would you consume Christ?

[DamianWarS]

Well since we are in the realm of science fiction I would clone it, Jurassic Park style! I would give the young genetically perfect Jesus some kind of education in the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch where he would learn many things including Aramaic, Arabic, Koine, English, Latin etc. then I would have him give guided tours of the Holy Land and museums of the Holy Land in character like those "Living History" displays in the US where people dress up and reenact what life is like for the Colonists and early Americans.

what would his name be?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

No, you know why you started this thread; it is inflammatory and mocks other Christians such as Catholics, Orthodox, many Anglicans and Confessional Lutherans who trust in our Lord's words we we do in fact "take and eat" His very Body and Blood "given for us, for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Whatever the Spirit of God leads me to do.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't got time to figure out every kind of church that is out there. <snip>

You might have more time to do so if you spent less time denigrating the faith of others; how much time have you spent in this tread spreading negativity?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[Pavel Mosko]

what would his name be?

Well first name definitely Yeshua.

Last name probably would be based on his adoptive family.

If he was raised in an orphanage, it would be cool to go with some kind of historical/theological one. Probably would go something like Incarnation in Aramaic or Syriac with an ending that shows he is a descendant like the Hebrew "Bar X" prefix. It would come out to being something like Yeshua, Son of the Incarnation.

 

[Basil the Great]

Due to the Old Testament's very strong admonition against consuming blood, it would appear very unlikely that Jesus meant for us to literally eat his body and drink his blood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.........

 

[charsan]

And that is just your opinion. You need Scripture and evidence to back up your claims.

Not really, just study history. You reject this and think Scripture is everything it is not, nor does the Bible say to go by it alone. The idea to follow the Bible alone is a lie of man

 

[HehasRisen]

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

If Jesus ascended to Heaven in bodily form, how did we obtain His flesh and blood?

I'd double check the documentation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[charsan]

No, you know why you started this thread; it is inflammatory and mocks other Christians such as Catholics, Orthodox, many Anglicans and Confessional Lutherans who trust in our Lord's words we we do in fact "take and eat" His very Body and Blood "given for us, for the forgiveness of sins.

Exactly!

 

[rnmomof7]

Due to the Old Testament's very strong admonition against consuming blood, it would appear very unlikely that Jesus meant for us to literally eat his body and drink his blood.

And not one of that apostles brought up that fact, They were very used to Jesus using metaphors and smilies when He taught...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If Jesus ascended to Heaven in bodily form, how did we obtain His flesh and blood?

I'd double check the documentation.

So I Jesus can not do this, then is is not God; God is omnipotent and omnipresent; God can and does do anything and everything; He is present everywhere and at all times. Therefore when He says, is, it is. The "door" metaphor is different as there are other metaphors that show that context; at the institution of the Eucharist, there nothing to give any context to His statement other than "this is"; when the Apostles wright about it, likewise. Transubstantiation? Maybe not quite; but a "sacramental union" as Luther explains in the (Scriptural based) Small Catechism:

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.​

 

[charsan]

OR, as others believe, it is the truth,
and rejecting the Bible and what the Bible Says is "a lie of man" (quite common? ) ....

No one is rejecting the Bible. The thing being rejected is how the Bible is being abused by insisting that it be used alone when no where are we instructed to do that. Going by the Bible alone is a perversion of what the Bible is meant for.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Apparently, as far as I can find out, the Ekklesia in the first century, the Apostles, and later the Waldensians and the Anabaptists, and others, believed the Bible is the TRUTH, and would not believe things outside the Bible that contradict the Bible.

 

[Silverback]

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

Christ came to fulfill the law, Christians are not bound to the law in the same way as Ancient Israel.

For Christians, the law exist to convict us of our sin, give good examples on God pleasing works, and to have a just society.

The dietary restrictions are not binding today.

I think I know how you will respond, but, the law and it's requirements have been fullfilled...that's what Paul says, anyway.

 

[charsan]

Apparently, as far as I can find out, the Ekklesia in the first century, the Apostles, and later the Waldensians and the Anabaptists, and others, believed the Bible is the TRUTH, and would not believe things outside the Bible that contradict the Bible.

Not quite, in the Apostles time there was no Bible and did believe things outside the Establish Scriptures like no circumcision. The Apostles though a Church council determined doctrine that sometimes did not mess with OT scripture (Acts). It was the later groups who used Scripture wrongly