would you consume Christ?

[His student]

.......You are given documentation authenticating it as Christ's actual flesh and Christ's actual blood....

I'd check the documentation against what the scriptures teach and then reject it as false in light of what the scriptures clearly teach about the once for all resurrected and glorified Christ.

 

[DamianWarS]

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

I'd double check the documentation.

Christ's resurrected body had holes in his hands/feet and side. Before he was crucified he was also flogged with apparently a whip with a bunch of bits of metal or sharp things at the end that wasn't that friendly. It could be quite plausible to obtain a piece of Christ's flesh if you were in close proximity to these things and along with that his blood which scripture tells us blood and water flowed out of its side. Perhaps unable to be kept for 2000 years, but it's not implausible that someone following the crucifixion had the opportunity.

 

[HardHead]

What do you do?

"Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?" (Dennis Hopper, 1994)

 

[DamianWarS]

By the way, Isa Al-Misah (Jesus Christ) was more than “just a prophet.”

What are you suggesting? before you answer you should read the forum rules.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

You found out wrong regarding the first Century; the Bible existed in bits and pieces all over Christendom and as we know it, was not even compiled until the 3rd century. Even then, the canon of Scripture remained "open" which explains the variation in content of Bibles in Western, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox. The Waldensians used the Vulgate; the Anabaptists Luther's Bible; both of which have more books than what protestants would consider "The Bible".

The canon remained open until the Council of Trent (Catholic) and various reformed protestant sects closed it. The Orthodox, Oriental, Lutherans (Confessional Lutherans for sure; in Concordia's latest edition of the Apocrypha contains 21 books over and above the 66 in the protestant Bible The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes), and some (most?) Anglican communities still retain an open canon.
Good Article here: Books of the Bible - Wikipedia

Now, not all books are "equal"; Gospel supersedes the Law; The Gospels are the source of doctrine; Acts and the Epistles teach and support the Gospels; some theological concerns remain about certain epistles and the Revelation, due to questions of indefinite authorship.

So, before everyone starts spouting off, we Confessional Lutherans are "Sola Scriptura" and we do hold Tradition only as far as those traditions are neither at odds with, nor are forbidden by, Scripture. If Scripture is silent regarding a long held traditional belief, then it is Adiaphora; a thing of indifference; we are free to accept or reject it. Adiaphora can be things like the Assumption of Mary; a set lectionairy, vestments, how many or any candles on the Altar, presence/absence of artwork in our Churches etc. The Eucharist is clearly supported and mandated in Scripture; and liturgical worship was and remains the norm of the true Church as it was mandated in the old testament, and continues according to God's will.

The 66 book "Protestant" Bible came about as a puritanical British response against the taxation of paper and printed material. By excluding the Apocrypha from the KJV, the cost per book was greatly reduced. (as we are fond of doing; we can blame indiscriminate and unfair taxation for the protestant Bibles of today; a very "Christian" reason for a closed canon eh?). So, the idea of a closed canon is a recent innovation, not driven by the Church, but by a secular law.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Interesting others are using the OT rules against blood to apply to Christians. Blood is life, it is evidenced from the very first passages of the scripture. Christ is life- we were told not to consume the blood of animals (how many of you have ever had a rare steak), yet not ever told not to consume the blood of God.

Stop trying to put your personal understandings against God. The blood of God and man are both of divine origin. They are life and we are given life by Christ's specific gift of them.

John 6:55-60 New King James Version (NKJV)

For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

IF this can be posted in THIS SECTION (GT) , ....
......
deleted......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[Gottservant]

If I could not understand what was said spiritually, I would defer until
I had spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit).

No ignorance, no problem!

 

[Robin Mauro]

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?

Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, but Jesus used this saying to weed out those who really didn't believe. It was a hard saying, even for Peter, whom Christ asked "Will you leave me too?" and Peter replied "Where else would I (we) go Lord? You have the words of life."
"Do this in memory of me." when we eat. "This is my flesh...This is my blood."...The food we eat represents his sacrifice.
So, I question the motives behind your question.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are one of the ones who Christ was weeding out.

 

[Robin Mauro]

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?

It is metaphorical. He is the sacrificial lamb of God.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

if he told me to, yes.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

if he told me to, yes.

He did: "Take and Eat", "take and drink", "this is my", "do this"

 

[truefiction1]

A song I really enjoy by Matt Maher, a practicing Catholic, is "Remembrance" and it opens saying:

Oh, how could it be
That my God would welcome me into this mystery
Say take this bread, take this wine
Now the simple made divine for any to receive​

I really appreciate the consistent emphasis of mystery in the language, something that is missed in a lot of denominations because the mystery is removed. Still, Christ asks us to violate the law even if in language only. the law tells us not to drink blood then Christ tells us to drink his blood. What is the connecting value here? I know why Christ's blood is important but why drink it?

The prohibitions in the Old Testament against consuming blood were not for the purpose of preventing us from consuming God in Eucharistic joy, as directed by Christ's own words. Their purpose was to prevent Israel from being consumed by the same sinfulness as their idolatrous, false god worshiping, pagan neighbors. Any understanding of those prohibitions that differs from this will ultimately lead us to believe that life saving, medical blood transfusions ought to also be unlawful for Christians. Then we will all become unknowingly evil like Jehovah's Witnesses, Who elevate the law above Salvation by grace through faith, just so that they may become deluded into believing that theirs is the only righteous group of true witnesses faithful to Jehovah.

 

[truefiction1]

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.

Yes, He was born under the Law, which was given through Moses. Grace and Truth, however, came through Jesus Christ, Who sealed the New Covenant relationship in His blood, which he gave his own sheep to drink, in the form of the drink from the vine.

Even very small children accept with unspeakable joy and thanksgiving that their Shepherd is in the bread and the wine. Have we become too much unlike a little child if we must insist that the bread and wine can be nothing more than "representations" of a concept, rather than being the Good Shepherd Himself?

Hmmm... I wonder...

 

[WanderedHome]

Interesting question, but purely hypothetical and unrealistic. First, even Catholics and Orthodox would not consume the raw flesh and blood of a human. Secondly, if it was somehow proven to be Jesus Christ's, it would MOST CERTAINLY not be given to anyone to do as they wish. It would likely be confiscated and enshrined, under tight security, as a relic for veneration.

 

[ewq1938]

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?

Christ's dead body was resurrected and glorified. It is an immortal body and we shall be like him in the resurrection.

Php_3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

There is no literal human flesh that could be taken from his body and eaten, nor should anyone do something so monstrous anyways. Stick to the symbolisms of wine and bread as the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Christ's dead body was resurrected and glorified. It is an immortal body and we shall be like him in the resurrection.

Php_3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

There is no literal human flesh that could be taken from his body and eaten, nor should anyone do something so monstrous anyways. Stick to the symbolisms of wine and bread as the body and blood of Christ.

Remember that the choice is not just between raw flesh and mere symbolism. The doctrine of the Real Presence holds that it IS Christ's very essence, and not just a symbol of it, but that does not require it to be literal, physical, carnal flesh.

 

[ewq1938]

Remember, the choice is not confined to raw flesh vs pure symbolism.

There is no choice. All we have is bread and wine to symbolize the flesh and blood. What we are allowed to partake of is bread and wine in this particular ceremony.

 

[Albion]

NCE

There is no choice. All we have is bread and wine to symbolize the flesh and blood.

Well, obviously there is...considering that the majority of Christians belong to churches that believe in the Real Presence.