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 59 by JehovahsWitness]

JW and onewithhim,

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think it is so funny how your comments reveal the little faith you have in the Lord’s words and the little confidence you have that He could do (change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood). I explained the Scripture that reveals this to us. I explained how we can know this based on the language used, cultural references at the time, context clues, the reaction of the crowd, subsequent passages in Scripture, and foreshadowing and parallels from the OT. I posted the Scripture that tells us we are to be partakers of the divine nature. I explained from Scripture why it actually does make sense that God would have designed it this way and desired us to receive Him in the Holy Eucharist. I showed how belief in the True Presence was something the first Christians all believed.

Good thing the first Christians did not think Christ was just crazy to suggest He could be resurrected. Non Christians often complain how stupid. Why would God have to have His son die to save us? Such nonsense! It makes no sense. Infact, it is kind of vile and disgusting that God would have to choose such unpleasant means to save His people. Sound familiar?

I have no doubt your mocking was not unlike the first Christians’ experienced about believing in the Resurrection and believing in the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. I’m sure non Christians called them nuts, yet they lived and often died professing these beliefs. You can deny it all you want. Many deny Christ and His words. It happens.

[JehovahsWitness]

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think it is so funny how your comments reveal the little faith you have in the Lord’s words...

Someone very wise once said "Judge thee not lest you be judged" I personally choose not to comment on the qualities of others faith, nor to laugh at them, but if you are happy with the dignity of your response, I'm sure your will sleep easy with it.

Laugh away. Good day.

JW

[marco]

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.

I hear what you say but I still read absurdity. To eat someone's toe and tongue is indeed disgusting.

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.

All the more reason -if this was in fact a common idiomatic expression - for Christ not to employ it. But if he did, and people did not like the idiom, they would have walked away. Christ was a master of throwing out literary challenges: love your neighbour; hate your father, be born again! He had a way with words - figuratively.

Yes, I agree. That’s the point. The crowd didn’t get it. They knew He was speaking literally, hence their shock

The invitation to eat private parts of Christ is disgusting as a metaphor. Yes, a figurative expression can repel people if it is couched in horrible language, and you have explained that Christ "made a meal" of his choice of metaphor..... "munch me, chew me."

How can you figuratively be guilty of cannibalism? That doesn’t make sense. the rest of it? The same faith is required. The very same faith.

What I said was he was inviting people to indulge in cannibalism through his metaphor. It may not make sense to you but it is perfectly sensible to suggest that inviting folk, figuratively, to indulge in cannibalism is revolting. Devout folk would be repelled by the imagery. Nobody, I suspect, would have dreamt for a second that Jesus was inviting them LITERALLY to dine on his toes and fingers. As I said, the suggestion is absurd but I accept that the Church has made a splendid job of turning an absurdity into a daily miracle. That shows that with a bit of effort we can achieve anything; people are quite malleable, as every Jesuit knows.

[marco]

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross transcends all time.

That is an ad hoc statement with no Scriptural justification. It is made to get round the fact that Christ offered his living body while in possession of it, in anticipation of the sacrifice to come. In other words you make a claim and build a new theology round it.

At the last supper the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Jesus in a sacramental way

Good - and NOT in a literal way as you claimed. Claims about the substance and accidents are again Scripturally unsound; they are conclusions based on an error.
Do this to remember me - is the simplest of instructions. Can one imagine the listeners seeing Jesus and concluding that the bread he was breaking was magically turning into his own flesh, while looking like bread and tasting like bread? I think we have safely established Christ was speaking figuratively.

[onewithhim]

[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

Yes! Good point. And what would Jesus' body be then?

[RightReason]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Someone very wise once said "Judge thee not lest you be judged" I personally choose not to comment on the qualities of others faith, nor to laugh at them, but if you are happy with the dignity of your response, I'm sure your will sleep easy with it.

Right back at ya JW! I see the way you often respond to others – could by some be considered a little judgy – people in glass houses . . .

But I am cool with my response because I did actually respond with reason/support/evidence/explanation and not merely a laugh, but you chose only to comment on the laugh. If you have nothing to add – so be it.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 63 by marco]

I hear what you say but I still read absurdity. To eat someone's toe and tongue is indeed disgusting.

But it isn’t and also that isn’t really the belief – that we are eating Christ’s toe and tongue,etc. Part of the beautiful mystery and awesome miracle is that God makes it so we are truly receiving His body, blood, soul, and divinity, but in an unbloody manner. You can ask Him how He does it when you get to heaven.

All the more reason -if this was in fact a common idiomatic expression - for Christ not to employ it.

No, all the more reason to realize He wouldn’t have employed it had He simply been trying to make some figurative point. The fact that He did use it with full knowledge that they 1- wouldn’t mistake Him as speaking figuratively because like we both agree that doesn’t make sense for Him to say unless you hate and revile me, you shall have no life. And 2- by speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood He was about to make it very real.

He knew He was asking a lot for people to trust Him on this. But His words took everything to a whole new level. And all the more reason to realize Christ was speaking literally in the simple fact He would not have had to talk about or mention anything about eating Him unless of course that was what He wanted us to do and how God intended to unite us to Him. Perhaps God knows better than we do what we need and He must have felt we needed body and soul to literally as well as spiritually be nourished by Him.

But if he did, and people did not like the idiom, they would have walked away. Christ was a master of throwing out literary challenges: love your neighbour; hate your father, be born again! He had a way with words - figuratively.

Yes He did – though not sure all those examples you cited would even be considered Him speaking figuratively. And again, we usually know when Jesus is speaking figuratively. It can usually be figured out from context and language. I think if people actually don’t gloss over it and really read John 6, they would be able to see Christ’s words as literal. All the clues are in the passage itself when the followers themselves say, “This is a hard saying – who can accept it?� What would be so offensive or difficult about Jesus suggesting He is our nourishment and that the bread is merely a symbol of His body? Sorry, but that simply isn’t offensive.

All those who today see Jesus’ words in John 6 as figurative and symbolic render those verses meaningless. So, while it may be a difficult thing to understand, atleast taking Jesus’ words literally makes sense in the obvious meaning of the text, but taking His words symbolically renders the entire passage meaningless.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 64 by marco]

That is an ad hoc statement with no Scriptural justification. It is made to get round the fact that Christ offered his living body while in possession of it, in anticipation of the sacrifice to come. In other words you make a claim and build a new theology round it.

Actually the statement is made based on exactly what would be reasonable to conclude from Scripture AND it is a statement made by Christ’s Church, who has the authority to do so.

Your comment merely demonstrates once again why Christ left us One, Authoritative earthly Church.

Good - and NOT in a literal way as you claimed. Claims about the substance and accidents are again Scripturally unsound; they are conclusions based on an error.

Do this to remember me - is the simplest of instructions. Can one imagine the listeners seeing Jesus and concluding that the bread he was breaking was magically turning into his own flesh, while looking like bread and tasting like bread? I think we have safely established Christ was speaking figuratively.

You misunderstand what is meant by sacramental. Sacramental does not mean figurative or symbolic. I thought we had already covered this. <sigh> It’s truly fascinating to me that if one were to believe in God why they find this something that would be impossible for God.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 64 by marco]

Perhaps this better explains how Communion and the reception of the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament that contains both literal and symbolic meaning. Do not let the symbolism often present in sacraments prevent you from seeing the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. It is very important to recognize the literal significance when it comes to the True Presence.

**************************************

Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.


[Is it fitting that Christ's Body and Blood become present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine?

Yes, for this way of being present corresponds perfectly to the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ gives himself to us in a form that employs the symbolism inherent in eating bread and drinking wine. Furthermore, being present under the appearances of bread and wine, Christ gives himself to us in a form that is appropriate for human eating and drinking. Also, this kind of presence corresponds to the virtue of faith, for the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be detected or discerned by any way other than faith. That is why St. Bonaventure affirmed: "There is no difficulty over Christ's being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious" ( In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).


Are the consecrated bread and wine "merely symbols"?

In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body'; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body' but ‘my body,' and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood' but ‘my blood'" ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]). At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form. We cannot presume to know all the reasons behind God's actions. God uses, however, the symbolism inherent in the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the natural level to illuminate the meaning of what is being accomplished in the Eucharist through Jesus Christ. There are various ways in which the symbolism of eating bread and drinking wine discloses the meaning of the Eucharist.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship ... nswers.cfm

[marco]

All those who today see Jesus’ words in John 6 as figurative and symbolic render those verses meaningless.

Meaningless to you, perhaps, but millions see great meaning in taking communion that involves no transubstantiation. They are re-enacting the Last Supper, as they were told to do.

You misunderstand what is meant by sacramental. Sacramental does not mean figurative or symbolic. I thought we had already covered this. <sigh>

It would be impossible for me, given my background, to misunderstand "sacramental". The point I was making is that we are not discussing something literal, but something piously symbolic. We talk of the sacrifice of the mass, but we are speaking symbolically; it does not repeat Christ's sacrifice.

Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.

Yes, I imbibed this at 8 and contemplated the notion thousands of times. Declaration does not make something true though faith goes a long way to doing so.

As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body';

Sainthood does not automatically grant logic and erudition. Because the Lord said: 'This is my body' does not mean the bread is his body. It would if language was devoid of metaphor. "I am the vine" is a similar expression which St. John Damascene would presumably interpret as meaning Jesus grows in a vineyard. By uttering the parenthetical "By no means" the man is simply expressing his strongly held view. The words don't lend weight to his claim. And he is wrong, despite his good life style. The Lord's body wasn't "deified" before the crucifixion so the saint is anachronistically wrong as well. But I know we can get over that problem by saying God can play with time as well as with wine. What a mess the Church has made of simple words.

I respect your stout defence of your beliefs. Perhaps the Church would be more secure if others were as well informed.