Eat the Bread of Life and Not Die - John 6:50

Mountainmike said:

The first thing you need to do is put your cart back behind the horse.
your New Testament was a product of the fathers, and chosen because it aligned tradition. Paradosis. Faith handed down.

The first canons were REJECTED by the fathers at Rome.
the determination that some books were not canonical was the inspired choice of the fathers. God acting through apostolic successors to “ bind and loose”

The first disciples of the apostles spoke of Eucharist of the real flesh.


Jesus did not say “ write this” or “ read this” he said “ do this” , that’s why scripture says the “ pillar and foundation of truth” is the church NOT the bible! and it is why Paul says “ stay true to tradition”
How could the bible be the pillar? It didn’t exist till 3rd century, and it would be almost 2 millenia before people could own one / read one!

so get your horse in front of your cart! - until then you don’t stand a chance with doctrine!

Click to expand...

The church has no authority of itself, it gets its authority from the Bible. The church belongs to Christ (Ephesians 5:23) and He alone has all authority (Matthew 28:18). The church has no authority of its own, no power to give itself authority or to take authority away from Christ. This is the cause of many errors within Catholicism, for example, original sin. OS was never taught from Adam to Moses, never taught from the time Abraham gave the OT law till Christ, and never taught from the time Christ gave the NT gospel till today.

Original Sin: Ask the Rabbi Response
Above is a Jewish website stating how the Torah never taught OS therefore never believed by the Jews. Equally OS was never taught by Christ or His Apostles. OS has its origins with UNinspired men whose writings were equally UNinspired.
"There also are abuses associated with these writings. For example, the Roman Church treats many of these documents as if they were inspired of God. “Tradition,” they say, “is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and . . . is infallible” (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, New York: MacMillan, 1961, 41). Invariably, when a Catholic scholar cannot sustain his doctrinal position by the Bible, he will appeal to the testimony of the “church fathers.” For example, in his popular book, The Question Box (San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society, 1929, 135), Bertrand Conway cited Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.III) in an effort to prove the Catholic dogma of apostolic succession. But the post-apostolic writers were not inspired. They never claimed to be. They frequently contradict one another, and especially the New Testament." (my emp) The Church Fathers: Benefits and Abuses

New Page 3
Above is a history of the church of Christ in Europe. An excerpt from it says "Out of the Celtic district of Galacia and Gaul messengers of the New Testament gospel must have entered the British Isles for the first time, for even as early as the year 422 the Catholic bishop Germanus, who had been sent there on inspection, wrote that numerous Christians in Britain had rejected Agustine’s doctrine of the original sin, practiced the immersion of adults only, did not follow the Roman ritual in their divine service, and did not recognize the hierarchy of Rome, especially the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope." So the error of OS (along with infant baptism) was correctly being rejected as far back as 422. (Even shows the structure/hierarchy of Catholicism was rejected for it is not like that of the first century church.)

The first century church had the Apostles and their inspired writings to instruct them. Books of the OT were settled by the birth of Christ. (Catholicism did not yet exist then to settle the OT, hence Catholicism did not give us the Bible). Canonizing the NT began in the first century with, for example, Paul and Peter calling various letters "scripture" so first century Christians had 'scripture' for their authority. Use of this authoratative 'scripture' continued into the 2nd century. Agreement on those first century NT letters came before the end of the second century (again, organized Catholicism did not yet exist to settle the NT). Legitamacy of some outlying books (apocrypha - not legit) came by the 4th century but Christians already had the core canon long before then."

It is the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it is directly responsible for the Bible we have today. Note the following quotes from their own works:

"The church...exercising the authority given her by Christ, fulfilling her duty as custodian and champion of the written word, separated the true from the false, the divine from the human, and gave men the New Testament, as it is today. And this in the year 397 A.D. -- nearly 400 years after Christ. Thus the Bible came from the church!" (Paulist Correspondence Course, No. 2, pp. 55-56)."

Still further, along the same line, we find:

"Now we have seen that the complete divine revelation is transmitted to us from Christ through the Apostles in the divine tradition of the Church. Hence the only certain guide as to the inspiration and canonicity of all the books of Sacred Scripture is the authoritative pronouncement of the Church" (The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol. I, p. 30)."

To emphasize the claims made by the Catholic Church in this matter, we note that they point out that "what the church, therefore teaches as divinely revealed, that most certainly is revealed by God and must be believed on the divine authority" (Ibid., p. 31). This claim is made because of their claim that they are "a visible Church with a living teaching authority, infallible because the Holy Ghost is with her, preserving her from error" (Ibid. p. 28). They even point out that many reject the church, "not knowing her claim to be the infallible guardian of divine truth" (Ibid., p. 27). I believe from these quotes we can readily recognize the position that is held by the Roman Catholic Church on the matter of revelation.

We might pause here though and also note that this claim is made in spite of the facts of history, and not because of them. Arvid McGuire, in an article on "The New Testament Canon" (Evidence Quarterly, Vol. II No. 2 -- 1961) pointed out that Justin Martyr (100-165 A. D.) knew the gospels, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, II Thessalonians, I Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. Clement of Alexandria (165-220) attributed Hebrews to Paul, and recognized all but James, II Peter and III John in his writings. Origen of Alexandria (185-253) quoted all the New Testament books, and Clement of Rome (30-100, same time as the apostles) quoted Matthew, Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, James, I Timothy, Titus and Peter. Tertullian of Carthage (150-222) quoted all except Philemon and I John. In fact, William Fain noted that Sir David Dalrymple in the 19th century reproduced all but 11 verses from secular writings -- all written before 300 A. D. (Gospel Guardian, 6-9-66). Certainly from this evidence, it is recognized that the New Testament was in circulation and recognized before the Catholic Church ever made any decisions about it. Even the best existing manuscripts of the original language today existed before the date set by the Catholic Church. In reality all the Catholic Church did, as the soldier at the cross (Matthew 27:54), was to recognize what was already established as fact. This had already been preserved and protected by God. (II Peter 1:3)"
The Extra Catholic Books

JoeT said:

Judas ate of the Bread of life unworthily and look what happened to him[Cf. Corinthians 11:27, 29]. There are some who question whether or not Judas had left before Christ handed the Apostles the bread of life.


The Greek word is menō, meaning, state of being in a relation or expectancy, to sojourn, to reside in. How do you reside in a symbol?

And the result of not abiding in Christ, "If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth."[John 15:6] .


JoeT

Click to expand...

I never said anything about abiding in a symbol.

““I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:1-10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Butterball1 said:

Luke 13:31-32
Herod was literally a four legged bushy tailed animal.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true - that is, if you consistently apply your hermeneutic which is hyper-literal in a few select verses.

JoeT said:

Judas ate of the Bread of life unworthily and look what happened to him[Cf. Corinthians 11:27, 29]. There are some who question whether or not Judas had left before Christ handed the Apostles the bread of life.

Click to expand...

So evidently when Christ said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will never die He was not speaking literally otherwise Judas would not have died because he did literally eat the Eucharist and he did literally die. So are you going to say now that only a portion of that statement was literal? Are you going to say that the part about the Eucharist being His flesh and blood is literal but the part about whoever eats it will never die is not literal? Only half of the statement was literal and the other half was symbolic or figurative?

JoeT said:

Could be, but he doesn't ask you to eat a book or door hardware. He does say, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." [John 6:55-57].

JoeT

Click to expand...

See your saying that every part of that statement is to be taken literally except for the part about whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will never die. Catholics will say that He repeated this statement to indicate that He was speaking literally but yet He also repeatedly said whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will never die and we know that this is not to be taken literally otherwise Judas wouldn’t have died. So your argument is not making sense here.

BNR32FAN said:

So evidently when Christ said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will never die He was not speaking literally otherwise Judas would not have died because he did literally eat the Eucharist and he did literally die. So are you going to say now that only a portion of that statement was literal? Are you going to say that the part about the Eucharist being His flesh and blood is literal but the part about whoever eats it will never die is not literal? Only half of the statement was literal and the other half was symbolic or figurative?

Click to expand...

This is what we call contradictory hermeneutics. It is the bane of systematic theologians.

BNR32FAN said:

See your saying that every part of that statement is to be taken literally except for the part about whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will never die. Catholics will say that He repeated this statement to indicate that He was speaking literally but yet He also repeatedly said whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will never die and we know that this is not to be taken literally otherwise Judas wouldn’t have died. So your argument is not making sense here.

Click to expand...

In truth, the statement does not apply merely to Judas, but to all the Apostles and every Christian, except those currently alive. We can safe predict that these also will die, barring any unforeseen miracle.

Butterball1 said:

The language Jesus used is obviously figurative.....
Matt 26:
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

What Jesus first called "blood" in v28 is called "fruit of the vine" in v29. The content of the cup never changed, it was always 'fruit of the vine' symbolically called 'blood'.

Even in v27 Jesus' uses a figure of speech, metonymy, calling the contents of the cup the cup itself.

Click to expand...

How is it so obvious? Saying, this "is" refers to the state of being, either the bread He is holding or the wine in the chalice holds a certain state or not. Christ didn't say this is 'like' my body. There is no explanation for such an extortionary claim, nor is it a synecdoche or a metonymy. He changes the state of the bread to the state of His Body. In a metonymy there is a relationship between the two nouns. For example, 'He fixes a great dish of pasta'. This example has a relationship between "dish" which is used to serve a meal and the "pasta", the meal itself. What is the relationship between bread and body? If Christ had intended His statement to be a metonymy an explanation was omitted. The wine and the body are two different things. Yet in John 6, He says to eat my 'flesh', sarx. "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."[John 6:56]. It's a poor argument. Furthermore, I've yet to find a symbol that offers eternal life. A symbol of bread that would bring eternal life is a fetish.

The message is quite clear, bread and wine is transfigured as His Body and Blood; essence of the bread is transubstantiated as the essence of the Person of Christ, that is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and with the attributes of the bread remaining.

JoeT

JoeT said:

The message is quite clear, bread and wine is transfigured as His Body and Blood; essence of the bread is transubstantiated as the essence of the Person of Christ, that is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and with the attributes of the bread remaining.

Click to expand...

The message is equally clear that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will never die and yet Judas received the Eucharist from Christ Himself and still died. If your going to take that statement literally you have to take the ENTIRE STATEMENT literally and not be wishy washy about the pieces you want to take literally while disregarding the rest of the statement just because it proves your theology to be wrong. If you believe that statement is to be taken literally then you must admit that Judas received eternal life otherwise your just picking & choosing what you want to be true and not acknowledging the truth of the whole statement.

BNR32FAN said:

The message is equally clear that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will never die and yet Judas received the Eucharist from Christ Himself and still died. If your going to take that statement literally you have to take the ENTIRE STATEMENT literally and not be wishy washy about the pieces you want to take literally while disregarding the rest of the statement just because it proves your theology to be wrong. If you believe that statement is to be taken literally then you must admit that Judas received eternal life otherwise your just picking & choosing what you want to be true and not acknowledging the truth of the whole statement.

Click to expand...

Probably the only consistent statement that can be made concerning Catholic theology is that it is internally inconsistent.

bbbbbbb said:

Probably the only consistent statement that can be made concerning Catholic theology is that it is internally inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Well on that note I was surprised to hear that lately purgatory is believed to be a pleasant experience whereas originally it was believed to be a painful experience. Not sure where this new information came from to change this idea but it certainly brings to question the claim of infallibility on matters concerning doctrines which has been the Roman Church’s claim for centuries.

BNR32FAN said:

Well on that note I was surprised to hear that lately purgatory is believed to be a pleasant experience whereas originally it was believed to be a painful experience. Not sure where this new information came from to change this idea but it certainly brings to question the claim of infallibility on matters concerning doctrines which has been the Roman Church’s claim for centuries.

Click to expand...

That is another lovely aspect of Catholic theology - vagueness. Catholic theologians very scientifically parse their words so that seemingly clear statements can be interpreted quite differently. For example, in the Marian dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, it is stated that Mary did not undergo the "pangs of death". One might think this means that Mary did not die at all and was assumed directly into heaven. In fact, there are multitudes of sincere Catholic who do believe that. Contradicting this notion is a multitude of depictions, both painted and sculpted, in Catholic church depicting the death of the Virgin. This is simply dodged with the vague explanation that Mary did not suffer the pangs of death. Although she might have died, there was no pain involved in it.

BNR32FAN said:

The message is equally clear that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will never die and yet Judas received the Eucharist from Christ Himself and still died. If your going to take that statement literally you have to take the ENTIRE STATEMENT literally and not be wishy washy about the pieces you want to take literally while disregarding the rest of the statement just because it proves your theology to be wrong. If you believe that statement is to be taken literally then you must admit that Judas received eternal life otherwise your just picking & choosing what you want to be true and not acknowledging the truth of the whole statement.

Click to expand...

Christ didn't say you would never have a physical death, He said you would have "everlasting life" with Him.

Pneuma is a Greek word most always translated spirit, it’s meaning however is more an inner force that reaches and unites us to God. Catholics are one pneuma with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). And, as in John 6:64 and in Paul’s Galatians 3 we receive this power from God, you might say as a quickening. Sarx refers to the flesh or the physical body of a person. Thus, in john 6:64 we see it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Again, pneuma (the inner force) is moved toward God. Continuing Christ said it does nothing for the sarx, i.e., the physical body; and how can it? The words He speaks, say Christ are pneuma (about the inner force), the inner force that binds us to life, i.e. God.

Let’s be even clearer still, soma is a Greek word for body as well, however it is the whole person, more literally, ‘the thing that is self’ or person. In Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 we hear Christ say this is my Body; soma, “the thing that is His Person”, i.e. His essence. To be a person requires body, soul, intellect, and will. Actually he is saying “toútó estin tó sómá mou”, (this is my body) which means this is His Person; Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity, the whole or the essence of what Jesus Christ is. And you are told, eat and drink the very essence of Christ; not His symbol, His metaphor, not a empty cross, one without the Corpus Christi, not grape juice that makes us feel all fuzzy inside, but the very substance that is Christ. It’s called the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

My person is not a symbol, pinch me and I protest. One commandment is given by Christ, either partake of the Real Presence in Christ (His Person) else you do not have life in you [John 6:54]. Conversely, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]. Whereas, eating symbols does nothing but put excess weight on the sarx.

What we see as wishy-washy, trite, is the use of modern philosophical thought to described Christ's teachings in the first century. A completely different mindset from modern man.

JoeT

bbbbbbb said:

That is another lovely aspect of Catholic theology - vagueness. Catholic theologians very scientifically parse their words so that seemingly clear statements can be interpreted quite differently. For example, in the Marian dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, it is stated that Mary did not undergo the "pangs of death". One might think this means that Mary did not die at all and was assumed directly into heaven. In fact, there are multitudes of sincere Catholic who do believe that. Contradicting this notion is a multitude of depictions, both painted and sculpted, in Catholic church depicting the death of the Virgin. This is simply dodged with the vague explanation that Mary did not suffer the pangs of death. Although she might have died, there was no pain involved in it.

Click to expand...

It’s purely speculation which is why I don’t reject the idea nor do I endorse it. I choose to remain neutral on it and simply say I don’t know since there’s no conclusive evidence to support it nor refute it.

JoeT said:

Christ didn't say you would never have a physical death, He said you would have "everlasting life" with Him.

Pneuma is a Greek word most always translated spirit, it’s meaning however is more an inner force that reaches and units us to God. Catholics are one pneuma with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). And, as in John 6:64 and in Paul’s Galatians 3 we receive this power from God, you might say as a quickening. Sarx refers to the flesh or the physical body of a person. Thus, in john 6:64 we see it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Again, pneuma (the inner force) is moved toward God. Continuing Christ said it does nothing for the sarx, i.e., the physical body; and how can it? The words He speaks, say Christ are pneuma (about the inner force), the inner force that binds us to life, i.e. God.

Let’s be even clearer still, soma is a Greek word for body as well, however it is the whole person, more literally, ‘the thing that is self’ or person. In Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 we hear Christ say this is my Body; soma, “the thing that is His Person”, i.e. His essence. To be a person requires body, soul, intellect, and will. Actually he is saying “toútó estin tó sómá mou”, (this is my body) which means this is His Person; Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity, the whole or the essence of what Jesus Christ is. And you are told, eat and drink the very essence of Christ; not His symbol, His metaphor, not a empty cross, one without the Corpus Christi, not grape juice that makes us feel all fuzzy inside, but the very substance that is Christ. It’s called the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

My person is not a symbol, pinch me and I protest. One commandment is given by Christ, either partake of the Real Presence in Christ (His Person) else you do not have life in you [John 6:54]. Conversely, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]. Whereas, eating symbols does nothing but put excess weight on the sarx.

What we see as wishy-washy, trite, is the use of modern philosophical thought to described Christ's teachings in the first century. A completely different mindset from modern man.

JoeT

Click to expand...

And you completely ignored how this pertains to Judas. You seem to be avoiding the issue here brother Joe. So I’ll just ask a simple question here. Was this statement meant figuratively or literally or is only the first half meant literally and the second half is meant figuratively?

“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:54‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Did Judas eat His flesh and drink His blood? Does Judas have eternal life and will he be raised up on the last day?

BNR32FAN said:

It’s purely speculation which is why I don’t reject the idea nor do I endorse it. I choose to remain neutral on it and simply say I don’t know since there’s no conclusive evidence to support it nor refute it.

Click to expand...

At the present time many would agree with your position. However, in the past serious theology came into play.

One of the key issues is the fact that the wages of sin is death. When Adam sinned he did not die immediately, but he did die. Everyone who has ever sinned has died without exception. Those who did not sin, such as Jesus Christ, did not die for their sins. That said, the Catholic Church emphatically believes that Mary was completely and utterly pure and sinless from the moment of her conception until the very present time. If Mary never sinned, then surely she could have never died. This presents a bit of a conundrum. If Mary never died, where is she now? Voila! We have the ASSUMPTION where she was taken automatically to heaven without dying.

However, there are far too many images of the Death of the Virgin to discount the reality that Mary did actually die. At least, for many centuries the Catholic Church thought that the death of the Virgin was an established fact.

What to do? Well, we need to modify the meaning of the biblical text. Thus, the wages of sin is no longer death per se, but the PANGS of death. Those who do not suffer the PANGS of death (there being really only one in Catholic theology) are not sinners deserving of death. Thus, Mary could have ceased physical life here on earth without compromising her sinless state.

bbbbbbb said:

At the present time many would agree with your position. However, in the past serious theology came into play.

One of the key issues is the fact that the wages of sin is death. When Adam sinned he did not die immediately, but he did die. Everyone who has ever sinned has died without exception. Those who did not sin, such as Jesus Christ, did not die for their sins. That said, the Catholic Church emphatically believes that Mary was completely and utterly pure and sinless from the moment of her conception until the very present time. If Mary never sinned, then surely she could have never died. This presents a bit of a conundrum. If Mary never died, where is she now? Voila! We have the ASSUMPTION where she was taken automatically to heaven without dying.

However, there are far too many images of the Death of the Virgin to discount the reality that Mary did actually die. At least, for many centuries the Catholic Church thought that the death of the Virgin was an established fact.

What to do? Well, we need to modify the meaning of the biblical text. Thus, the wages of sin is no longer death per se, but the PANGS of death. Those who do not suffer the PANGS of death (there being really only one in Catholic theology) are not sinners deserving of death. Thus, Mary could have ceased physical life here on earth without compromising her sinless state.

Click to expand...

Yeah well when you mention John 6 and Jesus saying “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood will not die” then you get a completely different definition of death. Then they’ll say it’s referring to a spiritual death not an actual physical death. So they’ll use this same term to go back & forth basically twisting it to fit their agenda depending on whichever doctrine they’re trying to defend at the time.

JoeT said:

How is it so obvious? Saying, this "is" refers to the state of being, either the bread He is holding or the wine in the chalice holds a certain state or not. Christ didn't say this is 'like' my body. There is no explanation for such an extortionary claim, nor is it a synecdoche or a metonymy. He changes the state of the bread to the state of His Body. In a metonymy there is a relationship between the two nouns. For example, 'He fixes a great dish of pasta'. This example has a relationship between "dish" which is used to serve a meal and the "pasta", the meal itself. What is the relationship between bread and body? If Christ had intended His statement to be a metonymy an explanation was omitted. The wine and the body are two different things. Yet in John 6, He says to eat my 'flesh', sarx. "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."[John 6:56]. It's a poor argument. Furthermore, I've yet to find a symbol that offers eternal life. A symbol of bread that would bring eternal life is a fetish.

The message is quite clear, bread and wine is transfigured as His Body and Blood; essence of the bread is transubstantiated as the essence of the Person of Christ, that is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and with the attributes of the bread remaining.

JoeT

Click to expand...

You can refer back to my post #60 of this thread showing Jesus for a fact used figurative, symbolic language.

Particularly where Jesus equated "eatheth my flesh" of John 6:54 to the "words" He spake in John 6:63. Also John 6:56 those who eat Christ's flesh results in Christ abiding in them and they abiding in Christ. Parallel verse to John 6:56 is 1 John 3:24 where keeping Christ's commands likewise results in one abiding in Christ and Christ abiding in him just as in John 6:56.
Hence eating Christ's flesh is symbolic and equivalent to literally keeping Christ's commands (words).
========

Dish - for an entire plate of food.
"That fancy fish dish you made was the best of the evening".

No one literally ate the dish itself but it was the contents of the dish that was eaten. Likewise Jesus did not tell them to literally drink the cup itself, with "cup" refering to content of the cup.

As already pointed out by other posters here, Jesus was not literally a door John 10:9 nor a literal vine John 15:5 nor were the disciples literally salt Matthew 5:13. Your argument fails for you are not consistent with figures of speeches Jesus used. You see the figures of speeches when you desire to see them and reject them when you desire to reject them simply because they do not fit your preconcieved ideas.
========

Matthew 26:26-29 the contents never changed, what Jesus first called 'blood' was later called 'fruit of the vine' and it was 'fruit of the vine' that was given to the disciples to drink. If the content was first blood why did He not continue to call it blood? Paul referred to it as "bread" and "cup" 1 Corinthians 11:26-27. No indication at all the disciples tho't they were literally eating Christ's flesh and blood.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Paul calls the church "bread" so is the church literally eating its own flesh in taking communion? Did Israel literally eat the altar, 1 Corinthians 10:18? OBVIOUSLY the languaage is symbolic about the communion.

BNR32FAN said:

Yeah well when you mention John 6 and Jesus saying “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood will not die” then you get a completely different definition of death. Then they’ll say it’s referring to a spiritual death not an actual physical death. So they’ll use this same term to go back & forth basically twisting it to fit their agenda depending on whichever doctrine they’re trying to defend at the time.

Click to expand...

That is the problem with the "Church that never changes".

BNR32FAN said:

And you completely ignored how this pertains to Judas. You seem to be avoiding the issue here brother Joe.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore anything about Judas. Joe is a straight shooter

You might recall Brother Joe said, "Judas ate of the Bread of life unworthily and look what happened to him. [Cf. Corinthians 11:27, 29]" I even suggest that some say Judas left before Christ offered His Body and Blood.

So I’ll just ask a simple question here. Was this statement meant figuratively or literally or is only the first half meant literally and the second half is meant figuratively?

“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:54‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬.

Click to expand...

This statement is literal. But, it is worded some what differently in the Douay-Rheims: "Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."[John 6:54]. Of course, saved or not, we all die physically. But, there is a spiritual death as well.

Did Judas eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Click to expand...

I believe Judas ate His flesh and drank His blood unworthily.

Does Judas have eternal life and will he be raised up on the last day?

Click to expand...

It is my belief and the Church's those who sin such as Judas will be raised up on the last day, then suffer a second death in hell.

Is that clear enough? You know it's said that clarity is charity.

JoeT