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 marco]

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.

That’s not what I meant. I realize they give it meaning. What I meant was to give the original words of Jesus a figurative meaning renders the original passages meaningless. Again, the blatant meaning of the text would not make sense given the language used and the reaction of the crowd.

Now, if they at least agree everyone who heard Jesus’ words that day knew He was speaking literally and that is why it was a hard saying and that is why many left that day and then they suggest that Jesus wanted everyone to take Him literally but then later changed His mind and told those who remained that He planned to only give us His body figuratively then I would at least have a little more respect for their interpretation. In fact, I think this is a little of what Tam in the thread attempts to argue.

But those who suggest the original text has a figurative meaning render the entire passage meaningless.

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.

Semantics. Personally, I don’t really care what words someone wants to use to describe it as long as he/she admits and acknowledges that we are receiving Christ’s actual Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. That is what is required for Christians to believe. If you believe that then we’re cool. If you say the bread and wine are merely symbolic and the recipient is simply receiving bread and wine to represent Jesus’ body, then no, we are in disagreement.

But like I said, Communion can be understood sacramentally – a sacrament that is both symbolic and literal.

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.

Of course! I thought I have been very clear that this all comes down to faith. Though, it being a matter of faith does not make it untrue.

Sainthood does not automatically grant logic and erudition.

No, it does not. But every Saint (and there have been many) and the first Christians and early Church and all who heard Jesus that day did believe He was speaking literally.

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.

I have already discussed now several times why things like, “I am the vine� were different than, ‘This is my body’. No one is suggesting that Jesus did not often use metaphor. Just like in life I sometimes speak literally and I sometimes speak figuratively. However, typically people do not have a problem distinguishing the two -- given language, expression, context, follow up comments, etc.

What a mess the Church has made of simple words.

First, the Church can only relay what the Holy Spirit allows it to. She didn’t come up with this – Jesus did. Second, what’s the mess? Division? There was and will be division before and after the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Plus, I see no mess.

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

Thank you and I agree -- many, even within the Church, do not understand this beautiful teaching. I was raised Catholic (well, kind of) and not once do I recall being told the Holy Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood of Christ. At that time, the Church was more about focusing on the similarities we shared with other faiths. My catechism consisted of making collages and felt banners and talking about how Jesus was my friend.

But the truth was alive and well in the Church, even if it could have been better communicated. I think more is done today to get some of these truths out. Unfortunately, along with that comes accusations of self righteousness and legalism. Like I’ve said before – when one wants to take hits at the Church, any stick will do. We are criticized for not saying enough and for saying too much. C’est la vie.

That said, I respect your fairness you often give to the views of others.

[marco]

I have already discussed now several times why things like, “I am the vine� were different than, ‘This is my body’. No one is suggesting that Jesus did not often use metaphor. Just like in life I sometimes speak literally and I sometimes speak figuratively. However, typically people do not have a problem distinguishing the two -- given language, expression, context, follow up comments, etc.

OK. The entire issue is centred around literal and figurative and context. The crowd of people of whose discernment we are ignorant walked away. You construe this action as meaning they took Christ's words literally. You do not consider the possibilities:

(1) He meant figurative; they misunderstood literal.
(2) They understood figurative but disliked the imagery of eating a human being; so the saying was hard for them to accept and translate into acceptable meaning.
(3) The words used were close to the type of insult you have outlined and so they were repelled by their usage.
(4) They simply had no clue as to what Christ could have meant by: Eat me, and just walked off in disgust or puzzlement, saying it was too hard to follow.

There is nothing wrong with any of these suggestions and yes, each can be argued against in exactly the same way as a literal interpretation can be argued against. Your main reason for accepting literal is crowd reaction - but as I say, there can be various explanations why they would walk away.

Your greatest weapon is the power of Church teaching and the combined acumen of the theologians who have invested time and thought to the passage. My view is this: if one can get congregations to accept transubstantiation one has half-built an empire. If proof you seek, as Wren said, look around you. I was in the Vatican a few months ago.

[onewithhim]

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.

This post of yours is superlative. Talk about hitting a nail squarely on the head. I agree with all of it, except maybe your final expression of respect for RR's "defense of [her] beliefs." None of it makes sense, and she scoffs at others who point out the clear, unequivocal errors of the teachings she espouses. To respect ideas that center on the actual consumption of someone's flesh which will end up in the toilet is beyond my ability.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

OK. The entire issue is centred around literal and figurative and context. The crowd of people of whose discernment we are ignorant walked away. You construe this action as meaning they took Christ's words literally. You do not consider the possibilities:

I do not consider the possibilities because they aren’t as reasonable as the meaning I put forth and here’s why . . .

(1) He meant figurative; they misunderstood literal.

When people are talking to one another in their own language, in their own culture, in person, already knowing a little about the audience and the speaker, having heard and talked to this person before, it is rare they would misunderstand. And the passage itself actually shows the crowd asking for clarification precisely because they wanted to make sure they were hearing Jesus correctly. So, if like you say there is the possibility they took Him literal, but He meant to make a figurative point, He had plenty of opportunity to correct their misunderstanding. When they pushed Him, He double downed on his literalness by repeating exactly what He said the first time only now with even more graphic and literal terms like gnaw and chew. Also, like I already said, why would He choose to say they must eat His flesh and drink His blood if that expression already had the symbolic meaning of reviling and hating of one’s enemy. If they had thought He was speaking figuratively His words would not have been offensive, they simply would not have made sense. No one would be offended and leave if someone said them, “You must hate me if you want to love me� And if that is what they thought Jesus was saying, they wouldn’t have followed up with the words, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� They instead would have said, “How can you tell us to hate you, if you want us to follow you?� But that isn’t what they said, is it? So, clearly we can conclude from the passage Jesus did not mean to be speaking figuratively and clearly they did not take Him to be speaking figuratively.

(2) They understood figurative but disliked the imagery of eating a human being; so the saying was hard for them to accept and translate into acceptable meaning.

This one would be hard to believe. Again, if they understood Him to be speaking figuratively, why would they have asked, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� If they understood it as symbolic they wouldn’t ask how this was going to occur. If they truly thought He were speaking figuratively but they didn’t approve of the metaphor of eating His flesh, they might have said, “That’s gross. Don’t be so crude!� But again there is not indication from the passage that that is what they thought.

(3) The words used were close to the type of insult you have outlined and so they were repelled by their usage.

Again, they wouldn’t have been repelled if Jesus were speaking symbolically, they would have found His words meaningless, but not offensive. See above. Then they would have said, “Why are you asking us to treat you as an enemy?� They would not have said the words that show they took Jesus to speaking literally, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?�

(4) They simply had no clue as to what Christ could have meant by: Eat me, and just walked off in disgust or puzzlement, saying it was too hard to follow.

But you can’t say they had no clue, because they originally admitted their confusion at His words and turned to Christ for clarification. Jesus then repeated again what He said the first time only now even more literal And more emphatically, ‘Truly, Truly I say to you. My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.� There may puzzlement about how He planned to accomplish this, but there was no puzzlement at this point as to what Jesus meant. They knew what He was saying and they could not accept it.

There is nothing wrong with any of these suggestions

I disagree. I don’t think these suggestions are logical or reasonable conclusions if the text is properly read.

Your main reason for accepting literal is crowd reaction – but as I say, there can be various explanations why they would walk away.

My reasons are not just crowd reaction. It is the words the crowd uses, the words Jesus uses, and what the first Christians and early Church thought and wrote about Christ’s words to have meant.

Your greatest weapon is the power of Church teaching

Perhaps you underemphasize the significance of what the early Church thought – not sure why that would be downplayed. It is odd to me sometimes when some would argue that Christians didn’t get something right until 1000 years after Christ walked the earth whenever their church – fill in the blank – was founded. If Christ left His Church and promised to remain with her and guide her in all truth, I have a problem thinking He would let something go until say Charles Taze Russel or George Fox or John Calvin, or John Wesley came around to set us all straight.

My view is this: if one can get congregations to accept transubstantiation one has half-built an empire.

Why? I don’t get it. Again, the same faith required to believe in the Resurrection is the same faith required to believe in the True Presence.

If proof you seek, as Wren said, look around you. I was in the Vatican a few months ago.

I don’t understand this comment, but I thank you for your time in responding. Perhaps you could clarify this last comment?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]

None of it makes sense, and she scoffs at others who point out the clear, unequivocal errors of the teachings she espouses.

It does make sense and I have shared the support of how and why I believe it does.

To respect ideas that center on the actual consumption of someone's flesh which will end up in the toilet is beyond my ability.

The juicy peach I ate, the yummy burger (flesh from a cow and even a little bloody/pink inside – just the way I like it) my husband grilled for me, and the very delicious glass of pinot noir I consumed tonight (all gifts from God) will also eventually end up in the toilet. I doubt our Lord is offended at that thought seeing how that is how He designed us. God desires to get and be that close to us. When you tell little children what sex is they think, “That sounds gross. The man puts what where?� And yet mature adults know it isn’t gross – it is one of the most intimate loving acts. I think you fail to get it.

[onewithhim]

I have already discussed now several times why things like, “I am the vine� were different than, ‘This is my body’. No one is suggesting that Jesus did not often use metaphor. Just like in life I sometimes speak literally and I sometimes speak figuratively. However, typically people do not have a problem distinguishing the two -- given language, expression, context, follow up comments, etc.

OK. The entire issue is centred around literal and figurative and context. The crowd of people of whose discernment we are ignorant walked away. You construe this action as meaning they took Christ's words literally. You do not consider the possibilities:

(1) He meant figurative; they misunderstood literal.
(2) They understood figurative but disliked the imagery of eating a human being; so the saying was hard for them to accept and translate into acceptable meaning.
(3) The words used were close to the type of insult you have outlined and so they were repelled by their usage.
(4) They simply had no clue as to what Christ could have meant by: Eat me, and just walked off in disgust or puzzlement, saying it was too hard to follow.

There is nothing wrong with any of these suggestions and yes, each can be argued against in exactly the same way as a literal interpretation can be argued against. Your main reason for accepting literal is crowd reaction - but as I say, there can be various explanations why they would walk away.

Your greatest weapon is the power of Church teaching and the combined acumen of the theologians who have invested time and thought to the passage. My view is this: if one can get congregations to accept transubstantiation one has half-built an empire. If proof you seek, as Wren said, look around you. I was in the Vatican a few months ago.

I would think that Jesus wouldn't have felt at home there at all. He was a person who didn't have a place to lay his head, as he said. Never mind being carried around on a throne and living in luxury.

[marco]

[Replying to post 74 by RightReason]

You dissect the words of the crowd as if they were verbatim. You even change one crowd expression for another and analyse the nuances in Christ's alleged verbatim speech.
We can accept he said: This is my body. One man in the crowd grumbling over his impression of what Christ said might lead others to object. But blissfully, we are ignorant of the various members of that crowd and their impressions. They walked away and we can conclude a hundred things from it but the last thing we conclude would be they were shocked by the declaration of a miracle. It is disgust they felt.

Your imaginative analysis of crowd reaction does not justify our acceptance of an incomprehensible feat. The possible explanations I gave still stand. Your guesswork does not negate them.

The Vatican is a powerful empire, built on crowd belief and effective subjugation. It has done good as well as bad. Transubstantiation has served it well, as has the threat of hell for non attendance at mass. Interesting discussion.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

I would think that Jesus wouldn't have felt at home there at all. He was a person who didn't have a place to lay his head, as he said. Never mind being carried around on a throne and living in luxury.

And yet another slam about the Church. This time suggesting she is too posh and wealthy – LOL! God gave specific instructions on the building of the ornate, over the top, Ark of the Covenant, which was to house His commandments to us. How much more would He expect we treat His son? God appreciates beauty and since His Church appreciates, honors, and worships Him we feel it only fitting to use the very best and finest. When you have guests coming over, do you not dress nice and use the good china?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 77 by marco]

You dissect the words of the crowd as if they were verbatim. You even change one crowd expression for another and analyse the nuances in Christ's alleged verbatim speech.
We can accept he said: This is my body. One man in the crowd grumbling over his impression of what Christ said might lead others to object. But blissfully, we are ignorant of the various members of that crowd and their impressions. They walked away and we can conclude a hundred things from it but the last thing we conclude would be they were shocked by the declaration of a miracle. It is disgust they felt.

Your imaginative analysis of crowd reaction does not justify our acceptance of an incomprehensible feat. The possible explanations I gave still stand. Your guesswork does not negate them.

Fair enough. You make your point. I still think most conclude a symbolic meaning – not for any reasons from the actual passage, but simply because it is easier and more settling to them. I still think if read properly the only conclusion is to acknowledge that Christ was speaking literally. But Scripture can be misunderstood and interpreted how one likes – all the more reason He left us His Church.

The Vatican is a powerful empire, built on crowd belief and effective subjugation.

I think this could be said of Christendom in general. Most of us all mere witnesses to the Resurrection and we are all subject to Christ.

It has done good as well as bad.

True. As has any institution/organization ever.

Transubstantiation has served it well, as has the threat of hell for non attendance at mass. Interesting discussion

The threat of hell goes beyond the reception of the Holy Eucharist and mass attendance. For any Christian Hell is a possibility for anyone who does not believe in, love and honor God, for anyone who might steal, lie, have sex outside of marriage, commit adultery, covet, etc. Hell is always a possibility for whoever chooses it. The Catholic Church is hardly unique in her understanding of hell.