Christ's Flesh & Blood

WebersHome · Apr 20, 2020

.
I feel confident that In order to properly understand the Lord's Supper (a.k.a. Communion) it's necessary to begin with the origin of his body.

Christ's blood began its curious odyssey first by divine edict.

● 1Pet 1:18-20 . . For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world.

His flesh began its own curious odyssey via Adam and his wife Eve.

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

To my knowledge, none of Eve's children were virgin-conceived; but even had they been, those would've still been Adam's children because her body was made with materials taken from his.

● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman

The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how tsela' should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam included some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the flesh God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained some of his blood too.

The most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created directly from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't her own unique specie.

Being as Eve was constructed from Adam's flesh, blood, and bones, then the flesh, blood, and bones of her body were reproductions of his flesh, blood, and bones. Therefore any and all progeny produced by Eve's body, whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived, would consist of Adam's body, i.e. they would be his progeny just as much as Eve's if any part of her body was in any way at all involved in the conception.
_

WebersHome · Apr 21, 2020

.
The Lord's body was not only Eve's biological progeny, but also David's.

● Luke 1:31-32 . . the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

When Joseph adopted Jesus into Solomon's lineage, it gave the child a legal opportunity to inherit David's throne, but it didn't give him a natural opportunity, viz: in order to fully qualify as a candidate for the throne, Jesus absolutely had to be David's biological progeny.

● Ps 89:3-4 . . I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant: I will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all generations

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from which He will not turn back: Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.

● Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.

The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the natural requirement in those Psalms.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:

● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. But the seed in Rom 1:1-3 is biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

David's seed according to the flesh not only validates Jesus' natural candidacy for David's throne, but also verifies that Adam was Jesus' biological progenitor because the Bible traces David's lineage all the way back there in Luke's genealogy.

But even without Luke's information, it's easy to prove that Adam was David's biological progenitor simply by referring to the fact that all human beings, regardless of race or color, are Adam's biological progeny; which of course includes David.

● Gen 3:20 . .The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.

Now, unless somebody can prove clearly, conclusively, iron clad, and without spin and sophistry that David's body was in no way biologically related to either Eve's body or Adam's, then we have to conclude that baby Jesus' body was also biologically related to Eve's and Adam's bodies due to his natural descent from David, and then there's also this to consider too:

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Just about everybody agrees that passage in Genesis refers to Christ.
_

WebersHome · Apr 22, 2020

.
● Eph 2:3 . . .We were by nature objects of wrath.

When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that her conscience was altered.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation, nor by means of his body parts that God used to construct Eve.

Now, the question is: Whence did Eve obtain her so-called fallen nature? Well it clearly wasn't from the chemistry of the fruit because it had no effect upon her. And it didn't come from Adam either because she was born before he ate it.

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it sets in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

I think we can safely assume that even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father: the Devil-- ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
_

Albion · Apr 22, 2020

Jesus' body and blood came from being conceived in the womb of his mother, Mary.

Beyond that, what you apparently are referring us to is her line of descent.

WebersHome · Apr 22, 2020

.

Albion said:
Jesus' body and blood came from being conceived in the womb of his mother, Mary. Beyond that, what you apparently are referring us to is her line of descent.

Be advised that the remainder of my comments relative to Christ's flesh and blood will be based upon the assumption that the voice of God initiated its humanness with Adam in the Old Testament and culminated with Joseph's fiancée in the New.

* I should probably explain my use of the term "voice of God".

● John 1:1 . . In the beginning was the word,

The "word" is translated from the Greek word logos (log'-os) which basically refers to something spoken, i.e. speech; for example:

● Gen 1:1-3 . . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

So the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --came into existence by means of God's voice, viz: by means of His speech rather than His thoughts and/or His will.

● 2Pet 3:5 . . By the word of God the heavens were of old

Again; it was by means of God speech that the heavens came into being; and had God held His tongue, there'd be no stars out in space, nor clouds in the sky for us to look at.

Exactly how God's speech has enough power, force, and energy in it to bring things into existence is just as mystifying to me how His speech is a sentient being. The difference is quite large, viz: it's one thing to speak a sentient being into existence while quite another for the voice itself to be a sentient being; but there it is. Don't ask me how God's spoken words are sentient because it is just too far beyond the capability of my below-average IQ to figure out.

Now if God's speech is God, as John 1:1-3 says it is, then God's speech is just as deserving of allegiance and worship as the supreme being Himself because God's speech isn't just from God; it's identified as God.

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that God's speech is a god. Well; that true, but it's not the whole truth. In order to be spot on, we have to spell god with an upper case G so that there's absolutely no mistaking whose speech we're talking about. If someone wants to say that God's speech is a divine being; okay, but we cannot allow God's own speech to come out His mouth as a divine being with less supremacy than Himself.
_

Albion · Apr 22, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
Be advised that the remainder of my comments relative to Christ's flesh and blood will be based upon the assumption that the voice of God initiated its humanness with Adam in the Old Testament and culminated with Joseph's fiancée in the New.

I know. My reply questioned that rather unorthodox understanding of both the Incarnation and the nature of the Lord's Supper.

So the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --came into existence by means of God's voice, viz: by means of His speech rather than His thoughts and/or His will.

But not the physical body of Jesus Christ. Not until the Incarnation, that is, and as described in the Gospel account.

Exactly how God's speech has enough power, force, and energy in it to bring things into existence is just as mystifying to me how His speech is a sentient being. The difference is quite large, viz: it's one thing to speak a sentient being into existence while quite another for the voice itself to be a sentient being; but there it is. Don't ask me how God's spoken words are sentient because it is just too far beyond the capability of my below-average IQ to figure out.

That applies to most of us. But we are not given to know everything that relates to the nature of God. Not in Scripture and not in this life. It's above our level of comprehension. But what we have been given is adequate to meet our "need to know" in the here and now.

Now if God's speech is God, as John 1:1-3 says it is,

John 1:1 and following does NOT say that, if what you are referring to is the use of the term Word in that chapter. Read beyond the first three verses and it is explained quite well.

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that God's speech is a god. Well; that true, but it's not the whole truth.

Again, you are referring to a misreading of those verses (and other ones elsewhere in the Bible).

WebersHome · Apr 22, 2020

.
FAQ: If it's true that the Lord's body was David's biological progeny, and true that David's body was Eve's biological progeny, and true that Eve's body was Adam's biological progeny, then it must be that Christ's body is Adam's biological progeny. Well then; how was Christ not affected by the so-called original sin?

A: Christ shared the ramifications associated with eating the forbidden fruit just the same as all the rest of Adam's biological progeny.

● Rom 5:12-13 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

The term "all sinned" is grammatically past tense; indicating that everyone, that is in any way, biologically related to Adam, even those yet to be born, are accounted as having tasted the forbidden fruit for themselves back then, in real time, i.e. right along with Adam.

The iron-clad evidence that the Lord was effected by Adam's sin was his death. Had Christ been 100% clear of Adam's transgression, his body would've been immortal; viz: impossible to kill.

● Rom 5:17 . . By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man

FAQ: What does any of this Adam stuff have to do with the Communion service?

A: Primarily because it's a sin to partake of the Lord's Supper while not knowing anything about its details.

● 1Cor 11:28-29 . . A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It's important to know that the diners don't eat 100% sinless flesh in the communion service. They eat flesh tainted by at least one sin: Adam's. The reason being that they eat the Lord's natural flesh-- the flesh that hung on the cross --rather than his supernatural flesh-- the flesh that's now seated alongside God up in heaven.

However, in reality, the diners are eating flesh tainted by far more sins than only Adam's; their own sins are in the mix too.

● Isa 53:6 . . Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

FAQ: How can we be sure that the Communion elements represent the Lord's natural flesh?

A: Because during the last supper, Jesus designated his soon to be crucified body rather than the body he has now.

● 1Cor 11:23-26 . . The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.

. . . In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
_

Albion · Apr 22, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
FAQ: If it's true that the Lord's body was David's biological progeny, and true that David's body was Eve's biological progeny, and true that Eve's body was Adam's biological progeny, then it must be that Christ's body is Adam's biological progeny. Well then; how was Christ not affected by the so-called original sin?

Original sin is not carried in the genes; it's a spiritual condition of mankind following the Fall. But in no case, can it be thought that God himself could be a sinner.

To the best of my knowledge, that is agreed to by every variety of Christianity AND it is also testified to by Scripture.

pescador · Apr 22, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
FAQ: If it's true that the Lord's body was David's biological progeny, and true that David's body was Eve's biological progeny, and true that Eve's body was Adam's biological progeny, then it must be that Christ's body is Adam's biological progeny. Well then; how was Christ not affected by the so-called original sin?

<snip>

Jesus is the Son of God. Both are of course sinless. Did you miss that part?

WebersHome · Apr 22, 2020

.

pescador said:
Jesus is the Son of God.

Most Christians readily consent that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man-- Son of God and Son of Man --but many are unable to discern between the two. It's a common weakness that cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are trained to exploit.
_

WebersHome · Apr 23, 2020

.
● 1Cor 11:26. . . For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The Greek word translated "proclaim" is somewhat ambiguous but one of its meanings is to preach.

In other words; when the congregation partakes of the Lord's flesh and blood in the manner he prescribed, they're delivering a homily; which of course would be a waste of motion were it only "preaching to the choir". I believe the communion service should never be done behind closed doors as some churches do. No, it really ought to be done right out in front where the curious can see for themselves.

I also believe that the service should be accompanied by an explanation; similar to the one below:

For three hours that infamous day, all the land thereabouts went dark; inky black. During that time the people could hear Jesus moaning.

"My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?" (Ps 22:1)

What the Romans had done to Jesus up to that point was scarcely even a scratch compared to what God did to him during the darkness. The man that emerged wouldn't have been known by his own mother had she not been there from the beginning.

"Even as many were amazed at him-- so marred were his features, beyond that of mortals; his appearance: beyond that of human beings" (Isa 52:14)

We dare not pity Jesus. We dare not feel sorry for him as if he were a Holocaust victim or some such. Instead: applaud and be glad; be really glad because had he not put himself thru that ordeal, nobody would make it to safety.

● Luke 2:10-12 . .The angel said to them: I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

The angel announced the birth of a savior; defined by Webster's as one who rescues. We've all seen examples-- lifeguards, firemen, cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain rescue teams. Rescue workers typically save people in distress who are facing imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything about it.

In other words: Jesus Christ's ordeal is a lifeline, so to speak, that God is all set to throw to anyone and everyone for whom destiny in Hell is a foregone conclusion if only they have the good sense to plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court by a simple, naive prayer something like this one:

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's death."

Does Jesus' Father honor those kinds of prayers? Well if His son's story of the tax collector at Luke 18:9-14, and the account of the malefactor crucified along with Jesus at Luke 23:38-43 are truthful indicators; then I can honestly, and confidently, attest that He does, and He will.

» Just about everybody who's ever heard anything about Christianity is aware that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, but what is often unknown is that it was personal; as Isaiah 53:6 says: "The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him."

In other words: the iniquity of each of us fell on him, i.e. any name we might pull out of a hat, and as many names as we might pull out of a hat: that one name, and each name, is an individual for whom Christ endured the cross; there are no exceptions. Is it any wonder then why the angel announced not just joy, rather, "great joy" that will be for all the people?
_

WebersHome · Apr 24, 2020

.
● John 6:53 . . 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.

I'm not dead, I'm alive, or so I thought anyway. Apparently the kind of life that I have as a creature is existence, which is in some way, somehow, technically different than life. So then, if I exist without life; then I must be a dead man walking, so to speak.

Well; in point of fact, the kind of life that Jesus spoke of is eternal life; which is quite a bit different than human life.

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

Eternal life is impervious to death; simply put, it cannot be killed nor can it grow old and die. Jesus had it prior to his crucifixion.

● John 5:26 . . As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

● 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Eternal Life and Immortality are not synonymous because the Lord's eternal life didn't prevent his death on the cross.

And according to John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too, but it didn't prevent their deaths either. They're all gone.

Note the grammatical tense of the statement below; it's present tense rather than future, indicating that when people correctly eat and drink the Lord's flesh and blood, they obtain eternal life immediately-- no delay and no waiting period.

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

Whereas according to 1Cor 15:51-53, they obtain immortality later.

Most importantly; seeing as eternal life can't be destroyed, then there is no need to keep coming back for it over and over again on a weekly basis. One helping of eternal life is all somebody needs because eternal life doesn't get old, it doesn't wear out, it doesn't get weak, nor does it die, i.e. once somebody has eternal life, they're stuck with it.

● John 3:16 . . For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

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

pescador · Apr 24, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
● John 6:53 . . 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.

I'm not dead, I'm alive, or so I thought anyway. Apparently the kind of life that I have as a creature is existence, which is in some way, somehow, technically different than life. So then, if I exist without life; then I must be a dead man walking, so to speak.

Well; in point of fact, the kind of life that Jesus spoke of is eternal life; which is quite a bit different than human life.

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

Eternal life is impervious to death; simply put, it cannot be killed nor can it grow old and die. Jesus had it prior to his crucifixion.

● John 5:26 . . As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

● 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Eternal Life and Immortality are not synonymous because the Lord's eternal life didn't prevent his death on the cross.

And according to John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too, but it didn't prevent their deaths either. They're all gone.

Note the grammatical tense of the statement below; it's present tense rather than future, indicating that when people correctly eat and drink the Lord's flesh and blood, they obtain eternal life immediately-- no delay and no waiting period.

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

Whereas according to 1Cor 15:51-53, they obtain immortality later.

Most importantly; seeing as eternal life can't be destroyed, then there is no need to keep coming back for it over and over again on a weekly basis. One helping of eternal life is all somebody needs because eternal life doesn't get old, it doesn't wear out, it doesn't get weak, nor does it die, i.e. once somebody has eternal life, they're stuck with it.

● John 3:16 . . For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

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

Why are you posting this long, preachy thread? I'm sure that most of us 1) read our Bibles and 2) go to church, so unless you have something of interest to say, why the sermon?

WebersHome · Apr 25, 2020

.
Now, the question is: which form of Jesus' body are people supposed to eat? The body he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16, or the body he has now up in heaven per Rom 6:9 and1Tim 6:14-16?

The reason to ask is because we're talking about two very different kinds of flesh. That of his original body was normal, natural flesh, whereas the flesh of his glorified body is supernatural.

The Lord's natural flesh no longer exists. His body underwent a sort of metamorphosis when it was transformed into the condition in which it is today; yet the wording of the last supper strongly suggests that it's his normal, natural flesh, that Jesus instructed his men to eat.

● Luke 22:19 . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.

Jesus didn't give his supernatural body for them; he gave them his soon to be crucified body; i.e. his normal, natural body; the one he got from Adam, Eve, and David.

In addition; Jesus specifically identified his normal, natural body, as the source of the flesh that's to be eaten.

● John 6:51 . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Jesus came down from heaven with normal, natural flesh: that which he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16; so then that's the bread people are supposed to eat.

This may seem splitting hairs, but unless people eat Jesus' normal, natural flesh, they will not only fail to to obtain eternal life, but also fail to obtain immortality.

● John 6:58 . .This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

This situation is very problematic for Catholics because the Lord's original flesh and blood aren't available for transubstantiation. But in order for transubstantiation to work properly, it has to reproduce the Lord's body the way it was on the cross rather than the way it is now in heaven; otherwise the service will proclaim his resurrection while failing to proclaim his death in accord with 1Cor 11:23-26.

NOTE: I don't as yet know the exact chemical properties and/or substance of the Lord's supernatural flesh, but I do at least know two of its characteristics besides immortality:

1) It can imbibe ordinary beverages.

● Matt 26:29 . . I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

2) It can dine upon ordinary foods.

● Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

● Luke 22:28-30 . . You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom
_

pescador · Apr 25, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
Now, the question is: which form of Jesus' body are people supposed to eat? The body he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16, or the body he has now up in heaven per Rom 6:9 and1Tim 6:14-16?

The reason to ask is because we're talking about two very different kinds of flesh. That of his original body was normal, natural flesh, whereas the flesh of his glorified body is supernatural.

The Lord's natural flesh no longer exists. His body underwent a sort of metamorphosis when it was transformed into the condition in which it is today; yet the wording of the last supper strongly suggests that it's his normal, natural flesh, that Jesus instructed his men to eat.

● Luke 22:19 . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.

Jesus didn't give his supernatural body for them; he gave them his soon to be crucified body; i.e. his normal, natural body; the one he got from Adam, Eve, and David.

In addition; Jesus specifically identified his normal, natural body, as the source of the flesh that's to be eaten.

● John 6:51 . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Jesus came down from heaven with normal, natural flesh: that which he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16; so then that's the bread people are supposed to eat.

This may seem splitting hairs, but unless people eat Jesus' normal, natural flesh, they will not only fail to to obtain eternal life, but also fail to obtain immortality.

● John 6:58 . .This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

This situation is very problematic for Catholics because the Lord's original flesh and blood aren't available for transubstantiation. But in order for transubstantiation to work properly, it has to reproduce the Lord's body the way it was on the cross rather than the way it is now in heaven; otherwise the service will proclaim his resurrection while failing to proclaim his death in accord with 1Cor 11:23-26.

NOTE: I don't as yet know the exact chemical properties and/or substance of the Lord's supernatural flesh, but I do at least know two of its characteristics besides immortality:

1) It can imbibe ordinary beverages.

● Matt 26:29 . . I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

2) It can dine upon ordinary foods.

● Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

● Luke 22:28-30 . . You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom
_

What is it about eating bread that you don't understand? Eating bread is symbolic of partaking of Jesus' life, particularly the suffering He endured while present on Earth. Jesus was offering real, edible bread when "he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."" Obviously if He was reclining there he was giving them a ritual to remember Him by. The same holds true of the wine; it is symbolic. "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."" Obviously it is also symbolic, since Jesus did not cut Himself and drain His blood into the cup.

WebersHome · Apr 26, 2020

.
● John 6:48-52 . . . I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

The flesh that Jesus would give for the life of the world was standing right there before them. But they misunderstood him to mean cannibalism. Well; he laid that idea to rest with this statement:

● John 6:61-62 . . Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them: Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?

In other words; in order for people to successfully cannibalize Jesus' body, it would have to be accessible where they could cut into it with a knife and fork. Were he to depart for heaven, which he eventually did; people would lose access to his body and thus find it impossible to comply with his teaching. So we can rule out a literal meaning of his words right off the bat.

Jesus' teachings were supernatural, i.e. somewhat cryptic.

● John 6:63 . .The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Spirit words oftentimes contain hidden meanings not easily discerned by human intelligence.

● 1Cor 2:13-15 . .We speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jesus' spirit words were not well-received by the audience that day.

● John 6:66 . . From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Well; no surprise there. The reason they gave up on Jesus was simply because they were listening to his spirit words with human ears instead of hearing them with ears provided by God; ergo:

● John 6:63-65 . .There are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.

In order to get in on the Father's enabling, people must first be confident that Jesus' teachings are reliable.

● John 6:67-69 . . You do not want to leave too, do you? Jesus asked the twelve. Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.

That was easily the wisest decision Peter ever made. Though he didn't have a clue what Jesus was talking about in this section, our guy was confident that Jesus was the voice of God. That's a really, really good place to start with Christ.

● John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
_

Albion · Apr 26, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
Now, the question is: which form of Jesus' body are people supposed to eat? The body he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16, or the body he has now up in heaven per Rom 6:9 and1Tim 6:14-16?

It really doesn't make any difference.

The doctrine is called "the Real Presence" and even for those Christians who believe the presence is carnal, there is no defining it beyond that, no saying the host is Jesus' leg or anything like that or exactly how a glorified body differs from the one we are more familiar with.

WebersHome · Apr 27, 2020

.
OBJECTION: During the last supper, Jesus clearly stated that the bread and wine were his flesh and blood. (Matt 26:27-28)

RESPONSE: Not all things "clearly stated" in the New Testament are meant to be taken literally; for example:

Was John the Baptist really a reincarnation of Elijah the prophet?

● Matt 11:14 . . And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come.

Is Christ really a beast with two horns, cloven hooves, and fleece covering its skin?

● John 1:35-36 . .The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said: Look, the lamb of God!

● Rev 13:8 . . All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Is Jesus really a garden planting?

● John 15:1 . . I am the true vine

Is Jesus really a geological feature like those in Utah's Canyon Lands?

● Matt 21:42 . . Jesus saith unto them: Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

● Acts 4:11 . . He is the stone you builders rejected

Does Jesus belong in a zoo?

● Rev 5:5 . . .Then one of the elders said to me: Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed.

Were Jesus' beliefs and practices adequate nourishment to keep his body healthy and strong?

● John 4:34 . . My food, said Jesus, is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish his work.

In other words: "the will of Him who sent me" was food indeed; just as his flesh was food indeed, and his blood was drink indeed, in accord with John 6:55
_

Albion · Apr 27, 2020

WebersHome said:
.
OBJECTION: During the last supper, Jesus clearly stated that the bread and wine were his flesh and blood. (Matt 26:27-28)

RESPONSE: Not all things "clearly stated" in the New Testament are meant to be taken literally; for example:

All right. We all know that some things in Scripture are not meant literally. Now prove to us that this is one such.

Most of the things that appear in Scripture and are not to be taken literally appear obviously not to be meant literally. This one isn't in that category. So on what grounds do we consider it as something not to be taken seriously?

We have a long discussion between Jesus and the Jews in John 6 in which they do not think he can give his literal body to them and, in reply, he insists that the unthinkable is actually what he's talking about.

"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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-58 NIV)

pescador · Apr 27, 2020

Albion said:
All right. We all know that some things in Scripture are not meant literally. Now prove to us that this is one such.

Most of the things that appear in Scripture and are not to be taken literally appear obviously not to be meant literally. This one isn't in that category. So on what grounds do we consider it as something not to be taken seriously?

We have a long discussion between Jesus and the Jews in John 6 in which they do not think he can give his literal body to them and, in reply, he insists that the unthinkable is actually what he's talking about.

"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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-58 NIV)

It's odd that in my Bible nobody actually devoured Jesus! Jesus said that this bread will enable the eater to live forever. So either Jesus was actually a loaf of bread or the concept is figurative. As I have said before, how can the living, human Jesus, holding up a loaf of bread, mean literally that the loaf is his body? He can't be a living human and a dead loaf of bread at the same time.

The same goes for the wine. It's not his blood, it's symbolic.

Christ's Flesh & Blood

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Wise old man

Similar threads