Question On The Eucharist?

[ttomm46]

I could be wrong..It's happened a lot but when Jesus commanded us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood why did some followers depart from him if He didn't mean that the Eucharist was actually his body and blood.....Doesn't that kill the idea that it's all just symbolic?


Tom

[kujo]

People left because they understood [b]EXACTLY WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING[/b]: That the bread and wine are [b]TRULY HIS BODY AND BLOOD[/b]. And yes, this does discount the misconception that it is a symbolic thing. It's that simple...I don't understand how people can miss this fact.

Rock on for the Eucharist, bro!

[Maggyie]

Notice that He immediately asked the apostles, "Are you going to leave me, too?" He didn't say, "Hey, come back, I was just being all symbolic about that."

[ttomm46]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1238033' date='Apr 10 2007, 06:42 PM']Notice that He immediately asked the apostles, "Are you going to leave me, too?" He didn't say, "Hey, come back, I was just being all symbolic about that."[/quote]

[dUSt]

I think the argument is that the people left because they did not believe that Jesus was truly the son of God, not because he was talking about eating His flesh. The "eating of flesh" could remain symbolic in this light.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1238612' date='Apr 11 2007, 08:56 AM']I think the argument is that the people left because they did not believe that Jesus was truly the son of God, not because he was talking about eating His flesh. The "eating of flesh" could remain symbolic in this light.[/quote]

Whereas this interpretation [i]can[/i] borne out by the exchange immediately following Jesus asking the disciples whether they wanted to leave as well (Jn. 6:67-69), to wit:

67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

I don't think that it needs to be an either/or interpretation. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, and His claim to divinity go together hand in glove, IMHO.

My two cents.

[dairygirl4u2c]

There's also the argument that he was being symbolic. The flesh that he was to give was his body on the cross etc. Notice when Jesus first says anything about flesh it was the bread that he will give is his flesh for the life of the world. Surely at this point, all would agree he could be figurative. Then he took the metaphor even further to make a point. Then when they quarreled, he corrected them and said it was symbolic "spirit and life". When they walked away, it was indeed due to their not understanding and unwillingness to follow Jesus even when things were uncertain. THey would have understood had they stayed. Also, there was that time no one understood Jesus about the temple being destroyed was actually his own body, but Jesus didn't correct them. These are both forshadows to the crucifiction which is hard for people to understand, so metaphors etc are used.


So the argument goes that I think is the best.

[cmotherofpirl]

"THis is my body- take and EAT" gives no possibility of sybolisc interpretation.

[ttomm46]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1238740' date='Apr 11 2007, 12:09 PM']"THis is my body- take and EAT" gives no possibility of sybolisc interpretation.[/quote]
It sure doesn't!..Or he would have said this represents my body..

[dairygirl4u2c]

To me, I think the bible can say whatever you want it to say. That's why you gotta go to early church history, where the CC ultimatley prevails. The only argument there is that corruption of the understanding crept in but that's pretty hard pill to swallow. It is interesting to note Ignatius who is the strongest proof was writing letters when fed to lions and so he had no chance to correct his symbolic writing which were later misunderstood. etc i could go, But all this spedulation starts to get absurd.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Communion can be about eating a communal meal in rememberance of hte crucifixtion. We are nourished by his crucifiction. It could be symbolic I think. but the real arguments are in my last post.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='ttomm46' post='1238743' date='Apr 11 2007, 10:13 AM']It sure doesn't!..Or he would have said this represents my body..[/quote]

I know that you're talking about John 6, and thou I believe that the eucharist is literal, I believe that there's great justificatioin that it could be taken [thou not nessessarily true] as symbolic.

[quote]19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[/quote]

Even in the scripture of John, Jesus mentions the Passover, but just read what it says in Luke. Jesus says, "this is my body given for you", what it really his body at that very moment or did the Eucharist get affirmed after Jesus's death? Remember Jesus hadn't given himself to the world, until the crucifixion, that was the sacrifice, so at this moment, people could take it as symbolic because he even said "do this in rememberance of me." He went on to say "this cup is the new covenant of my blood" was the cup itself the new covenant? Was it really his blood right in that cup that very moment or did the Eucharist become alive after his crucifixion?

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"this cup is the new covenant of my blood" was the cup itself the new covenant? Was it really his blood right in that cup that very moment or did the Eucharist become alive after his crucifixion?[/quote]Good point, everything around "eat" is symbolic type language.
Notice Matthew is the only one where he actually says eat, the others say take it, this is my body. this is my body do this in rememberance of me:
[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:26-28;%20Mark%2014:12-25;%20Luke%2022:7-20"]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...0Luke%2022:7-20[/url]

Plus the way they say it at mass could be symbolic. "this is the new covenant in my blood which will be shed for all do this in memory of me". That even sounds like it could be symbolic.
[quote]

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.[/quote]

Edited April 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[prose]

I just think it is funny that so many fundamental christians claim the Bible is to be taken literally... Except when it comes to this. THIS must be symbolic.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1238764' date='Apr 11 2007, 01:30 PM']I know that you're talking about John 6, and thou I believe that the eucharist is literal, I believe that there's great justificatioin that it could be taken [thou not nessessarily true] as symbolic.
Even in the scripture of John, Jesus mentions the Passover, but just read what it says in Luke. Jesus says, "this is my body given for you", what it really his body at that very moment or did the Eucharist get affirmed after Jesus's death? Remember Jesus hadn't given himself to the world, until the crucifixion, that was the sacrifice, so at this moment, people could take it as symbolic because he even said "do this in rememberance of me." He went on to say "this cup is the new covenant of my blood" was the cup itself the new covenant? Was it really his blood right in that cup that very moment or did the Eucharist become alive after his crucifixion?

Reza[/quote]
It was never considered symbolic by the early church. One cannot assume when Jesus said "this is my Body" he was lying. When Jesus says it, the word would be better translated as munch or gnaw on. That is hardly symbolic.