Does blood really mean blood?

[marco]

Jesus took the chalice and, according to Mark:
" he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

This echoes Moses: "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Some take Christ's words as meaning Jesus was literally changing the wine into his own blood.

Is this a reasonable interpretation?

Why did Christ link wine with his blood? Are his words of major significance?

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Sorry, you are circumventing God's clear commands on consuming blood. It is not ever considered a food, and it is and always has been prohibited for ingestion.

The prohibition was NOT temporary. It is no more temporary than the prohibition of fornication, or do you have a reason that that is permitted by God today?

Sure about that? I already included in my previous post the reasons it was not a once and for all command of God AND that the command was about animal blood AND that any new command of God overrides any previous command.

Jesus did say, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.� But don’t recall Him saying, “Truly, truly I say to you, fornication is the bomb. Whoever has sex outside of marriage I will raise him up at the last day.…�

So, that’s how we know.

[tam]

How to obey His words on that day was revealed to the twelve at the last supper. The twelve then also went on to teach all the disciples to obey that command as well. (Matthew 28:20)

Unfortunately, Tam, it is the meaning of this revelation we are arguing about. The obvious reading is a figurative one. You have presented the words: This is my body.... this is my blood" and you leave it there. So do you think that Jesus was mystifyingly indicating that bread was his body and wine was his actual blood?

I know; I was responding to the reason most disciples left (they did not truly believe) and some remained (they did truly believe).


Since "he who is faithful in what is least, will also be faithful in what is much", I focused more on obedience to His command. Because as He said, the one who obeys His commands is the one who loves Him.


If such a person (one who loves Him, follows Him, listens to Him, seeks Him) has a misunderstanding about the bread and wine... then such a person can be led into the truth BY the Truth (Christ).

Unless of course they choose to follow someone or something else; listen to someone or something else; come to love someone or something else more than Him.



**


The understanding I have received of the bread and wine is that such represent the body and blood of Christ. We eat and drink of Him because He told us to do this - and we obey His commands as He said those who love Him would do. We eat and drink the bread and wine that represent His body and blood, also because doing so proclaims His death until He returns.


We symbolically eat and drink of His body and blood NOW - by literally eating and drinking the bread and wine He told us to eat and drink. But when in the Kingdom we will actually be eating and drinking of Him, and so taking LIFE into us. For He is the TRUE manna from heaven... He is the LIFE... and even the angels eat of Him (man ate the bread of angels, Psalm 78:25). He is also the Tree of Life, and unless one eats of the Tree of Life, one cannot live forever.

(As for His blood - the blood of His Father - that blood is holy spirit, the water of life. My Lord poured His physical blood onto the ground when He gave His life for us, true. But He also poured out and gives to us (who receive it) holy spirit, the blood (and breath and seed) of JAH. And the white robe - the spirit body - that we receive has been made clean in the blood of the lamb.)





Peace to you and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

There are so many theological errors in your post.

I know; I was responding to the reason most disciples left (they did not truly believe) and some remained (they did truly believe).

Believe what? Believe Jesus was the son of God? Because that isn’t what Jesus was asking them to believe in John 6. His word were:

“And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.� (Jn 6:51).

“I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life within you� (Jn 6:53).

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day� (Jn 6:54).

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink� (Jn 6:55).

Those were the words He was asking us to believe. Both those who left AND those who stayed knew what He was telling them, but only those who stayed accepted what they were being told.

Since "he who is faithful in what is least, will also be faithful in what is much", I focused more on obedience to His command. Because as He said, the one who obeys His commands is the one who loves Him.

By George I think she got it here. Yes, John 6 was about faith, not just faith that He was the Savior, but also faith that what He was telling/commanding them was true. He told them as plain as day, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life within you� He told them “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink�. This Scripture was requiring their faith in His words.

The understanding I have received of the bread and wine is that such represent the body and blood of Christ.

But that isn’t what He said. Your understanding is incorrect. Christ’s words would have made no sense if He were speaking symbolically. They would also not have explained the reaction of all who heard Him. Why would anyone have an issue about Him asking people to symbolically eat bread and wine? It is an absolute illogical conclusion.

We symbolically eat and drink of His body and blood NOW - by literally eating and drinking the bread and wine He told us to eat and drink. But when in the Kingdom we will actually be eating and drinking of Him, and so taking LIFE into us. For He is the TRUE manna from heaven... He is the LIFE... and even the angels eat of Him (man ate the bread of angels, Psalm 78:25). He is also the Tree of Life, and unless one eats of the Tree of Life, one cannot live forever.

If you can understand and make the parallels that you so beautifully do that yes, He is the true manna from heaven, He is who gives us life so that we may live forever, why would you not recognize that that is exactly what Jesus was saying that day to His followers. To understand and see the fulfillment that He is the true manna, how would you not conclude His words that day in John 6 to be literal? Nothing else makes sense.

(As for His blood - the blood of His Father - that blood is holy spirit, the water of life. My Lord poured His physical blood onto the ground when He gave His life for us, true. But He also poured out and gives to us (who receive it) holy spirit, the blood (and breath and seed) of JAH. And the white robe - the spirit body - that we receive has been made clean in the blood of the lamb.)

I think there are some theological errors in this comment of yours that most likely stem from JW’s not understanding the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Holy Trinity. To see the Holy Spirit as some force can really messes up ones understanding.

I will ask you again, if Jesus were speaking symbolically, what would have been so offensive?

[tam]

Peace to you,

I know; I was responding to the reason most disciples left (they did not truly believe) and some remained (they did truly believe).

Believe what? Believe Jesus was the son of God? Because that isn’t what Jesus was asking them to believe in John 6. His word were:

“And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.� (Jn 6:51).

“I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life within you� (Jn 6:53).

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day� (Jn 6:54).

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink� (Jn 6:55).

Those were the words He was asking us to believe. Both those who left AND those who stayed knew what He was telling them, but only those who stayed accepted what they were being told.

Keep reading, starting at verse 61:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. However, there are some of you who do not believe.� (For [Jesus] had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him.)

He knew from the beginning which of them did not believe. So before He ever taught this, He knew which of them did not believe. And why would He need to state aloud the obvious: that some did not believe this teaching?

Continuing...

Then [Jesus] said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him."


He is speaking about people coming to HIM (or in this case NOT being able to come to Him). He is not speaking merely about them accepting a particular teaching or not.

Continuing...

From that time on, many of His disciples turned back and no longer accompanied Him. So [Jesus] asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?� Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.�


They remained because they believed and knew that He is the Holy One of God; the One who has the words of eternal life.

The understanding I have received of the bread and wine is that such represent the body and blood of Christ.

But that isn’t what He said. Your understanding is incorrect. Christ’s words would have made no sense if He were speaking symbolically.

The words at John? He was not speaking symbolically; He was speaking spiritually; He was speaking about matters of the spirit. Not about matters of the flesh.

As He said:

The SPIRIT gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. My words are spirit and they are life.



Later He set up what we are to do until He returns. To keep eating and keep drinking (the bread and wine that He said were His flesh and blood); so that is what we must do (if we wish to remain in Him and Him in us and so if we wish to have life in us; if we love Him and wish to obey Him; if we wish to proclaim His death until He returns).

They would also not have explained the reaction of all who heard Him. Why would anyone have an issue about Him asking people to symbolically eat bread and wine? It is an absolute illogical conclusion.

I believe I stated at the very beginning of my former post that the people did not understand his words as symbolic. I never even said, myself, that His words were symbolic.

Only that the bread and wine that He gave us to eat and drink as His body and blood, are symbolic of His body and blood.

Refusing to eat and drink the bread and wine is the same thing as refusing to eat and drink of Christ.

(As for His blood - the blood of His Father - that blood is holy spirit, the water of life. My Lord poured His physical blood onto the ground when He gave His life for us, true. But He also poured out and gives to us (who receive it) holy spirit, the blood (and breath and seed) of JAH. And the white robe - the spirit body - that we receive has been made clean in the blood of the lamb.)

I think there are some theological errors in this comment of yours that most likely stem from JW’s not understanding the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Holy Trinity. To see the Holy Spirit as some force can really messes up ones understanding.

I am not now nor have I ever been a JW.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you do not believe God blew a literal person into Adam's nostrils, or that Christ blew a literal person onto the apostles when He breathed on them and said 'receive holy spirit'?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

oops...

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Keep reading, starting at verse 61:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. However, there are some of you who do not believe�


(For [Jesus] had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him.)

He knew from the beginning which of them did not believe. So before He ever taught this, He knew which of them did not believe. And why would He need to state aloud the obvious: that some did not believe this teaching?

Continuing...

Then [Jesus] said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him."


He is speaking about people coming to HIM (or in this case NOT being able to come to Him). He is not speaking merely about them accepting a particular teaching or not.

Continuing...

From that time on, many of His disciples turned back and no longer accompanied Him. So [Jesus] asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?� Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.�


They remained because they believed and knew that He is the Holy One of God; the One who has the words of eternal life.

I’m not sure why you are suggesting I keep reading. I have read the above verses many times and I don’t disagree with any of them. It fits perfectly into the understanding and truth that Jesus was speaking literally and that when we receive Him in the Holy Eucharist we literally receiving His Body and Blood. Verse 61 merely confirms Catholic teaching regarding the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

The words at John? He was not speaking symbolically; He was speaking spiritually; He was speaking about matters of the spirit. Not about matters of the flesh.

Here’s where you get it wrong. You are confusing spiritually with the word spirit

The confusion is most often based upon confusion between spirit a noun and the adjective spiritual. Therefore, Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail� means only the Spirit(God) can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle. The use of the word spirit in this passage in no way implies “spiritual� or “spiritually� as in a symbolic sense. This is easily understood in the sense that Christians would never say, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Symbol�

One thing we do not want to do as Christians is to fall into the trap of believing that because Christ says his words are “spirit and life,� or “spiritual,� they cannot involve the material. When Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh" He most definitely is referring to flesh.

And notice Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.� He said, “The flesh is of no avail.� There is a rather large difference between the two. Of course no one would believe that Jesus was telling us to eat His flesh if He meant my flesh avails nothing. Previously He just spent a great deal of time telling everyone that His flesh avails much and that those who eat His flesh He shall raise up. Of course the words the flesh was often used in the NT to describe human nature apart from God’s grace and in those cases we are warned that the flesh is of no avail.

For example we see this usage of the words the flesh in Scripture when Christ says, “ . . . the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak� . Obviously, it requires supernatural grace in the life of the believer to believe the crazy declaration Jesus makes in regards to the Holy Eucharist. Jesus Himself says both before and after this “hard saying�, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him� Belief in the Eucharist is clearly a gift of grace. Our natural minds (or those who are in “the flesh� will never be able to understand this awesome Christian truth.)

For a full and more detailed explanation see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... out-john-6

Later He set up what we are to do until He returns. To keep eating and keep drinking (the bread and wine that He said were His flesh and blood); so that is what we must do

I couldn’t agree more. But again, you mistakenly fail to acknowledge the flesh and blood He is referring to is literal as well as the command and the behavior.

I believe I stated at the very beginning of my former post that the people did not understand his words as symbolic. I never even said, myself, that His words were symbolic.

Only that the bread and wine that He gave us to eat and drink as His body and blood, are symbolic of His body and blood.

Then, again I ask you, WHY would that be offensive? Why would anyone find it offensive to eat bread and wine that were merely symbols of His Body and Blood? They wouldn't! And you continue to be unable to explain that they would.

***********

The early Church took John 6 literally. (in both the sense that we should participate in Holy Communion and that that Holy Communion was the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ) In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/christ-in-the-eucharist

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

Keep reading, starting at verse 61:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. However, there are some of you who do not believe�


(For [Jesus] had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him.)

He knew from the beginning which of them did not believe. So before He ever taught this, He knew which of them did not believe. And why would He need to state aloud the obvious: that some did not believe this teaching?

Continuing...

Then [Jesus] said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him."


He is speaking about people coming to HIM (or in this case NOT being able to come to Him). He is not speaking merely about them accepting a particular teaching or not.

Continuing...

From that time on, many of His disciples turned back and no longer accompanied Him. So [Jesus] asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?� Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.�


They remained because they believed and knew that He is the Holy One of God; the One who has the words of eternal life.

I’m not sure why you are suggesting I keep reading.

Because you said this:

Believe Jesus was the son of God? Because that isn’t what Jesus was asking them to believe in John 6.

Yet the apostles remained (when He asked them if they wanted to leave also) because they believed and knew that He was the Holy One of God, the One who had the words of eternal life.

The apostles did not know what He meant either; but they remained. Because they remained, they learned later what it is He was actually going to have them DO with the bread and the wine.

Yes, the issue that caused people to leave Him on this occasion was His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and many stumble over this even today. But they also did not truly believe that He was the Holy One of God, the One who has the words of eternal life. Or like the apostles, they would have remained.

I have read the above verses many times and I don’t disagree with any of them. It fits perfectly into the understanding and truth that Jesus was speaking literally and that when we receive Him in the Holy Eucharist we literally receiving His Body and Blood. Verse 61 merely confirms Catholic teaching regarding the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

If you are not going to respond to the specific comments that I made on those verses, I'm not sure there is more for me to add.

The words at John? He was not speaking symbolically; He was speaking spiritually; He was speaking about matters of the spirit. Not about matters of the flesh.

Here’s where you get it wrong. You are confusing spiritually with the word spirit

I am not.

The confusion is most often based upon confusion between spirit a noun and the adjective spiritual.

I am not confused about this.

Therefore, Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail� means only the Spirit(God) can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle. The use of the word spirit in this passage in no way implies “spiritual� or “spiritually� as in a symbolic sense.

I was not mistaking Spirit in that verse to mean 'spiritually'. I was referring to the second part of that verse which I underlined.

In any case, "spiritual" does not mean symbolic.

This is easily understood in the sense that Christians would never say, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Symbol�

A - I do not AT ALL think spiritual OR spirit means "symbolic", and I stated that in my previous post.

B - Spiritual, meaning something to do with the Spirit and/or the spiritual realm (including spirit beings) and/or matters of the spirit.

A physical thing can be symbolic of a spiritual thing. We are often given physical examples to help us understand the spiritual reality.

Look at the Temple for instance:

In the Temple, the Most Holy Place represents the Most Holy One (God). The Holy Place represents the Holy One (Christ). No one could come to the Most Holy Place without passing through the Holy Place; just as no one come to the the Most Holy One (God) except through the the Holy One (Christ).

"No one comes to the Father except through Me."


The physical temple (of Israel) is a representation of the spiritual reality.

One thing we do not want to do as Christians is to fall into the trap of believing that because Christ says his words are “spirit and life,� or “spiritual,� they cannot involve the material.

Perhaps... but they must at least be about the spiritual.

I believe I stated at the very beginning of my former post that the people did not understand his words as symbolic. I never even said, myself, that His words were symbolic.

Only that the bread and wine that He gave us to eat and drink as His body and blood, are symbolic of His body and blood.

Then, again I ask you, WHY would that be offensive? Why would anyone find it offensive to eat bread and wine that were merely symbols of His Body and Blood? They wouldn't! And you continue to be unable to explain that they would.

I don't understand why you keep bringing this up with me? For one, there is no mention of bread and wine in John 6, so there was nothing about bread and wine for anyone to get offended about to begin with. Second, I already said that it seems obvious those disciples thought He was referring to His physical flesh and blood. But that does not mean that they thought correctly.



**

But I do not in the LEAST consider anyone as "less than" or as "unacceptable" for what they might believe occurs with the bread and the wine. If one is eating and drinking of Him (out of love for Him and so in obedience to Him), then as I stated earlier,

If such a person (one who loves Him, follows Him, listens to Him, seeks Him) has a misunderstanding about the bread and wine... then such a person can be led into the truth BY the Truth (Christ).



Peace again to you and your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Because you said this:


Quote:
Believe Jesus was the son of God? Because that isn’t what Jesus was asking them to believe in John 6.

I stand by my comment. In John 6 when Jesus was going on and on about eating His flesh and drinking His Blood, He was not telling His listeners at that moment that He was the Son of God. Those who had been following Him up to this point already knew He was to be considered the Messiah and that He had been asking everyone to believe in Him all along the way, but His words, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.� is a call to ask people to believe He is speaking literally and wants us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. You gloss over the significance of the passage and Christ’s words.

Yet the apostles remained (when He asked them if they wanted to leave also) because they believed and knew that He was the Holy One of God, the One who had the words of eternal life.

Yes, they believed and remained. They believed in Him AND they believed the words He was telling them. They might not have understood it, but they believed that Jesus planned to give us His real flesh and blood.

Those who left that day likely believed Christ was the Messiah as well. They had watched and heard Him up until this point and had obviously accepted what He had said up until that point, but they now disagreed with this doctrinal point. It would be like many Christians today who believe in God, but do not believe in some teaching that God teaches. There are many examples of this.

For example some Christian denominations today teach that same sex unions are ok, even though Scripture tells us otherwise. Many people believe in God, but still have sex outside of marriage. There are lots of examples of believing in God, but simply being unable to accept His or live according to His teachings. Those who left that day wanted nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood and THAT is why they left.

The apostles did not know what He meant either; but they remained. Because they remained, they learned later what it is He was actually going to have them DO with the bread and the wine.

Yes, the issue that caused people to leave Him on this occasion was His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and many stumble over this even today.

Bingo! And thank you for acknowledging this!!!

But they also did not truly believe that He was the Holy One of God, the One who has the words of eternal life. Or like the apostles, they would have remained.

See my explanation above. I suppose you could argue that they did not truly believe in Jesus if for the very reason they did not accept Him at His word, but again as you admit, they left Him because He was telling them they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood. That is what the passage is about.

Quote:
I have read the above verses many times and I don’t disagree with any of them. It fits perfectly into the understanding and truth that Jesus was speaking literally and that when we receive Him in the Holy Eucharist we literally receiving His Body and Blood. Verse 61 merely confirms Catholic teaching regarding the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.


If you are not going to respond to the specific comments that I made on those verses, I'm not sure there is more for me to add.

I did respond. A very lengthy response, I might add. You skip the significance of Christ’s literal words of a literal eating of His flesh and blood and try to suggest all Jesus was really trying to do with His words, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood� was proclaim He was the messiah, but that isn’t only what those particular passages were about. In those particular verses Christ is telling us He plans to give us His literal flesh to eat.

I already said that it seems obvious those disciples thought He was referring to His physical flesh and blood. But that does not mean that they thought correctly.

Of course it does, because as I have demonstrated that is the only explanation that makes sense. The entire passage emphasizes that the crowd knew Jesus was speaking literally. And Jesus did not try to explain otherwise. In fact, He repeated again and again that they were being asked to eat His flesh and drink His blood. There was no one that day who did not acknowledge the literalness of Christ’s words, which you acknowledge as well.

But now you try to argue that no one was getting it correctly? Like I said that MAKES NO SENSE! They heard Jesus, they told Him they were shocked and offended and that what He was telling them was very difficult to believe, and Jesus simply double downed and repeated again with even more vigor exactly what He said, insisting that His flesh was real food and His blood was real drink. And then you want to suggest that once the others left (as if Jesus was just trying to scare the others off), He told the remaining, nah, man y’all are just tripp’n, I didn’t mean you’d have to eat my literal flesh.

What would cause you to believe Jesus said these very difficult words to hear, insist we take Him seriously and literally and then later change that His words were intended to have a figurative meaning – that He had no intention for us to ever eat His literal flesh. That it doesn’t really matter what someone believes about the Holy Eucharist, even though He was pretty emphatic with His words, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For Myflesh is real food, and My blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him.…

Your argument makes no sense.

But I do not in the LEAST consider anyone as "less than" or as "unacceptable" for what they might believe occurs with the bread and the wine.

Well, I wouldn’t say I consider someone bad or “unacceptable� for not believing in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, but I would certainly consider them wrong. I also would consider it tragic if they are receiving a mere piece of bread when they could be receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

If truth matters, and I think it does, then yes, a piece of bread that represents Jesus is different than a consecrated host in which our Lord is literally/physically present.

Those who do not believe in this truth can most certainly be led to truth by Christ and I am hoping they will. Perhaps threads like this will make people think. Perhaps, they will see how based on Scripture, based on the language used, the reaction of the crowd, the reading of Scripture as a whole, what the first early Church believed and taught, writings from the early Church fathers, and logic and reason the only thing that makes sense is a literal understanding of the Real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And that can only be found in Christ’s Catholic Church. And that is because no one else wants it. They reduce Christ’s words to symbolism. They deny His gift of Himself to us.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 44 by tam]

Jesus knew from the beginning of Judas' change of heart, not the beginning of everything or even the beginning of his ministry. Judas started out as a faithful man, or Jehovah wouldn't have told Jesus to pick him to be one of the Apostles. He was trusted with the money box. Like Satan, Judas was a good man to start out with, but he let bad desires grow in his mind (see James 1:14,15). It was when he decided to follow his wrong desires that he BEGAN to be the iniquitous traitor. That is when Jesus became aware of his evil leanings.

.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Those who left that day likely believed Christ was the Messiah as well. They had watched and heard Him up until this point and had obviously accepted what He had said up until that point, but they now disagreed with this doctrinal point. It would be like many Christians today who believe in God, but do not believe in some teaching that God teaches. There are many examples of this.

For example some Christian denominations today teach that same sex unions are ok, even though Scripture tells us otherwise. Many people believe in God, but still have sex outside of marriage. There are lots of examples of believing in God, but simply being unable to accept His or live according to His teachings. Those who left that day wanted nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood and THAT is why they left.

It is not quite the same. Because those disciples LEFT Christ after He taught something they found hard to accept. They did not just disagree (or even put His teaching on hold until later when they might be given more to understand), while remaining with Him. They LEFT Him altogether. How could they do that if they truly believed Him to be the Holy One of God; the One who has the words of eternal life?

I already said that it seems obvious those disciples thought He was referring to His physical flesh and blood. But that does not mean that they thought correctly.

Of course it does, because as I have demonstrated that is the only explanation that makes sense. The entire passage emphasizes that the crowd knew Jesus was speaking literally. And Jesus did not try to explain otherwise. In fact, He repeated again and again that they were being asked to eat His flesh and drink His blood. There was no one that day who did not acknowledge the literalness of Christ’s words, which you acknowledge as well.

But now you try to argue that no one was getting it correctly? Like I said that MAKES NO SENSE! They heard Jesus, they told Him they were shocked and offended and that what He was telling them was very difficult to believe, and Jesus simply double downed and repeated again with even more vigor exactly what He said, insisting that His flesh was real food and His blood was real drink.

But He did not just "double down". He also told them when they objected that the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing; and that His words are spirit and they are life.

If they truly believed that He was the Holy One of God, the One who has the words of eternal life, then you would think that they might say, 'hmm, maybe we are missing something; maybe he means something we don't quite understand; lets stick with Him - after all, He is the Holy One of God, the One who has the words of eternal life - and maybe He will explain more to us or help us to accept the words that He has spoken.'


(And no one in the crowd was offended by the doctrine of transubstantiation. That idea was not known to them.)


He was speaking of His actual flesh and blood - because we must eat and drink of Him (the tree of Life; through whom also the water of life flows) in the Kingdom, in order to live forever. Even the angels must eat of Him (men ate the bread of angels). But He is spirit. His blood is GOD's blood (holy spirit; the water of life).

He was also speaking about the bread and wine He was going to give the apostles (and us), that He called His body and His blood. We must also eat and drink of Him in this manner, in order to a) proclaim His death until He returns; b) to have life in us; c) to obey Him because He SAID to do this; d) to exercise our faith in Him and be faithful even in what is least (or we are showing that we will not be faithful in what is much); and e) to remain in Him and have Him remain in us.

I also would consider it tragic if they are receiving a mere piece of bread

Who thinks that they are receiving a mere piece of bread?

I do not think that the bread is a mere piece of bread; or that the wine is mere drink of fermented grapes. I discern the bread as truly representing the flesh of my Lord, and the wine as truly representing the blood of my Lord.



**
Paul rebuked the people for not discerning the body and blood of Christ when they came and ate together. Some of them were eating and drinking just to fill their bellies... some were even doing so to the humiliation of those in the congregation who had nothing.


Now then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. For as you eat, many of you proceed with your own meal to the exclusion of others. While one remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Of course not!

But Paul was not at all rebuking those people who were discerning the bread as truly representing the flesh of their Lord and the wine as truly representing the blood of their Lord.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy