eat and wine to drink.

peace, Jim

 

[nordskoven]

Christ’s consecration spoke into existence the physical reality of the bread and wine as His Body and Blood. Hence, “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.”

“You must eat My Body and drink My Blood to have eternal life.” Do these Invincibly Ignorant non-Catholics partake in the Last Supper? Granted, it’s not the Real Presence, but do they even get that far in hearing and obeying Jesus Christ?

“May the Lord enlighten the eyes of our hearts.”

 

[Pax]

trogiah:

I sometimes wonder what Jesus would think of how people view the Eucharist today.

After the discussion on those who found it difficult to accept Jesus teaching “I am the bread of Life”, Jesus said the following:

“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.”

To me this suggests that Jesus was not trying to convince his followers about the fleshly (is that a word?) reality of the Eucharist but about the spiritual reality of it. And I firmly believe that the spiritual reality is by far the more important reality.

In chapter 4 of the gospel of John we read the following:

“Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”
But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.””

Here Jesus is talking about doing God’s will as though that act is the means by which he feeds himself. Is it possible that when he talks about us “feeding on his flesh” that he means the same kind of feeding that he does by doing God’s will?

I believe this to be the case.

We feed on Jesus - spiritually, physically, really and truly - when we listen to his words and follow his example. We need this kind of food as much and more than we need bread to eat and wine to drink.

peace, Jim

Jim,

When Jesus says, “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.”, he is telling us that it is the spirit that is everything and not our “fleshy” lack of faith as displayed by the disciples that left him. It is our flesh that is of no avail. This statement does not apply to the flesh of Jesus. If that were so, then the same would hold true for his flesh on the cross. The proper understanding of this verse is not well served by most English translations. There is a non-Catholic translation, however, that might impress the true meaning on you.

The New Living translation: replaces the words “while the flesh is of no avail.” with the words, “human effort accomplishes nothing.”
This verse is not talking about the flesh of Jesus, but the human weakness in the listeners that turned away.

If you read the discourse on the Bread of Life with this and a few other things in mind, you cannot come to anything but the Catholic conclusion. Maybe this will also help. When Jesus speaks about eating his flesh he does so several different times. Initially Jesus uses a generic term to eat which in the Greek, if I’m not mistaken is “phago.” He then repeats the statement about eating his flesh but uses a word that literally means to “gnaw or to chew” food. The original Greek uses the word “trogo”(to gnaw or chew). This extra emphasis doesn’t come through in the English translation. It obviously meant something to the disciples that left Jesus. And take note, Jesus did not dispute their understanding or give some other explanation. He meant what he said even though He knew that they would no longer walk with Him. If he were merely speaking symbolically He would not have let them go because of miscommunication.

Also read Paul’s statements about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians Chapters 10 and 11. The verses in these two chapters are powerful testimonies to the real presence as are the accounts of the Last Supper in the synoptic gospels. But this is only part of the testimony to this truth. A good book that you might want to read is The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. There are many other materials available that go into much more detail than can be accomplished in a few posts, and I think you would find them both informative and persuasive.

 

[elvisman]

Pax:

Jim,

When Jesus says, “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.”, he is telling us that it is the spirit that is everything and not our “fleshy” lack of faith as displayed by the disciples that left him. It is our flesh that is of no avail. This statement does not apply to the flesh of Jesus. If that were so, then the same would hold true for his flesh on the cross. The proper understanding of this verse is not well served by most English translations. There is a non-Catholic translation, however, that might impress the true meaning on you.

The New Living translation: replaces the words “while the flesh is of no avail.” with the words, “human effort accomplishes nothing.”
This verse is not talking about the flesh of Jesus, but the human weakness in the listeners that turned away.

If you read the discourse on the Bread of Life with this and a few other things in mind, you cannot come to anything but the Catholic conclusion. Maybe this will also help. When Jesus speaks about eating his flesh he does so several different times. Initially Jesus uses a generic term to eat which in the Greek, if I’m not mistaken is “phago.” He then repeats the statement about eating his flesh but uses a word that literally means to “gnaw or to chew” food. The original Greek uses the word “trogo”(to gnaw or chew). This extra emphasis doesn’t come through in the English translation. It obviously meant something to the disciples that left Jesus. And take note, Jesus did not dispute their understanding or give some other explanation. He meant what he said even though He knew that they would no longer walk with Him. If he were merely speaking symbolically He would not have let them go because of miscommunication.
QUOTE]

**Beautifully put, PAX!! **

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome