Literal flesh and blood?

[BubbaJack]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

 

[pdudgeon]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

once you understand that there are more dimentions in heaven than there are on Earth it becomes a bit easier. John 20:19

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's a kind smart alecky meme, I realize. But the sarcasm speaks to the point. If Our Lord didn't intend us to view the Eucharist as His Body and Blood, He sure chose His words poorly. As it happens, this is a very old doctrine. The Church Fathers understood Our Lord to be speaking in literal terms. To wit:

[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
- St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 107.

So St. Ignatius identified anybody who doesn't accept the Eucharist as the Body and Blood as a heretic. Not "misinformed", not "ignorant" and not "misled"; heretic. Here I would point out that St. Ignatius was a student of St. John the Apostle. If Ignatius was in grave error with his teachings... well, where did he get such a wrong impression?

To me, the most likely explanation is the Catholic Church has had it right all along: the Eucharist is Our Lord's Body and Blood.

 

[BubbaJack]

once you understand that there are more dimentions in heaven than there are on Earth it becomes a bit easier. John 20:19

How does that apply? It's still eating flesh and drinking blood (its supposed to be). I could see it as a way of Jesus telling his disciples that he's as close to them as food and drink in their mouths, but some insist vehemently that its literal blood and flesh.

 

[BubbaJack]

View attachment 187501

It's a kind smart alecky meme, I realize. But the sarcasm speaks to the point. If Our Lord didn't intend us to view the Eucharist as His Body and Blood, He sure chose His words poorly. As it happens, this is a very old doctrine. The Church Fathers understood Our Lord to be speaking in literal terms. To wit:

So St. Ignatius identified anybody who doesn't accept the Eucharist as the Body and Blood as a heretic. Not "misinformed", not "ignorant" and not "misled"; heretic. Here I would point out that St. Ignatius was a student of St. John the Apostle. If Ignatius was in grave error with his teachings... well, where did he get such a wrong impression?

To me, the most likely explanation is the Catholic Church has had it right all along: the Eucharist is Our Lord's Body and Blood.

He also said he was a door. John 10:9.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

He also said he was a door. John 10:9.

He never said that the door was "Him". He did, however state clearly regarding "this is" when speaking of bread and wine in context of His institution of the Holy Eucharist. There are other references in Scripture outside of the Verba; likewise as thecolorsblend stated, those who were taught by the Apostles understood it this way; so combined with Scripture, the Apostles also understood it this way. Therefore, our traditional Churches hold this as part of the "one holy catholic and Apostolic faith". The denial of this is an innovation that came after and apart from the Lutheran reformation; in the history of the Church, that is a recent innovation, which is unsupportable by Scripture, Tradition and history.

 

[BubbaJack]

He never said that the door was "Him". He did, however state clearly regarding "this is" when speaking of bread and wine in context of His institution of the Holy Eucharist. There are other references in Scripture outside of the Verba; likewise as thecolorsblend stated, those who were taught by the Apostles understood it this way; so combined with Scripture, the Apostles also understood it this way. Therefore, our traditional Churches hold this as part of the "one holy catholic and Apostolic faith". The denial of this is an innovation that came after and apart from the Lutheran reformation; in the history of the Church, that is a recent innovation, which is unsupportable by Scripture, Tradition and history.

Why would he say that? Why would he tell his disciples to consume him like food? I know that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans believe the Eucharist is a means of grace. I just find it really a strange thing that Jesus would say these things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

In the Lutheran Confessions we make it a point to state:

"We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify." - Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII

The word "Capernaitic" refers to the way those at Capernaum responded when Jesus said "eat My flesh" and "drink My blood"--they went away because the teaching was too hard. By this we mean that we are not cannibalizing Christ, we are not taking a bite out of His arm or some such. That the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ--really, literally, corporeally--remains true, but we are not cannibalizing Him, we are receiving Him in a sacramental way in and under the elements of bread and wine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BeStill&Know]

hello

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

IMHO the Bible cannot be understood in any language except by the teaching of Holy Spirit .
John 16:13 New Living Translation
When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.


John 6:31-33Tree of Life Version (TLV)
31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘Out of heaven He gave them bread to eat.’”a]">[a]
32 Yeshua answered them, “Amen, amen I tell you, it isn’t Moses who has given you bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the One coming down from heaven and giving life to the world.”
John 6:35 [Full Chapter]
Yeshua said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in Me will never be thirsty.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Why would he say that? Why would he tell his disciples to consume him like food? I know that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans believe the Eucharist is a means of grace. I just find it really a strange thing that Jesus would say these things.

I don't claim to understand the mind of God; but I do listen to what he says. It is what it is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Perhaps even closer than anything physical can be.
[Staff edit]

How does that apply? ....(its supposed to be). I could see it as a way of Jesus telling his disciples that he's as close to them as food and drink in their mouths,......

Reference when JESUS told the disciples when they wondered why HE wasn't hungry (HE had been without food and would normally have been hungry).
"The FOOD HE HAD that they KNEW NOT OF". (and most people never know).
====================================
HIS WORDS were SPIRIT, and produced LIFE. i.e. not of the flesh, nor physical origin, but always from the FATHER ABBA YHWH in HEAVEN. HIS WORDS did not mean anything ever that would nor could disobey HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN, so could never have meant what people make them out to be if it is disobedient (sinful) to YHWH'S WORD.

He also said he was a door. John 10:9.

====================================
A lot of HIS OWN DISCIPLES LEFT HIM after HE said these things as well, and they did not understand nor did they wait around to receive HIS UNDERSTANDING.
Only some of HIS OWN DISCIPLES remained with HIM, and even them HE ASKED "Will you also leave ME?".....
Nothing has changed , really, since then, in all that JESUS SAYS. (men are often still confused and leave HIM instead of gaining understanding from HIM.)
JESUS HIMSELF explained in SCRIPTURE the answer to your question. (Same Chapter or the next, I think).

Why would he say that? Why would he tell his disciples to consume him like food? ..... I just find it really a strange thing that Jesus would say these things.

It's not strange once HE explains it - it makes perfect sense. (just like JESUS being the "DOOR", the ONLY door, for the sheep).

 

[crossnote]

Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles and wrote at least 13 Epistles and carried infinite authority over the ECF only spoke of Communion in one chapter. If Communion actually consists in partaking of the true Body and Blood of our Lord, as well as all the benefits many Churches claim you would think he would have written at least an Epistle on the matter giving specific teachings to that topic.
Yet the ECF and subsequent Church erudites go on with volumes over the topic, it makes you wonder how much of this is just philosophical or mystical gobbledygook.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Please, realize, "TRUTH"/ "TRUE body and blood" / is important - as Y'SHUA SAYS -- not as men say.

EVERY WORD OF YHWH IS TRUTH. REALITY. SPIRIT. LIFE GIVING in Y'SHUA (JESUS) MESSIAH.

We REJOICE ABIDING IN HIM - truthfully, really, actually, LIVING IN HIM, and HIS WORD IN US. We are HIS TRUE BODY on earth, fully immersed in HIM (our lives totally HIS). When we partake of HIS BODY AND HIS BLOOD as HE SAYS - it is
AS HE SAYS -
it is (SPIRITUALLY ONLY) HIS TRUE BODY AND BLOOD
AS HE SAYS (not as men change , ever).

It does not fit scholars expectations nor definitions.
It does not meet doctrinal or liturgical pictures.

HIS WORD IS TRUTH. SIMPLE. PURE. SET APART. AND FINAL. (unchanged and unchanging).

All , everyone, who abides in HIM partakes of HIS BODY AND HIS BLOOD
as HE SAYS. Everywhere. Anywhere. AS HE SAYS.

HIS WORDS are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
AS HE SAYS. REJOICE ! LEAP FOR JOY ! YHWH WITH MEN! AS HE SAYS! ! ! RESURRECTION LIFE !!! AS HE SAYS> not as men say.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Why would he say that? Why would he tell his disciples to consume him like food? I know that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans believe the Eucharist is a means of grace. I just find it really a strange thing that Jesus would say these things.

Well, so did a lot of people in John 6. You can't put the incarnate God in a box; Jesus frequently says things which are unusual or even shocking, both according to ancient and modern sensibilities.

 

[TurtleAnne]

The church of my childhood went by Luke 22:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is what the pastor would quote when people took communion. There was probably more, but that is part I remember hearing as a kid. It was considered to be spiritual, neither symbolic but neither in the realm of science, either.

It's sort of like if I were to try to explain a conversation with God or Jesus to someone, as far as trying to help the person understand that I wasn't having auditory hallucinations, but neither was it just "symbolic" or my own thoughts, but rather how it's an internal conversation that is neither my own thoughts (as there is a sentient presence and communication goes back and forth) but neither am I 'hearing' with my ears. Trying to come up with like.. what is the word for this, for people who claim they have never experienced it, can be flustering for some (myself included).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The church of my childhood went by Luke 22:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is what the pastor would quote when people took communion. There was probably more, but that is part I remember hearing as a kid. It was considered to be spiritual, neither symbolic but neither in the realm of science, either.

It's sort of like if I were to try to explain a conversation with God or Jesus to someone, as far as trying to help the person understand that I wasn't having auditory hallucinations, but neither was it just "symbolic" or my own thoughts, but rather how it's an internal conversation that is neither my own thoughts (as there is a sentient presence and communication goes back and forth) but neither am I 'hearing' with my ears. Trying to come up with like.. what is the word for this, for people who claim they have never experienced it, can be flustering for some (myself included).

Note that most churches include the above, although it is usually quoted or paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 11 rather than the accounts of the Last Supper in the synoptics. It is referred to as the Institution Narrative.

 

[TurtleAnne]

Note that most churches include the above, although it is usually quoted or paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 11 rather than the accounts of the Last Supper in the synoptics. It is referred to as the Institution Narrative.

Oh yeah maybe they were quoting from that book. I just remember the "do this in remembrance of me" part, it stuck in my mind.

I'm not really sure how to best explain it, either. I've never been very skilled with words/semantics. It seems that most people understand science, and also understand symbolism, but when trying to explain the spiritual I'm usually at a loss of how else to explain it other than using that word, "spiritual," to try to express an additional aspect to existence.

We were not taught that the bread and wine literally turned into flesh and blood, like it wasn't like if someone opened their mouth, it could be scientifically verified that there was flesh and blood in their mouth, but neither was it just symbolic. There was a spiritual element, so like there would be something, like the most important part of the whole thing, missing if someone just popped some bread and wine in their mouth but not in remembrance and honor of Jesus' sacrifice. But if someone does take communion in remembrance and honor of Jesus' sacrifice, if it has spiritual meaning and purpose, then there is a spiritual aspect to it that is created in the process.

Best I can do to explain it with words, and even then that was just my understanding from watching/listening as a kid. In my 9-year-old mind I was admittedly more focused on the prospect of "snacks" coming around the pews, and was of course not allowed to participate (understandably), but even from back then at that age I can remember that when the moment came that people took communion, there was a powerful silence and emotion that filled the atmosphere.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

You are correct.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus spoke many times in spiritual terms when others thought he was speaking in physical terms. Nicodemus thought he must be physically born again a second time thru his mother's womb. Today, people are acting like Nicodemus and still thinking in a carnal way and not in a spiritual way. The Bible is a hidden book to some.

I doubt Jesus was promoting vampirism or cannibalism. Yet, people think that he was promoting such a thing.

Crazy.


...

 

[dqhall]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

John 4:34 "Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."

If you will eat the food that Jesus ate and do the works that Jesus did, you will live. The church is a body of believers.