Jesus' Flesh And Blood

WebersHome · May 30, 2019

.
Regardless of how Christ's teachings are interpreted-- ritually, literally, or metaphorically --unless people somehow eat his flesh and drink his blood, they have no life in them; viz: they are quite dead on the hoof regardless of their health, age, race, religion, and/or gender.

● John 6:53 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life about which the Lord spoke is very unusual to say the least because it's supernatural.

● John 6:54 . . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

Eternal life always was, it always is, and it always will be because eternal life is divine. (John 1:1-4 and 1John 1:1-2)

When the Word came to be in human form (John 1:1-14), he came with not only human life, but also eternal life.

● John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He gave to His son the possession of life in himself.

When Jesus spoke of eternal life, he wasn't talking about immortality because in spite of the Lord's possession of his Father's life, Jesus didn't survive crucifixion.

So then, the power of life obtained by eating Jesus' flesh and imbibing his blood isn't meant to keep people's bodies alive forever, sort of like the tree of life in the garden of Eden, because if Jesus' body was vulnerable to death in spite of his possession of eternal life, then the bodies of the consumers of his flesh and blood remain vulnerable to death too in spite of their possession of eternal life.
_

basilbear76 · May 30, 2019

WebersHome said:
.
Regardless of how Christ's teachings are interpreted-- literally or metaphorically --one of them that holds true for the whole world is that unless people somehow eat his flesh and drink his blood, they have no life in them; viz: they are quite dead on the hoof regardless of their health, their age, their race, their religion, and/or their gender.

● John 6:53 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

The kind of life about which the Lord spoke is very unusual to say the least because it's supernatural.

● John 6:54 . . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

Eternal life always was, it always is, and it always will be because eternal life is divine. (John 1:1-4 and 1John 1:1-2)

When the Word came to be in human form, he came with not only human life, but also eternal life.

● John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He gave to His son the possession of life in himself.

When Jesus spoke of eternal life, he wasn't talking about immortality because in spite of the Lord's possession of his Father's life, Jesus didn't survive crucifixion.

So then, the power of life obtained by eating Jesus' flesh and imbibing his blood isn't meant to keep people's bodies alive forever, sort of like the tree of life in the garden of Eden, because if Jesus' body was vulnerable to death in spite of his possession of eternal life, then the bodies of the eaters of his flesh and blood remain vulnerable to death too in spite of their possession of eternal life.
_

This is what we Orthodox call "theosis"--being drown into the life of God Himself.

WebersHome · May 30, 2019

.
● John 6:50-51 . . This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever

Where are the apostles? They're all deceased. Where are the early church fathers? They're all deceased. Where are all the Christians beginning from around 35CE up till one hundred and fifty years ago-- roughly one thousand, eight hundred, and thirty four years of Christians? They're all deceased.

Now, out of all those Christians-- including the apostles and the early church fathers --somebody, somewhere, among them ate the living bread correctly. So then, why are they deceased-- every one of them?

● John 10:27-28 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

"eternal life" speaks of Jesus' flesh and blood. (John 6:53-54)

"never perish" speaks of the living bread. (John 6:50-51)

Jesus identified the living bread as his flesh; viz: his body.

● John 6:51b . . the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

I'm pretty sure that nobody anywhere on Earth today is more than 150 years old, yet Jesus said whoever eats this bread-- a.k.a. his flesh --would never perish, viz: would live forever, i.e. they would be immortal.

Now if eating Jesus' flesh, and drinking his blood, gives people eternal life and immortality, then what's the frequency-- what's the regimen? Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Annually? What?

Moses' people had to eat manna on a daily basis because one ration of manna didn't have enough energy in it to keep them alive for very long. In other words: they had to eat the stuff every day or they'd eventually die of malnutrition. In point of fact, they died anyway. But Jesus said that his flesh has enough energy in it to keep people alive forever, in other words; people only need one ration of the bread of life rather than ration after ration after ration like as if it were manna.

In conclusion: If perchance Catholicism's Eucharist is the correct manner in which to eat Jesus' flesh, and to imbibe his blood; then it would be necessary to consume the species just once and people would be good to go for eternity.
_

TuxAme · May 30, 2019

"Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood". We must truly eat the Bread come down from Heaven which gives life to the world- which is Christ- if we would abide in Him and He in us.

Translation: the apostles and their students got it right- Jesus truly commanded us to consume Him. Just as our first parents fell into sin and death (and dragged us down with them) via an act of eating, so must we gain life and triumph over sin by an act of eating. Only the flesh (blood, soul and divinity) of the Son of Man has the grace to sustain us.

Albion · May 30, 2019

WebersHome said:
.
● John 6:50-51 . . This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever

Where are the apostles? They're all deceased. Where are the early church fathers? They're all deceased.

Christians normally understand all of that to mean that these people (and potentially we also) have life eternal in the spirit world with God. That is usually the meaning of life or living when it appears in the New Testament, not that we will live in the body for eternity.

thecolorsblend · May 30, 2019

TuxAme said:
"Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood". We must truly eat the Bread come down from Heaven which gives life to the world- which is Christ- if we would abide in Him and He in us.

Translation: the apostles and their students got it right- Jesus truly commanded us to consume Him. Just as our first parents fell into sin and death (and dragged us down with them) via an act of eating, so must we gain life and triumph over sin by an act of eating. Only the flesh (blood, soul and divinity) of the Son of Man has the grace to sustain us.

This.

nonaeroterraqueous · May 30, 2019

WebersHome said:
In conclusion: If the Catholic Church's Eucharist is the correct manner in which to eat Jesus' flesh, and to imbibe his blood; then it would be necessary to partake of it just once and people would be good to go for eternity.

Well, if we understand the Eucharist in the manner of the Catholics, then we take it literally, but if we take it literally, then the verses you cite would mean that we would live forever (which no one seems to be doing). However, if we don't take it literally, then the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is false.

Not David · May 30, 2019

WebersHome said:
.
● John 6:50-51 . . This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever

Where are the apostles? They're all deceased. Where are the early church fathers? They're all deceased. Where are all the Christians beginning from around 35CE up till one hundred and fifty years ago-- roughly one thousand, eight hundred, and thirty four years of Christians? They're all deceased.

Now, out of all those Christians-- including the apostles and the early church fathers --somebody, somewhere, among them ate the living bread correctly. So then, why are they deceased-- every one of them?

● John 10:27-28 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

"eternal life" speaks of Jesus' flesh and blood. (John 6:53-54)

"never perish" speaks of the living bread. (John 6:50-51)

Jesus identified the living bread as his flesh; viz: his body.

● John 6:51b . . the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

I'm pretty sure that nobody anywhere on Earth today is more than 150 years old, yet Jesus said whoever eats this bread-- a.k.a. his flesh --would never perish, viz: would live forever, i.e. they would be immortal.

Now if eating Jesus' flesh, and drinking his blood, gives people eternal life and immortality, then what's the frequency? What's the regimen? Once a day? Once a week? Once a year? What?

Moses' people had to eat manna on a daily basis because one ration of manna didn't have enough energy in it to keep them alive for very long. In other words: they had to eat the stuff every day or they'd eventually die of malnutrition. In point of fact, they died anyway. But Jesus said that his flesh has enough energy in it to keep people alive forever, in other words; people only need one ration of his flesh rather than ration after ration after ration like as if it were manna.

In conclusion: If the Catholic Church's Eucharist is the correct manner in which to eat Jesus' flesh, and to imbibe his blood; then it would be necessary to partake of it just once and people would be good to go for eternity.
_

Catholics are synergistics so they don't believe in a one time event. The same way your girlfriend won't love you forever just because you sing her a guitar solo.

WebersHome · May 31, 2019

.
● 1Cor 15:51-53 . . Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.

Seeing as how that passage speaks of immortality relative to a future resurrection; then would it be okay to assume that the bread of life Jesus spoke of in John 6:50-51 doesn't take effect right away?

Well; if we restrict "resurrection" to our bodies, then okay, yes, the bread of life doesn't take effect right away. However . . .

In John 5:24-29, Jesus spoke of a future resurrection and a now resurrection. I think we can be pretty sure that the future resurrection is for our bodies because he said:

"The hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out" (John 5:28-29)

So: about this "now" resurrection. What's the story on that? If it's not for our bodies, then what is it?

● John 5:24 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life. (Don't miss the grammatical tense of "has passed" because it's not future.)

People who've passed from death to life have done so in a way not easily detected because it's supernatural.

● John 3:6 . . What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit.

"born of flesh" speaks of a natural beginning; while "born of spirit" speaks of a very different beginning.

● John 1:12-13 . . But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision; but of God.
_

Albion · May 31, 2019

TuxAme said:
"Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood". We must truly eat the Bread come down from Heaven which gives life to the world- which is Christ- if we would abide in Him and He in us.

Translation: the apostles and their students got it right- Jesus truly commanded us to consume Him. Just as our first parents fell into sin and death (and dragged us down with them) via an act of eating, so must we gain life and triumph over sin by an act of eating. Only the flesh (blood, soul and divinity) of the Son of Man has the grace to sustain us.

"Consume him" is not the issue, we must remember, whenever Transubstantiation is part of the inquiry. That's because we can consume him--as the early church believed--but not in the precise way that the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts.

Not David · May 31, 2019

Albion said:
"Consume him" is not the issue, we must remember, whenever Transubstantiation is part of the inquiry. That's because we can consume him--as the early church believed--but not in the precise way that the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts.

No Protestant really cares about "transubstantiation" but if the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus.

concretecamper · May 31, 2019

Albion said:
"Consume him" is not the issue, we must remember, whenever Transubstantiation is part of the inquiry. That's because we can consume him--as the early church believed--but not in the precise way that the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts.

There you go again, getting hung up on when the word trans. was coined. Transubstantiation describes precisely what the Church has always taught. If you do some study of the early Church, you will find that Christ meant it literally.

Albion · Jun 1, 2019

David Cabrera said:
No Protestant really cares about "transubstantiation" but if the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus.

Oddly enough, I read them making comments about transubstantiation, or about the concept minus the term itself, fairly often. And it is built right into my own churchs articles of religion.

Mark51 · Jun 1, 2019

There was only one use of blood that God ever approved, namely: for sacrifice, because “life“ is in the blood. (Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Samuel 14:32-34) This decree recognizes God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind.-Genesis 9:3, 4.

Under the Christian arrangement, offering animal blood was no longer necessary because of Christ’s sacrifice. (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 9:12-15; 10:1-4, 8-10; 28, 29) The Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood.-Acts 15:22, 28, 29; 21:25. Misuse of blood (ingesting) shows disrespect for such a sacrifice.

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1) None of these expressions were literal or implied a miraculous transformation.

At 1 Corinthians 11:25, the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. It not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated.

concretecamper · Jun 1, 2019

Mark51 said:
Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1) None of these expressions were literal or implied a miraculous transformation.

In these other examples, did the crowd following Him voice that this is hard teaching? In these other examples, how many left Him after His teaching? No one left Him because they taught "here is a crazy man thinking he is a piece of wood". But they did leave Him over the Flesh and Blood discourse because they knew exactly what he meant. He meant exactly what the Apostles taught, what the Early Church continued, and what the Catholic Church holds today.

Albion · Jun 1, 2019

Mark51 said:
Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1) None of these expressions were literal or implied a miraculous transformation.

At 1 Corinthians 11:25, the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. It not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated.

Yes, but the rebuttals are not easily dismissed. That's why this is an enduring controversy. Consider:

1. ”This is my body” was not all that Christ said about it. Had that been the sum total of his description on that occasion, you might have a case, but he went on to give additional information about the meaning.

2. Yes, Christ did often use metaphors, referring to himself as a vine, a door, etc., but that doesn't mean that everything he said was an analogy.

3. Almost EVERY Christian church teaches that there is a new covenant and that the sacred meal is a remembrance. Belief in the Real Presence in no way eliminates those other aspects of the sacrament.

Not David · Jun 1, 2019

Albion said:
Oddly enough, I read them making comments about transubstantiation, or about the concept minus the term itself, fairly often. And it is built right into my own churchs articles of religion.

Because Protestants are Catholicentric.

WebersHome · Jun 2, 2019

.
● John 6:53 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

FAQ: Does that apply to Old Testament personages, e.g. Able, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua. Ruth, Gideon, Samson, and David, et al?

A: Yes; all of them.

FAQ: How do you know that?

A: Jesus' flesh benefits the whole world rather than only a portion of the world.

● John 6:51b . . the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

FAQ: Did they even know about Jesus back then?

A: They may not have known his name, but they were all aware that a savior was on the way-- beginning with Adam and Eve.

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

It's pretty much agreed on both sides of the aisle that the seed is Christ.

Others besides Adam and Eve knew.

Abraham:

● John 8:56 . . Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.

Jacob:

● Gen 49:18 . . I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord

Isaiah:

● Isa 52:14 . .There were many who were appalled at him— his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness

● Isa 53:6 . .We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

All the prophets:

● 1Pet 1:10-11 . . Concerning this salvation, prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and investigated it, investigating the time and circumstances that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories to follow them.

David:

● Ps 16:10 . . You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor let your devout one see the pit. (cf. Acts 2:25-36)

FAQ: Well, if there was no such thing as a communion service until Jesus' last supper, then how did those people back there eat his flesh and drink his blood?

A: Hook, line, and sinker; so to speak.

● John 3:16-18 . . For God so loved the world that he gave His only son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God.
_

Jesus' Flesh And Blood

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Quis ut Deus?

Facilitator

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Nonexistent Member

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

I'm back!

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Newbie

Member of His Church

Facilitator

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads