would you consume Christ?

[DamianWarS]

there is a chunk of raw flesh and a glass of blood in front of you. You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood and given permission that you may do as you wish with them. What do you do?

 

[Dave-W]

Leviticus 3:17
It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’”

Leviticus 7:26
You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.

Leviticus 17:10
‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Acts 15:20
but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

 

[Dave L]

there is a chunk of raw flesh and a glass of blood in front of you. You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood and given permission that you may do as you wish with them. What do you do?

If true, wouldn't that make any who consumed it cannibalistic vampires at heart? Knowing that Jesus spoke metaphorically when he told believers to use the bread and cup as a memorial of him?


“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 (KJV 1900)

 

[Call me Nic]

Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

 

[timewerx]

there is a chunk of raw flesh and a glass of blood in front of you. You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood and given permission that you may do as you wish with them. What do you do?

I would consume them.

 

[Albion]

there is a chunk of raw flesh and a glass of blood in front of you. You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood and given permission that you may do as you wish with them. What do you do?

There is only one major denomination which takes that approach and it doesn't stipulate that what is consumed is raw flesh, etc. So to answer the question, I would have to say this is unanswerable since it is based upon a false premise.

 

[DamianWarS]

There is only one major denomination which takes that approach and it doesn't stipulate that what is consumed is raw flesh, etc. So to answer the question, I would have to say this is unanswerable since it is based upon a false premise.

the question is not about if a certain group would consume it based on their criteria or practice (if it was it would be a strawman), the question is what would you do with it.

 

[Albion]

the question is not about if a certain group would consume it based on their criteria or practice (if it was it would be a strawman), the question is what would you do with it.

Then what's the point in asking a question about something that no Christian ever faces? You might as well ask what we would do if presented with a plateful of rocks at Holy Communion time.

 

[Erik Nelson]

there is a chunk of raw flesh and a glass of blood in front of you. You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood and given permission that you may do as you wish with them. What do you do?

Did anybody actually really try to do bite a chunk out of Jesus' arms when he said that in John 6 ?

If not, and if the Apostles gave a sufficiently good response so as to remain Jesus' chosen faithful, then Saint Peter's response was sufficiently acceptable:

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”​

 

[Albion]

Did anybody actually really try to do bite a chunk out of Jesus' arms when he said that in John 6 ?

But as with Damien's question, what is being done here is ridiculing or denouncing a belief that no Christian church actually holds to.

 

[DamianWarS]

Leviticus 3:17
It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’”

Leviticus 7:26
You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.

Leviticus 17:10
‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Acts 15:20
but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

why does Christ tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood then? Does he not ask us to violate the law in doing do? even if understood symbolically isn't the language still a rejection of the law?

 

[Albion]

why does Christ tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood then? Does he not ask us to violate the law in doing do? even if understood symbolically isn't the language still a rejection of the law?

Well, it apparently is not merely symbolic. However, it is entirely credible that we consume the real essence, the real presence, of Christ without it being literally a bleeding chunk of his arm or cup of blood.

This is a mystery and that is the stuff of religion--the supernatural. Quite obviously, if the teaching were that we all take a bite out of the body Christ had at the time of the Last Supper, we could not literally have Holy Communion services going on in thousands of different churches across the globe at the same time.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Well, it apparently is not merely symbolic. However, it is entirely credible that we consume the real essence, the real presence, of Christ without it being literally a bleeding chunk of his arm or cup of blood.

This is a mystery and that is the stuff of religion--the supernatural. Quite obviously, if the teaching were that we all take a bite out of the body Christ had at the time of the Last Supper, we could not literally have Holy Communion services going on in thousands of different churches across the globe at the same time.

part of the answer is that communion = sharing a meal = table fellowship = showing fellowship / social relation with the body of Believers in Christ = fellowship / association with the (true) Church ?

another part is "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word from the mouth of God" ? Christ sustains, nourishes, energizes His Church of believers?

 

[DamianWarS]

But as with Damien's question, what is being done here is ridiculing or denouncing a belief that no Christian church actually holds to.

that's the definition of a strawman, and thanks for pointing that out. it certainly leans towards this if specifically directed transubstantiation and you're free to comment on that. However, beyond that, I think Christians have folksy tendencies about them that no one talks about. This idea that power gravitates towards special objects, stuff like relics, crosses or even in the negative like in the name lucifer.

So what about Christ's actual flesh? What innate power did it posses if any at all and if consumed would it benefit me? Would you even be tempted to consume it? I'm principally driven so I probably wouldn't consume it but I certainly would wonder what would happen if I did. I also might treat it differently than I wouldn't any other samples of flesh or blood but I can't explain why or if doing so would align with Christian values (this is probably the reason why Christ ascended). So if you wouldn't consume it or you don't want to answer that then would you treat it differently?

 

[Albion]

that's the definition of a strawman....

That's my point exactly. You have asked what we think of a belief that no Christian denomination actually teaches, so what's the objective?

it certainly leans towards this if specifically directed transubstantiation and you're free to comment on that.

Ah! "leans towards." But it is not what is actually believed; you are saying that it is more like transubstantiation than the beliefs that are held by churches which reject transubstantiation. Very well, but still we should ask "What's the point?"

Is every reader supposed to say "No," to your question? If so, what would that show us, considering that what is rejected is NOT transubstantiation?

There isn't any church that any of us could visit next Sunday that teaches what you hypothesized, so there isn't any lesson to be learned, is there?

So what about Christ's actual flesh? What innate power did it posses if any at all and if consumed would it benefit me? Would you even be tempted to consume it? I'm principally driven so I probably wouldn't consume it but I certainly would wonder what would happen if I did.

Two answers. 1. Christ commanded it and made a special point about perpetuating the Lord's Supper. That's reason enough for his disciples to keep on observing the holy meal. And then there is also 2. the contents that are consumed can well be the vehicle for graces and blessings intended for us just as Christ used physical properties to dramatize to us mortals the blessings we have been offered in other ceremonies--water in baptism, spittle when curing the blind man, and so on.

So if you wouldn't consume it or you don't want to answer that then would you treat it differently?

I wouldn't consume bleeding flesh or an arm or a cup of literal blood BECAUSE THEY ARE NEVER OFFERED TO ANYONE. I cannot consume something at a Communion service that is not offered to me.

As I said in the beginning, the proposition gives us a false premise to deal with.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, it apparently is not merely symbolic. However, it is entirely credible that we consume the real essence, the real presence, of Christ without it being literally a bleeding chunk of his arm or cup of blood.

This is a mystery and that is the stuff of religion--the supernatural. Quite obviously, if the teaching were that we all take a bite out of the body Christ had at the time of the Last Supper, we could not literally have Holy Communion services going on in thousands of different churches across the globe at the same time.

A song I really enjoy by Matt Maher, a practicing Catholic, is "Remembrance" and it opens saying:

Oh, how could it be
That my God would welcome me into this mystery
Say take this bread, take this wine
Now the simple made divine for any to receive​

I really appreciate the consistent emphasis of mystery in the language, something that is missed in a lot of denominations because the mystery is removed. Still, Christ asks us to violate the law even if in language only. the law tells us not to drink blood then Christ tells us to drink his blood. What is the connecting value here? I know why Christ's blood is important but why drink it?

 

[DamianWarS]

That's my point exactly. You have asked what we think of a belief that no Christian denomination actually teaches, so what's the objective?



Ah! "leans towards." But it is not what is actually believed; you are saying that it is more like transubstantiation than the beliefs that are held by churches which reject transubstantiation. Very well, but still we should ask "What's the point?"

Is every reader supposed to say "No," to your question? If so, what would that show us, considering that what is rejected is NOT transubstantiation?

There isn't any church that any of us could visit next Sunday that teaches what you hypothesized, so there isn't any lesson to be learned, is there?


Two answers. 1. Christ commanded it and made a special point about perpetuating the Lord's Supper. That's reason enough for his disciples to keep on observing the holy meal. And then there is also 2. the contents that are consumed can well be the vehicle for graces and blessings intended for us just as Christ used physical properties to dramatize to us mortals the blessings we have been offered in other ceremonies--water in baptism, spittle when curing the blind man, and so on.


I wouldn't consume bleeding flesh or an arm or a cup of literal blood BECAUSE THEY ARE NEVER OFFERED TO ANYONE. I cannot consume something at a Communion service that is not offered to me.

As I said in the beginning, the proposition gives us a false premise to deal with.

You're creating a large backdrop in the op that is never expressed. They got rid of the philosophy section so this where the question ended up. forget about a communion service or transubstantiation as you have exposed it would be disingenuous to these things. if confirmed flesh and blood of Christ are before you what would you do if anything at all? I've admitted that the idea to consume them would come into my head, but ultimately I probably wouldn't (what also would come into my head is to sell them, and I probably ultimately wouldn't do that either)

 

[Albion]

A song I really enjoy by Matt Maher, a practicing Catholic, is "Remembrance" and it opens saying:

Oh, how could it be
That my God would welcome me into this mystery
Say take this bread, take this wine
Now the simple made divine for any to receive​

I really appreciate the consistent emphasis of mystery in the language, something that is missed in a lot of denominations because the mystery is removed.[/quote]​

Still, Christ asks us to violate the law even if in language only.

Well...that's quite a come-down from what was in the OP, isn't it?

So, how would it be possible to ingest flesh and blood "in language only?"

 

[DamianWarS]

Well...that's quite a come-down from what was in the OP, isn't it?

It's a digression of the OP

So, how would it be possible to ingest flesh and blood "in language only?"

I'm not trying to assume your views which is why I said "even if..." so let's start over and remove the "if" Christ asks us to violate the law when he says to drink his blood so what is the bridge value between the law and what Christ's asks?

 

[Dave-W]

why does Christ tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood then? Does he not ask us to violate the law in doing do? even if understood symbolically isn't the language still a rejection of the law?

One important thing to understand in trying to interpret that. In Galatians Paul said HE was born "under the Law;" and as a Jewish man, it was a sin to teach against the Law in any way shape or form. And had our Lord sinned, He would have been disqualified to be our sacrificial atonement.

So any understanding that involves our Lord speaking against the Law is automatically incorrect.