For Prots - What Does Eat Flesh And Drink Blood Mean

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 09:13 AM']as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?[/quote]

Firstly, I wouldn't ever use the word 'policy' to describe the Church's capacity to dogmatically define something. 'Policy' just doesn't have the right connotation. It might be the Church's policy to exclusively provide Pepsicola products to visitors to the Vatican...I would hardly think that this would mean that the Magisterium is trying to somehow declare that the laity should only drink Pepsi and that Coca Cola is wrong.

Anyway, I think it is fallacious for your line of reasoning to get hung up on the papal infalliblity issue. Eucharistic theology predates the modern conception of the papal persona. I mean the early chuch fathers mostly quoted are [i]not [/i]popes. The New Testaments passages cited are not written by popes. The councils quoted may have had papal input, but the authority rested on the council to decide the ultimate formulations on the philosophical reality of the Eucharistic Transformation.

The Eucharist is NOT a Pope issue. It is a ongoing Catholic Issue that forms the deepest mystery of the Fatih...and despite the popular Protestant view in the last 150 years since Papal Infallibility...not every Catholic issue is a Pope issue...even if Popes since Vatican I have continued to talk about it.

Sorry to be snappy...I just get frustrated when important Catholic issues are obscured by straw man Pope arguments...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 09:13 AM']so you want someone to use the same evidence as you used, but to try and prove a different point? doesnt really work. they and i have both read the passages you are referring to, but in the non catholic world it doesn't really make as much sense to be taken so literally.

as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?

so what i am saying is, if you agree perfectly with the churches stance(why not?) then post their reasons for believing the way they do.[/quote]
While others have done a good job answering this, you might start out with Scripture - starting with John 6. Note that many of Jesus' disciples left Him over this "hard teaching" ("Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"), a rather drastic measure if Christ was merely using metaphor.
And also note that Christ does not call them back to explain that this was only a figure of speech, but rather asks the Apostles if they too will leave him.

Also see 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 concerning the Eucharist:[quote]For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 [b]Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.[/b][/quote]
Pretty strong words if the Eucharist is only symbolic.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Socrates

[jeffpugh]

Don't forget St Paul's writings when he said that one who drinks and eats of the Eucharist eat and drink judgement on themselves. Strong for a symbol.

[Jesus_lol]

thanks to SMM and socrates for the replies!


[quote name='Veridicus' post='1548803' date='May 29 2008, 09:02 PM']Firstly, I wouldn't ever use the word 'policy' to describe the Church's capacity to dogmatically define something. 'Policy' just doesn't have the right connotation. It might be the Church's policy to exclusively provide Pepsicola products to visitors to the Vatican...I would hardly think that this would mean that the Magisterium is trying to somehow declare that the laity should only drink Pepsi and that Coca Cola is wrong.

Anyway, I think it is fallacious for your line of reasoning to get hung up on the papal infalliblity issue. Eucharistic theology predates the modern conception of the papal persona. I mean the early chuch fathers mostly quoted are [i]not [/i]popes. The New Testaments passages cited are not written by popes. The councils quoted may have had papal input, but the authority rested on the council to decide the ultimate formulations on the philosophical reality of the Eucharistic Transformation.

The Eucharist is NOT a Pope issue. It is a ongoing Catholic Issue that forms the deepest mystery of the Fatih...and despite the popular Protestant view in the last 150 years since Papal Infallibility...not every Catholic issue is a Pope issue...even if Popes since Vatican I have continued to talk about it.

Sorry to be snappy...I just get frustrated when important Catholic issues are obscured by straw man Pope arguments... [/quote]


i dont think you quite got what i was trying to say. firstly, sorry if policy isnt the right word, i hardly meant it in a legal sense of the word, or seriously enough to get in a twist over it.

the Eucharist isnt about the pope. i was simply stating that explaining the eucharist as "thats what the church thinks, and since i dont question the church, that is what i think" doesnt really work if you actually do question the church, (like everyone this article is aimed at, really). most catholics have a better understanding of their beliefs than simple uninformed faith, just as most protestants have a better reason than "this is what catholics beleive, and catholics are always wrong"

i am not saying that that is the sole reason for the Eucharist being the way it is, but some people here and elsewhere dont get anymore specific than that.

i have nothing against the catholic stance, and i dont even really disagree with it. i dont want to be offensive, but i couldnt care less for arguments on either side that dont go deeper than "because he said so"

Edited May 30, 2008 by Jesus_lol

[Alycin]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548980' date='May 30 2008, 12:32 AM']i have nothing against the catholic stance, and i dont even really disagree with it. but without being offensive, but i couldnt care less for arguments on either side that dont go deeper than "because he said so"[/quote]


If the "he" were Jesus, would it make a difference?

[Jesus_lol]

definitely. remember here, i am not really for either side, just interested in more indepth personal reasons for people beliefs. text CAN be misconstrued quite easily, as many posters on this board have realized, and there are many hotly contested passages in the bible for the same reasons, including this one.
from an outsiders perspective, communion wafers and wine actually being flesh and blood of none other than the son of god who lived 2 thousand years ago seems a bit outlandish. it isnt unreasonable to consider whether it is symbolic or not.

to alycin, i definitely wasn't meaning Jesus, but i see what you mean.

[Deb]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1549061' date='May 30 2008, 01:01 AM']definitely. remember here, i am not really for either side, just interested in more indepth personal reasons for people beliefs. text CAN be misconstrued quite easily, as many posters on this board have realized, and there are many hotly contested passages in the bible for the same reasons, including this one.
from an outsiders perspective, communion wafers and wine actually being flesh and blood of none other than the son of god who lived 2 thousand years ago seems a bit outlandish. it isnt unreasonable to consider whether it is symbolic or not.

to alycin, i definitely wasn't meaning Jesus, but i see what you mean.[/quote]

I know that you weren't meaning Jesus but, basically, it is Jesus who said we were to eat his flesh and drink his blood and he did not say, symbolically. He said it many, many times. So, as a Catholic, I can just say, because Jesus said so and that in essence really does sum it up.

I can see where someone might think that it actually being the flesh and blood of Christ as being "outlandish" but, only if they also think that healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, curing leprosy, raising someone from the dead and Christ's own resurrection were outlandish.
It does however go a long way in explaining why Prostestants also don't believe in reconcilliation or apostolic succession and other Catholic precepts. To me it says they believe in the idea of Christ and the "story" of Christ and believe in God and the ten commandments but, they don't believe in much else. Kind of like Catholic ultra-lite. Take away all the supernatural and mysterious, remove the tradition handed down by the Apostles, ignore the reality that God is so far beyond our understanding, try to dumb God down to our level of rationality and you get Protestantism.
It all comes down to a religion laid down by Jesus Christ or religions created by the mandate of man.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548980' date='May 29 2008, 11:32 PM']i have nothing against the catholic stance, and i dont even really disagree with it. i dont want to be offensive, but i couldnt care less for arguments on either side that dont go deeper than "because he said so"[/quote]


I think the important thing to understand about the Eucharist is that there [i]is[/i] a scriptural basis for it. And it is not just a single passage of scripture that supports it, but many. In reality I think the argument for the True Presence is a much stronger scriptural argument than the weak 2 Tim 3:16 support for Sola Scriptura. From scripture we transition historically to the writings of the early Church Fathers who have already been quoted earlier in this thread. Following this are writings by Augustine, early Christian mystics, Popes (notice how small of a part of my defense the Popes are ), Church Councils, etc. etc. etc.

My point is that the Eucharist is a fully developed and maintained component of the Christian life that has at its source in early scriptural exegesis and the traditions handed down to that first generation of apostolic disciples whose writings we still have. It started with the words of Christ, was expanded by Paul, was placed in the context of Jesus's ministry by John in his Gospel, was implicated as a central component of Christian life by Luke in Acts, and was further elaborated by post-scriptural Christians of the orthodox tradition: Ignatius of Antioch & Justin Martyr (100s AD), Irenaeus & Tertullian & Clement of Alexandria & Cyprian (200s), Athanasius & Basil & John Chrystosom & Gregory of Nyssa (300s), and on and on and on....

There is no 'because we say so' argument. The grand scope of history demonstrates that Christians have believed (although yes there have alwasy been dissenters and after the 1500s there was formalized dissent...) in the True Presence since the day when Jesus' core group of followers were the only ones to accept his teaching about the consumption of the Sacred Body & Precious Blood and its relevance to eternal life. Sorry for the run-on sentences...

No one wants a Christian to come to an understanding of the Eucharist because 'Catholics say so.' I would say that the best understanding comes from an honest approach to scripture and an openness to the overwhelming historical and traditional evidence for the Eucharist...oh, and a belief that Jesus still works miracles in the world.

I think what keeps Protestants from the Eucharist isn't a paucity evidence, but the fact that if they start to believe and fall in love with the Eucharist as the Body & Blood of Christ...their conversion to Catholicism is almost inevitable.

Check this out for a much more in depth scriptural and writings of the Early Church Fathers approach: [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html[/url]

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[desertwoman]

I believe it dwells with the fear of cannibalism and how can we eat Christ over and over again.

As a Baptist myself, I believe in the real presence.

[Deb]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1549481' date='May 30 2008, 01:23 PM']I believe it dwells with the fear of cannibalism and how can we eat Christ over and over again.

As a Baptist myself, I believe in the real presence.[/quote]


So, as a believer in the real presence, and a Baptist, don't you hunger for the Eucharist?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1549481' date='May 30 2008, 01:23 PM']I believe it dwells with the fear of cannibalism and how can we eat Christ over and over again.

As a Baptist myself, I believe in the real presence.[/quote]

Why do you suppose he preaches John 6 after the loaves and fishes and ties it in with the manna from heaven as well?

Edited May 31, 2008 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1549061' date='May 30 2008, 01:01 AM']definitely. remember here, i am not really for either side, just interested in more indepth personal reasons for people beliefs. text CAN be misconstrued quite easily, as many posters on this board have realized, and there are many hotly contested passages in the bible for the same reasons, including this one.
from an outsiders perspective, communion wafers and wine actually being flesh and blood of none other than the son of god who lived 2 thousand years ago seems a bit outlandish. it isnt unreasonable to consider whether it is symbolic or not.

to alycin, i definitely wasn't meaning Jesus, but i see what you mean.[/quote]


Are you on either side on whether God made an axe float, made a man walk on water (Peter), made a virgin concieve, parted the sea, fed thousands with a few loaves and fish with 12 baskets left over, changed water in to wine, raised men from STONES? Are you on either side over whether God has power over the elements?

If you are not on either side of these matters then why is this one where he is so definite, emphatic, literal (my flesh is true food....", etc. etc. is a bit too much to stomach and even those in Jn 6:66 turned and walked away. I can understand this passage in light of the literal. Not if he is just saying "hey guys it was only a symbol, just kidding about the literal thing".

Are you on either side on whether men can make something that is not orange juice taste like orange juice and orange juice taste like something else (if we wanted to we could). Can he make stones in to men as he said he could or was it just a metaphore? If you can't believe what God says and that what he can do is far greater than what men can do, then your problem is bigger than John 6 and puts the whole Bible and all the stories in question.


By the way I posted this on a protestant board so hopefully I will get what I am looking for there.

Blessings

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1549481' date='May 30 2008, 12:23 PM']I believe it dwells with the fear of cannibalism and how can we eat Christ over and over again.

As a Baptist myself, I believe in the real presence.[/quote]


[quote name='Deb' post='1549508' date='May 30 2008, 12:38 PM']So, as a believer in the real presence, and a Baptist, don't you hunger for the Eucharist?[/quote]

i'm pretty sure she means that he's really present.. in spirit, sort of thing.

she probably knew that you all believe that in a more literal sense, yet she said it anyway without qualifying. probably, to be ironic, to make a point etc. it's sort of tacky to me if that's the case.

if it's not the case though, good question.

[BG45]

Deb, are we Baptists going soft on what we shouldn't believe? Two Baptists on PM, and we both believe in the Real Presence...though on to the meat of the "prove it with Scripture" post, my attempt.

Dear goodness, what am I about to post? Aside from refuting basically my entire prior belief in regards to whether or not the Real Presence is that...and going to try and do so Sola Scriptura, and the NIV in particular, which I've always used. I want to try to do this in a manner that shies away from what has already been said, so no John Six, no Paul warning against receiving the body and blood without repenting and being sanctified. Instead, via links between sacrifice and ritual in the Old Testament and the new.

Okay first I want to do some context base here. It was Passover at the time of the "institution of the Eucharist" as the Catholics put it, or just Communion/The Lord's Supper as we put it in my church growing up. So before taking a look at the apparently outlandish claim of the Real Presence-perhaps outlandish isn't good enough; if the Real Presence is not Truth, then it is the greatest Deception in the history of mankind, for it would hijack Christ himself as a tool to be used by Satan- we need to take a look at Passover and what it entails.

In Exodus Chapter 12 we see the beginning of this, as it is the story of Passover. That the Lord spoke unto the Israelites, through Moses and Aaron, that to be spared the wrath of the Plague of the Firstborn, they must sacrifice a lamb and use the blood to paint the doorways. Just about every Christian knows this story somehow, however an oft overlooked section is where God tells them that for this sacrifice, they must also eat of the lamb that has been slain:

[quote]Exodus 12:7-23
Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover.

"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

"This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do.

"Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread."

Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.[/quote]

Note how demanding the Lord is in this sacrifice to stay His wrath. He tells the Israelites not only to spread the blood, but with what it is to be spread. He tells them how to eat the sacrifice, how to prepare the sacrifice, how the sacrifice must be honored through the generations to come. Jesus was an observant Jew of course, and we know due to the Gospels that Christ was celebrating the Passover during his last week on this earth.

But is God always so demanding in terms of sacrifice? Well, since sacrifice is the way that the Jewish people were atoning for their sins, yes it could be quite demanding. We see such sacrifices throughout the book of Genesis; Noah, Cain and Abel, Abraham…and the list goes on. Unless God spoke differently, the sacrifices were always carried out in roughly the same ritualistic manner, the building of a stone altar on which to present the slain animal as a repentance of sorts for sins; in Passover the Lord established a set time of sorts for the most important of the sacrifices until the coming of the Christ which would in due time be carried out in His temple.

The temple, interestingly enough was not chosen at random on some spot through a whim of a single man. It was, as Second Chronicles Chapter Three, verse thirty-one says that it was built on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had first appeared to David. Mount Moriah might also sound familiar from the story of Abraham, where in Genesis 22:1 1-15 we’re told:

[quote]Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."[/quote]

The Lord calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his only son in order to appease the will of God, a sacrifice so great that only he could do so because it was directly commanded of him. Isaac, we see, is even forced to carry his own wood, whilst remaining unaware that he is the sacrifice that is to be given. Because Abraham was faithful, he is given a ram to be sacrificed in the stead of his one and only son. The Lord provided the sacrifice, as He would again later for all mankind; yet in this case, the Lord lays out very different requirements from the standard sacrifice rituals, a portent of the True Sacrifice to come.

Another interesting case of sacrifice being different from the “normal” as it were is that of Melchizedek. Hebrews Chapter Seven makes a few interesting parallels between Melchizedek and Christ, including sacrifice and titles:


[quote]Hebrews 7:1-3
This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.[/quote]

The King of Salem is an interesting title in that it means King of Salem and sounds self explanatory until one thinks about the fact that Salem is later known by the name of Jerusalem. The Scripture also points out that King of Salem is also exchangeable with the title King of Peace. It goes on to compare Melchizedek to Christ, saying that the High Priest to come would be the Son, whom would not need to sacrifice animals, and that like Melchizedek, He would not be of the tribe of Levi.

Yet when the time comes for Passover, Jesus is still sacrificing an animal. Why? Because He is an observant Jew at the time, and is not pushing Himself in the faces of people as it were that He alone is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Nor does He reveal this at first to His disciples, especially not when they, as observant Jews are renewing their Covenant with God.
In John 19:14 it states that when Christ was handed over to Pilate, it was the sixth hour of the day of (or would that be for) preparation of the Passover. This time would better be known to Jewish readers of the era as the time that the lambs were beginning to be slaughtered by the Priests. [b]Christ is the lamb of God. Christ is the sacrifice that has been brought forth to be slaughtered.[/b]

In John 19:36, we are told that ‘These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"’. The most common citation of this Scripture is to match the prophecies made of the Messiah, and IMHO rightly so. However, if taken in the context of the Passover Sacrifice, we can look to Exodus 12:46, which demands that none of the Passover lamb’s bones be broken as part of the sacrifice.

This seems to be reaching a bit until we read that Christ is given his last drink on a sponge attached to a Hyssop branch. In Exodus, 12:22, previously posted, we read that Hyssop branches are what is prescribed by the Law for the sprinkling of the lamb’s blood.

If Christ is the new lamb to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind, and one of His titles is The Lamb of God, then why would we not partake of His flesh and of His blood? The entire Passion and Crucifixion ties into the Passover sacrifice, and part of that sacrifice, is to eat the body of the lamb that has been slain for the sins of those who offer it; in this case God gave His one and only Son as Abraham had been willing to offer Isaac, and allowed for His Son to be sacrificed…for no lamb could take away sins the way the Lamb of God can eternally.

The funny thing is, this sort of tie between the Passover sacrifice of a lamb and the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God during Passover, only hit me as I read Scott Hahn’s work. It never did before, and I’ve even heard this exact comparison drawn before in my own Baptist church; but without the idea of the Real Presence, it never sunk in quite the same way. Perhaps it is because to feast on the flesh of the lamb is a crucial part of Passover, and without it the sacrifice, is incomplete.

Edited May 31, 2008 by BG45

[MissyP89]

BG, dude, as if it needs said, you rock so hard.

Desertwoman, I have to echo Deb: If you indeed believe that Jesus is really, truly Present in the Eucharist, don't you long for it? How can you rationalize worshiping with people who see it as a mere symbol?

I'm not trying to shake your faith in any way; I'm not one of those people. Just merely curious...I don't think I'd be able to stand it.

Peace.