would you consume Christ?

[Albion]

It's a digression of the OP



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

I'm not sure that I fully understand your message there, but if Christ violates an OT law in this case, he'd done that before, hadn't he?

HOWEVER, he did not say to drink literal blood and eat raw bleeding flesh--and no Christian church thinks he did--so that isn't an issue anyway.

 

[renniks]

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

I'm not a cannibal. I'll pass.

 

[fhansen]

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

I wouldn't touch it-and that's certainly not what He commanded. While He did command us to partake...

 

[PaulCyp1]

Since your question is pure fantasy, there is no real answer to it.

 

[HatGuy]

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

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

I understand you're Messianic so this is important to you, however I must point out that I find it odd that Paul goes on in Galatians 4 to say that Christ was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law so we might be adopted. The question I ask is why people under the Law needed to be redeemed if the Law is not faulty in some way. And why being "under the Law" has something to do with slavery in verse 7.

This might digress from the OP though, so maybe going further in the discussion is not necessary. It is true though that Jesus' speaking of drinking his blood and eating his flesh was insulting to the Jews in John 6, and there is a reason why they got to incensed about it - and I'm sure that has to do with what the Law stipulates.

 

[HatGuy]

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

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

Thank you for explaining this in such a clear, concise manner.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

What do you do?

Probably wake up from a really weird dream.

 

[fhansen]

I understand you're Messianic so this is important to you, however I must point out that I find it odd that Paul goes on in Galatians 4 to say that Christ was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law so we might be adopted. The question I ask is why people under the Law needed to be redeemed if the Law is not faulty in some way. And why being "under the Law" has something to do with slavery in verse 7.

This might digress from the OP though, so maybe going further in the discussion is not necessary. It is true though that Jesus' speaking of drinking his blood and eating his flesh was insulting to the Jews in John 6, and there is a reason why they got to incensed about it - and I'm sure that has to do with what the Law stipulates.

To be "under the law" means to attempt to achieve righteousness by our own efforts, still apart from the communion with God that we were made for. "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). The purpose of the New Covenant is to establish this communion so that He may indwell us and 'place His law in our minds and write it on our hearts' (Jer 31). Jesus came for this purpose, when the time was ripe in human history. The "fault" of the law was only that it could not realize, on its own, the righteousness or justification in us that it commands, even though it is holy, spiritual, and good as Paul explains. As such, the law is a teacher, that discloses sin and our inability to overcome it on our own. This is why it's said that Jesus did not come to abolish the law-and that our own righteousness must even exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, who were, generally speaking, "white-washed tombs" clean on the outside only. The new Covenant has the purpose of cleaning the inside first of all, which then results in making the outside clean as well, but the right way.

The sacrament of the Eucharist proclaims this need for God indwelling in a very simple and dramatic manner, and of the need to appreciate and nurture and cultivate this completely gratuitous and supernatural gift of communion with Him, as we partake regularly.

 

[Dave-W]

To be "under the law" means to attempt to achieve righteousness by our own efforts, still apart from the communion with God that we were made for.

Do you think that is what Paul meant when he wrote this?

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

I submit that Paul meant our Lord was subject to every one of the 613 commands in the Mosaic code. Had He broken any one of them, it would have meant our destruction was unstoppable.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Wait for the flesh to resurrect back into a complete person, and then ask him about it.

 

[bling]

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

NO!!! Jesus was not being literal????

 

[fhansen]

Do you think that is what Paul meant when he wrote this?

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

I submit that Paul meant our Lord was subject to every one of the 613 commands in the Mosaic code. Had He broken any one of them, it would have meant our destruction was unstoppable.

Well, Jesus certainly could do it by His own efforts, considering Who He is, the essence of perfect love. Paul explains a way, the right way, for man to fulfill the law without being under it, modeling Jesus as we obey by the Spirit:
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Rom 13:8-10

Man needs partnership with God, with that perfection, in order to be able to fulfill it, in order to love as He does IOW.

 

[charsan]

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

Exactly. Someone doesn't like the Holy Eucharist fine but they need not spread lies about it

 

[BornAgainBrother]

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

You are a first rate troll aren’t you? By the way, Isa Al-Misah (Jesus Christ) was more than “just a prophet.” No wonder you have your page blocked. You know what the scriptures teach. Is this a veiled attack on Catholicism or do you really not understand denominational differences?

 

[charsan]

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

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

Again exactly

 

[Strong in Him]

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

It would not be possible for anyone to authenticate that it was Christ's actual flesh and actual blood.
Jesus died on the cross, was buried and on the 3rd day the tomb was empty. He did not leave behind his scarred, bloody, pre-crucifixion body and emerge as a spirit. He was raised physically, with a body, and later ascended into heaven; NOT leaving a body behind.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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

This is a ridiculous and unprofitable question because we will never be presented with the actual flesh or blood of Christ nor will we be given credible documentation that purported meat and blood are that of Christ's. Even if we were given such, we have never been authorized by scripture to consume human flesh. Jesus symbolically used bread and wine to represent his body and blood, he never authorized the disciples to carve up his body after he died and eat it. This gets to the crux of the matter, Jesus is living today and thus his body isn't here for us to consume in the first place.

 

[HTacianas]

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

To answer your question, yes I would consume it.

If it were the Christian tradition to use the flesh and blood of an animal as the Eucharist, and after the blessing of the priest it became the body and blood of Christ, it would be appropriate. But that is not the tradition of Christianity. Christianity has always held that bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ after it is blessed.

 

[Andrewn]

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

I think Catholics, Orthodox, and at least conservative Lutherans believe they're eating the actual flesh and blood of Christ, even though it looks like bread and wine. Don't they?

This is different from the real presence as believed by the Reformed, Methodists and perhaps Anglicans.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am troubled greatly by the responses here.
Folks would actually physically eat Jesus?
Come on now.
You really cannot mean that.
That is ridiculous.
Jesus says that He is our friend.
Do you eat your friends?
Really?
I don't think you can make lasting friends or relationships if you were to do that.