If you eat my flesh and drink my blood....

[Dark_Lite]

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [...]"

He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Yay context! The entire "bread of life" teaching, including the real presence, are what the disciples were having trouble with, and that's why people deserted him.

 

[ittarter]

What source(s) would you suggest on-line for serious exegesis?

What I've found is that with free things you too often get what you pay for. Besides BibleGateway when I'm being lazy (and this site, which I love), I haven't used free online tools for exegetical projects for many years. I have a substantial library at home which I constructed during and after college, and during my graduate studies purchased BibleWorks 7. If you have a few hundred dollars handy, I'd say that is the single most useful and versatile Bible study tool in the industry. It was the standard computer program for the majority of my undergraduate professors and the official tool of choice (installed on all college-networked computers) for the divinity school I attended.

However, if you want to save a buck at the expense of your time, I'm positive that there are many good online tools -- you might check out the advice of the Institute of Biblical Greek for specifics. They are always very reliable. In fact they point out that word studies have gone the way of the Dodo, and now studying the rhetorical flow of very large passages of texts (i.e. discourse analysis) is the rage. This matches my own observations.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Yay context! The entire "bread of life" teaching, including the real presence, are what the disciples were having trouble with, and that's why people deserted him.

I personally believe in the real presence, but I got a question. If Jesus was being literal about the whole "eat my flesh" stuff, then why near the end does he say that his words are spirit?

 

[Rhamiel]

Dark Lite

It is an ontological transformation in the sense that the essence of the wafer and wine change, but not the accidental physical properties.

but the accidents are just like adjectives (white, wet, soft) so the adjectives stay the same, but the substance changes...
I get really confused about stuff like this

 

[Warrior Poet]

Ahem...

Notice..after Christ drives home his actual presence many disciples ceased following him...I would say this is the "TIZZY" your looking for.

I would say: "It is not."

What you are referring to is the divisiveness of such a statement made by Christ, which we all agree is present. The scriptures are clear that Christ knew "… who did not believe, and who would betray Him." You unfortunately stopped short of the the most important part of what we are discussing, that which comes after verse 67. Who remained? Who was not in a "tizzy" at all about Christ and His teaching on this matter?

To melt down Christ's words to either SYMBOLIC or LITERAL is where the "tizzy" actually begins. Hence why such an error occurs when you try to replace the Protestant POV or Church of Rome POV for what was really said. I do not feel that Christ then worried about those who left, He made no attempt to stop them, He only reiterated His point. He knew what He was doing and it was no accident or mistake that some left.

We could do a little experiment and start a list, by name, of the those "disciples" who ceased FOLLOWING Him. Then we will start a list, by name, of the Disciples who BELIEVED and stayed. We can, then, compare who was really in a "tizzy". It clearly was not those who remained, they were not obligated to take into account years of Councils and a multitude of theologies to choose the side of symbolic or literal. The two created the whole and that is how the Disciples accepted and believed it. Those who felt obligated to side one way or the other left.

Warrior Poet

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dark Lite
but the accidents are just like adjectives (white, wet, soft) so the adjectives stay the same, but the substance changes...
I get really confused about stuff like this

So do the Jews and Muslims

http://www.christianforums.com/t7231588/#post55328185

 

[Warrior Poet]

It did send them into a tizzy, as more than a few disciples left after questioning how they could possibly *eat* Jesus. Then he iterated the literal statement again with more force. Seems pretty clear to me.

Christ should of had you around to explain it to them in its fullness then. Maybe they all would have stayed?

Warrior Poet

 

[Deut 5:29]

It did send them into a tizzy, as more than a few disciples left after questioning how they could possibly *eat* Jesus. Then he iterated the literal statement again with more force. Seems pretty clear to me.

Even though your misunderstanding flies in the face of the rest of the Bible?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christ should of had you around to explain it to them in its fullness then. Maybe they all would have stayed?

Warrior Poet

That would have been nice of Him

Isaiah 28:11 And with stammering/deriding lip and in-tongue, another He shall speak to the people, this.

Ezekiel 17:2 Son of adam, propound thou a riddle and speak thou a proverb/04912 mashal unto house of Israel

Matthew 13:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying "I will open My mouth in parables, I will utter things kept secret from the foundation/kata-bolhV <2602> of the world."

 

[Rhamiel]

Even though your misunderstanding flies in the face of the rest of the Bible?

the rest of the Bible? what do you mean?

 

[RibI]

the rest of the Bible? what do you mean?

Eating people is not allowed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Even though your misunderstanding flies in the face of the rest of the Bible?

Flies in the face of your understanding of the Bible, perhaps.

 

[Deut 5:29]

Eating people is not allowed.

LOL, you beat me to it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by RibI Eating people is not allowed.

LOL, you beat me to it.

A perspective from an ex-cannibal

http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm

*snip*

An argument of why Christians are cannibals (and possibly vampires) from Christianity's own perspective
by Jim Walker (an ex-cannibal)

 

[Colin]

Did Jesus have 2 bodies? He said "this is my body" while he was still in his body.

The bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a sacramental presence .
He is really present sacramentally , not physically .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a sacramental presence .
He is really present sacramentally , not physically .

So how would one convince the RCC of that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7442906/
How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? (2)

 

[Colin]

So how would one convince the RCC of that

The RCC doesn't need convincing because it is the official teaching of the RCC . Certain individual RCs may speak or write otherwise , but they are in error and do not reflect what is RC doctrine .

 

[Dark_Lite]

The RCC doesn't need convincing because it is the official teaching of the RCC . Certain individual RCs may speak or write otherwise , but they are in error and do not reflect what is RC doctrine .

The Eucharist is a bit more than just sacramental presence:

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity

It's not physical in the sense of "Hey look, Jesus as a human is standing here next to the host," but it is far more than just a spiritual presence or sacramental presence. I'm not sure what "sacramental presence" means anyway.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The RCC doesn't need convincing because it is the official teaching of the RCC . Certain individual RCs may speak or write otherwise , but they are in error and do not reflect what is RC doctrine .

Btw, I like this greek word under your username

TETELESTAI ( It is accomplished )

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 19:30 When then the Jesus had received/got the vinegar, He said "it has been finished!/tetelestai <5055> (5769)". And reclining the head He gives-up the spirit.

Reve 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fall toward the feet of Him as dead, and He places the right-*hand of Him on me saying "no be fearing! I am the first and the last
18 and the living-one!
And I became dead and behold! living I am into the ages to-the ages amen.
And I am having the keys of the death and of the hades.

 

[Colin]

The Eucharist is a bit more than just sacramental presence:


It's not physical in the sense of "Hey look, Jesus as a human is standing here next to the host," but it is far more than just a spiritual presence or sacramental presence. I'm not sure what "sacramental presence" means anyway.

I did not say that it is a spiritual presence .
The Eucharist is a sacrament and our language about it must reflect this truth .
The sacramental presence of Jesus is still his real presence in the form of a sacrament , not in a physical form which would be an impossibilty . If it were a physical presence the sacrament could not take place , for the physical presence of Jesus is what he is in glory at the right hand of the Father .
Still in sacramental form this same Jesus in glory is really present in the Eucharist . His body is present as he said , but if it were physically present , at Communion I would be unable to receive it , and each piece of consecrated bread would be a body of Christ . So if there were 200 pieces of consecrated bread there would be 200 bodies of Jesus .
We are dealing with a mystery , and our human language is inadequate to express it .
If we were to simply stay with the words as Jesus , "This is my body" , and not complicate it with philosophical terms , I think we would do ourselves a service .
The priest says , "The body of Christ" . I say "Amen" because I believe Jesus is true to his word . I receive the body of Christ in sacramental form .