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 post 50 by tam]

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?

Yes, I have already acknowledged that that could certainly be argued. If they truly believed Jesus was the Holy One, they would believe anything He would have told them. But the point of the passage is NOT that there are some who do not fully believe in the Messiah. The point of the passage is those who do believe remain and trust and accept all that Christ tells us, no matter how hard it might be to believe -- like transubstantiation! We don’t get to pick and choose what words of Christ we will accept and which ones we won’t. That is what those who left that day chose to do.

But He did not just "double down"

Re read Scripture. He most certainly did by repeating again and again with words even more descriptive than ‘eat’. He followed up with words that translated as ‘chew’ and ‘gnaw’ when describing that unless we chew His flesh, we have no life in us! Again, those are hardly symbolic words! And He purposely used those words to emphasize the literalness of what He was saying. They are not words you would use if you were wanting something to “represent� something.

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.

Yes, and I already explained that the Spirit is Him (God) and so He is telling us transubstantiation is not something that our human minds can fully process. Being able to give us His flesh while still under the appearance of bread is not something nature (the flesh) can account for. It is Him (the Spirit) that makes this possible and Him (the Spirit) that makes it possible for us to accept and believe. I already explained that the term ‘the flesh’ in Scripture is not the same reference as when Jesus says, my flesh. He would never say His flesh counts for nothing. Think about it!!!! Unless you want to argue Him dying on the cross counted for nothing.

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

Then I will ask you again, why were they offended? What was so offensive? You have yet to answer this.

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).

Yes He was! Thank you!

But He is spirit.

So? Again, how or why would that mean we are not literally eating His flesh and blood? Again, spirit does not mean symbolic or not real.

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.

Yep – exactly! We must eat of Him in this manner and in subsequent Scripture we hear, “For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves� So looks like the manner in which we were to eat was to discern the body of Christ. And what does He tell us about His body? He says, “For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink� Kind of hard to discern a metaphor.

I discern the bread as trulyrepresenting the flesh of my Lord, and the wine as truly representing the blood of my Lord.

We’ve already been thru this. Then what would be so offensive about that!!!!!! Why would that be such a hard saying? Why would the crowd have said, “Who can accept this?�

MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only interpretation that makes sense is a literal one. We are asked to eat His literal flesh and drink His literal blood because His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink.

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 astruly representing the blood of their Lord.

Why do you insist on inserting the word representing? Jesus said, “This is my body�. He did not say, “This represents my body�

Please think about this. Go back and read the Scripture and ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand. Peace.

[marco]

We’ve already been thru this. Then what would be so offensive about that!!!!!! Why would that be such a hard saying? Why would the crowd have said, “Who can accept this?�

MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only interpretation that makes sense is a literal one. We are asked to eat His literal flesh and drink His literal blood because His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink.

First of all, the figurative meaning makes MORE sense than the literal one. Why would anyone want a person to eat human flesh?
The suggestion, even as a figure of speech, is a disgusting one. It is a hard saying because the reference is disgusting and the meaning obscure. Cannibalism is not a particularly nice habit - so Christ's reference to it, figuratively, would turn people off. Those who were completely won over would stay and later find out what the puzzling words meant figuratively.

Why do you insist on inserting the word representing? Jesus said, “This is my body�. He did not say, “This represents my body�

You are failing to understand the simple use of metaphorical language. He is a lion means he is brave. Christ is simply saying that you are mentally eating and drinking my words: so take this bread here as my flesh, this wine as my blood and you have the idea of incorporating me - my truth and my lessons - into your mind. Yes, this IS a hard saying and easily misunderstood. So folk walked away at the disgusting surface reference.

This explanation is a perfectly good interpretation. No need for miracles.

To believe that Christ was suggesting people are eating his arms, legs, buttocks, nose is not really a sensible thing. There's absolutely no reason WHY he would want this.

Do this in memory of me works well (and better) when people imitate Christ's action, using bread and wine to remember what he said about himself. There is not an iota of sense in supposing wine changes to blood, and (horror of horrors) people drink it.

If people can be persuaded to believe this extreme interpretation, they can be persuaded to believe anything. A useful feat.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

First of all, the figurative meaning makes MORE sense than the literal one. Why would anyone want a person to eat human flesh?

Because it isn’t simply human flesh. We would be receiving also His divinity and if you believed your creator was awesome and perfect and receiving a part of His literal body would allow you to share in His divinity than it is far from disgusting or something that wouldn’t make sense. IMO, it makes perfect sense. We are comprised of body and soul so receiving a part of our Lord (who is both true God and true man) is what we as human beings, made in God’s image, need.

The suggestion, even as a figure of speech, is a disgusting one.

If it were figurative it simply wouldn’t have made sense, especially because like I said at that time that was an expression to eat or drink one’s blood that meant you reviled your enemy.

"The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense"

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


If taken literally it is offensive and allows the passage to make sense as written. It would have been considered disgusting/offensive/and a hard saying because they heard His words correctly and understood He was speaking literally. (What they did not know/understand yet was that He planned on giving us His literal Body and Blood while the bread and wine retained their appearance of bread and wine.)

Symbolic wouldn’t have made sense. Given the language and expression at the time a figurative interpretation just simply would not have worked and that’s why we know He was speaking literally and all understood Him to be speaking literally. And even if a symbolic interpretation wouldn’t have meant what it meant during that time period and was just intended to be a metaphor that we were to break bread together as a Christian community (which is what most Christian denominations reduce it to today) then it would not have been considered a hard saying. It would not have offended the listeners. Why would anyone have a problem of coming together to share bread and wine to proclaim oneself as a believer in Christ and witness to one’s Christian faith? There is simply no offense in that!

It is a hard saying because the reference is disgusting and the meaning obscure.

Yes, I agree. That’s the point. The crowd didn’t get it. They knew He was speaking literally, hence their shock and why they told Jesus, “This is a hard saying� “who can accept it?� But they knew He in fact was asking them to accept it – to trust Him – to have faith that He meant what He said. But many couldn’t.

Do Christian denominations today find receiving their holy communion disgusting? Of course not. To them it is symbolic and represents them as a community of believers.

Cannibalism is not a particularly nice habit - so Christ's reference to it, figuratively, would turn people off.

How can you figuratively be guilty of cannibalism? That doesn’t make sense. Christ’s words turned people off precisely because they were not figurative, however just because He was speaking literal does not mean what He was asking was cannibalism.


In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.

2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:

3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.

4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.

5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.

6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... -cannibals

Those who were completely won over would stay and later find out what the puzzling words meant figuratively.

Nope. Those who stayed and left knew He was speaking literally as is evidenced in the passage and in the tradition of the Church and in the early writings of the early church. Only those who later left, after the split, then chose to downplay the significance and erroneously claim His words as figurative.

Those who remained at the time soon found out that Christ was being literal, but was able to give us His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine – not so gross!

You are failing to understand the simple use of metaphorical language. He is a lion means he is brave.

I get metaphor. I also get that if one wants to make sure their audience understands them correctly they wouldn’t use poetic verse. Jesus could have said as He held up the bread, “This represents my body� Instead He said, “This is my body�

But yes, there are places where a speaker being poetic might say things like, “I am a vine� or “I am the door� instead of saying “I represent a vine� But that is when one must take notice of the context clues. No one in those passages would have taken His words literally. None of the listeners questioned Him or asked for clarification. We were not once told those who heard Jesus say I am the door say, “This is a hard saying� “Who can accept it?�


Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).


He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

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

Christ is simply saying that you are mentally eating and drinking my words: so take this bread here as my flesh, this wine as my blood and you have the idea of incorporating me - my truth and my lessons - into your mind. Yes, this IS a hard saying and easily misunderstood. So folk walked away at the disgusting surface reference.

What is hard about it? What is offensive in eating a piece of bread as a symbol of mentally “taking Christ in� That’s simply not offensive.

This explanation is a perfectly good interpretation. No need for miracles.

Clearly, the crowd did not hear the figurative interpretation you are suggesting. They clearly heard His words as literal, otherwise they would have been perfectly fine in remaining with Christ, whom up to that point they believed and had been following. If what you are saying is true, then Jesus was not asking any more of them at this point then what He had already been asking of them. You’re right there would have been no problem is Christ comparing Himself to bread. But that isn’t what He did and everyone knew it. Now, whether He needed to give Himself to us in the miracle of the Holy Eucharist or not well, that begs the question. Did God need to send His son? Did God need to create the angels? Did God need to create man?

To believe that Christ was suggesting people are eating his arms, legs, buttocks, nose is not really a sensible thing. There's absolutely no reason WHY he would want this.

Nor is it sensible to believe God would send His only son to be born of a virgin, become one of us, die, and then be resurrected to save us from sin and yet Christians embrace such an event and believe that is exactly what God intended.

Do this in memory of me works well (and better) when people imitate Christ's action, using bread and wine to remember what he said about himself.

So, now you’re saying a symbolic interpretation is not disgusting? Make up your mind. Then, once again I ask why would it be a hard saying and offensive?

There is not an iota of sense in supposing wine changes to blood, and (horror of horrors) people drink it.

Actually, I can make lots of sense out of it. It is kind of shocking to me that you don’t see all the parallels, all the foreshadowing, all the fulfillment, all the logic and reason in this. In the OT God gave His people manna to eat, but this was the bread that perishes. In the NT God sent them His son who gave us bread (Himself) that does not perish. “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

In the OT God’s people made sacrificial offerings

'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. –Exodus 12:5

In the NT Jesus now is that sacrificial lamb!


“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.� 1 Peter 1

This makes so much sense! We all recognize bread as nourishment and blood as something that is life giving!

If people can be persuaded to believe this extreme interpretation, they can be persuaded to believe anything. A useful feat.

I could turn that around on you. If a person can believe God sent His son to be born of a virgin, live among us, be crucified, died, and resurrected, then why not believe part of that included Jesus’ Body as the ultimate sacrifice that is given to us so that we may live?

Why is the part about God (the giver of life) desiring to feed His people with Himself any harder to believe than the rest of it? The same faith is required. The very same faith.

[JehovahsWitness]

First of all, the figurative meaning makes MORE sense than the literal one. Why would anyone want a person to eat human flesh?

Because it isn’t simply human flesh. We would be receiving also His divinity ...

Jesus said nothing about consuming his divinity, even if that sentence made sense (which it does not) divinity is not something consumed through one's digestive tract, it is something bestowed by the Creator.

Remember Jesus' own words when asked about literal food and drink, he explained that nothing a man eats can defile him spiritually; implying that the two (physical consumation and spiritual merit) are separate. If nothing a man eats can defile him, would it not be reasonable to conclude that nothing a man eats can purify him?

Further, as Jesus explained, that what we eat goes in our mouths and out the other end into the toilet. So short of a second "miracle" that takes place in the gut (an anti-Transubstantiation if you like) the literal body of Christ will go the same way, out the anus into the toilet. Jesus' point seemed to be that the food itself, the literal elements, are not what is important. If so, why a miracle that changed the substance of the literal elements?

Any merit eating or abstaining can have would be reasonably be in any role it plays in being obedient to God not in the literal substance itself.

[RightReason]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Jesus said nothing about consuming his divinity, even if that sentence made sense (which it does not). Divinity is not something received through one's digestive tract, it is something bestowed by the Creator. If anything Jesus implied the contrary

The Catholic Church is simply being faithful to Scripture in teaching man to be partakers of the divine nature by grace. Of course when you deny the divinity of Christ in the first place, you miss everything! You must have missed the beauty of this teaching in your bible . . .

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.� -2 Peter 1:4

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. (Col 2:9-10)

I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body,I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
- Gal 2:20

The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who "loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins": "the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world", and "he was revealed to take away sins":70

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p1.htm

Sounds awesome to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 55 by RightReason]

I am not interested in your beliefs about the Catholic church, that totally irrelevant. My point was about what Jesus said as recorded in the bible.


My comments were based on Jesus' words below:

Mark 7:18-23 (NIV)

18 Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts come sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

JW





RELATED POSTS

Was Adam present when Eve ate of the fruit?
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Why did Adam take the fruit?
viewtopic.php?p=1090006#p1090006

How much food storage space would have been needed in Noahs ark?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p984555

What would big cats like lions and tigers have eaten in Noah' s ark?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p984703

To learn more, please go to other posts related to ...

FAITH , FOOD, and ...CHRISTIAN FASTING

[RightReason]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I am not interested in your beliefs about the Catholic church, that totally irrelevant. My point was about what Jesus said as recorded in the bible.

Uuum . . . these were your comments I was responding to:

Jesus said nothing about consuming his divinity, even if that sentence made sense (which it does not). Divinity is not something received through one's digestive tract, it is something bestowed by the Creator. If anything Jesus implied the contrary

To which I showed the Scripture that supports belief in the Holy Eucharist being the Body, Blood, Soul, and divinity[/quote] of Jesus Christ.

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.� -2 Peter 1:4

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. (Col 2:9-10)

I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body,I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
- Gal 2:20

We were intended to be partakers of the divine nature

[onewithhim]

We’ve already been thru this. Then what would be so offensive about that!!!!!! Why would that be such a hard saying? Why would the crowd have said, “Who can accept this?�

MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only interpretation that makes sense is a literal one. We are asked to eat His literal flesh and drink His literal blood because His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink.

First of all, the figurative meaning makes MORE sense than the literal one. Why would anyone want a person to eat human flesh?
The suggestion, even as a figure of speech, is a disgusting one. It is a hard saying because the reference is disgusting and the meaning obscure. Cannibalism is not a particularly nice habit - so Christ's reference to it, figuratively, would turn people off. Those who were completely won over would stay and later find out what the puzzling words meant figuratively.

Why do you insist on inserting the word representing? Jesus said, “This is my body�. He did not say, “This represents my body�

You are failing to understand the simple use of metaphorical language. He is a lion means he is brave. Christ is simply saying that you are mentally eating and drinking my words: so take this bread here as my flesh, this wine as my blood and you have the idea of incorporating me - my truth and my lessons - into your mind. Yes, this IS a hard saying and easily misunderstood. So folk walked away at the disgusting surface reference.

This explanation is a perfectly good interpretation. No need for miracles.

To believe that Christ was suggesting people are eating his arms, legs, buttocks, nose is not really a sensible thing. There's absolutely no reason WHY he would want this.

Do this in memory of me works well (and better) when people imitate Christ's action, using bread and wine to remember what he said about himself. There is not an iota of sense in supposing wine changes to blood, and (horror of horrors) people drink it.

If people can be persuaded to believe this extreme interpretation, they can be persuaded to believe anything. A useful feat.

An excellent, excellent post.

All that is so true, plus the fact that when Jesus actually watched them drinking the wine and eating the bread, he was still there, with his complete body, sitting right in front of them! Why would he say, "This is my body" and "this is my blood," meaning it literally, when he sat there with all of his body intact as the disciples took the wine and bread? What.....he didn't mean it for THEM but for everybody else?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 58 by onewithhim]


I agree, both you and Marcos make some excellent points plus as I said, if Jesus' literal body found itself inside their digetive tracts, short of a second miracle, Jesus body would literally find itself being passed out the other end his disciples into the toilets.

JW

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 58 by onewithhim]

[quote] All that is so true, plus the fact that when Jesus actually watched them drinking the wine and eating the bread, he was still there, with his complete body, sitting right in front of them! Why would he say, "This is my body" and "this is my blood," meaning it literally, when he sat there with all of his body intact as the disciples took the wine and bread? What.....he didn't mean it for THEM but for everybody else?[/qutoe]

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross transcends all time. He died, not only for those who were alive at the time, but also for all those who had lived on this earth in the past and all those who would live in the future. At Mass we don't initiate a new sacrifice. He has died once and for all. We celebrate that same time-transcending sacrifice. Christ becomes sacramentally present on the altar.
At the last supper the apostles saw Jesus physically before them as they had known him daily. But they also saw Him sacramentally present before them under the appearance of bread and wine.

At the last supper the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Jesus in a sacramental way, i.e., the underlying substance of the bread and wine changed, while the accidents (appearances) remained the same. The fact that the institution of the Eucharist preceeded the actual passion and death of Jesus is no stretch for Him. He, after all is God. Remember, His passion transcends time.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessa ... anguage=en