This is my blood - really?

[marco]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man.


What would be our conclusion?


Should our conclusion be any different when the words are attributed to a pious person who lived 2000 years ago in an area noted then as now for its political unrest?

[marco]

[Replying to post 63 by marco]

Transubstantiation has an enormous magnetic appeal.

Yes, it certainly does. It’s intense to say the least. Perhaps what Christ was going for?

Nothing in what Jesus said suggests such complexity. His communicated thoughts come wrapped in a pleasing simplicity a mile away from the beatified GK.

Greater men than I have come to this conclusion . . .

You mean men with louder names. Eternity silences everything.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 69 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Why do you equate disagreement with being outraged and offended?

Uummm . . maybe because that is how Scripture describes it . . .


* bold mine


60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?� 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?�

Also, knowledge of the expression 'to eat one's flesh' meant to hate/revile them. Odd thing for Jesus to say unless you hate me, you have no life in you? Also, knowledge of the language of the time shows Jesus didn't simply use the word typically used to mean eat. The word He used was one that typically meant gnaw or chew. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure the crowd was outraged and offended!

[marco]

There is an old axiom when interpreting Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture.

Well that's commendable; the problem comes when its findings are humanly announced.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

I may be wrong but I think Scripture here believes heaven is located in the sky, as many people thought then, and before. The rest is open to further interpretation regarding the speaker's credentials.

Jesus is equating drinking His blood and eating his flesh to belief.

Yes, this is the interpretation I've been unsuccessful in pushing. It seems an obvious one.

[marco]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

Jesus is equating drinking His blood and eating his flesh to belief.

Just like the He was equating his belief to Him being the true vine.

Then why the outrage? What is so offensive about saying one must believe in Him to have eternal life?

You rely a lot on this method of reaching a literal interpretation. People can take offence at anything but when somebody says you've to munch my flesh and gobble up my blood, then the listeners might well be disgusted, since those who have come to listen are hardly brash barbarians but pious believers in heaven. Would Jesus use such bold metaphors? Of course he would.

It is very easy to understand that the politely devout would regard the speaker as coarse in his speech. You have the right ingredients among Christ's audience for disgust and exit.

[marco]

Or maybe you are trying to make a case that Jesus was insane?

I don't see that anyone is making such a case. If Christ can perform miracles, insanity doesn't feature.

The crowd left because Jesus was not going to feed them like they wanted. Their minds were on their stomachs not one the things of God.

It is not uncommon for men to miss the clear teaching of Christ because of the things of this world.

Well we don't actually know why they left; we can guess. There may have been various reasons. Some people got annoyed because they interpreted Christ's statements as blasphemous. The rough metaphor may well have been understood but rejected in its formulation. It may well have been that Jesus didn't particularly want certain types and phrased his statemenst in a way that some woudl leave. As happened!

But I agree he was working with metaphors.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 69 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Why do you equate disagreement with being outraged and offended?

Uummm . . maybe because that is how Scripture describes it . . .


* bold mine


60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?� 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?�

Also, knowledge of the expression 'to eat one's flesh' meant to hate/revile them. Odd thing for Jesus to say unless you hate me, you have no life in you? Also, knowledge of the language of the time shows Jesus didn't simply use the word typically used to mean eat. The word He used was one that typically meant gnaw or chew. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure the crowd was outraged and offended!

Rumors get started this way.


"Minucius Felix, a third century Latin apologist, gave a lurid account of Christian debauchery which he claims to have derived from Marcus Cornelius Fontero (100-166 c.e.), a Latin rhetor and tutor of Marcus Aurelius."

A young baby is covered over with flour, the object being to deceive the unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted into the rites. The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it--they appear to be harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby was killed with wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of this infant--I shudder to mention it--it is the blood of this infant that they lick with thirsty lips; these are the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they seal their covenant....

On a special day they gather in a feast with all their children, sisters, mothers--all sexes and all ages. There, flushed with the banquet after such feasting and drinking, they begin to burn with incestuous passions. They provoke a dog tied to the lampstand to leap and bound towards a scrap of food which they have tossed outside of the reach of his chain. By this means the light is overturned and extinguished, and with it common knowledge of their actions; in the shameless dark with unspeakable lust they copulate in random unions, all equally being guilty of incest, some by deed, but everyone by complicity.... [The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, 9.5-6]. (The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, by Robert L. Wilken; p.18-21).

Christians were accused of being cannibals by the Romans. Where did they get this idea? From Christians.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 69 by Tired of the Nonsense]

So you do not believe the events of the Bible? Then how do you explain Christianity and its beginnings in the same area in which Jesus was crucified and the rest of the disciples lived.

Nearly all critical historians of the Bible do agree on these twelve facts about the resurrection. By Dr. Habermas

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

So are you saying you do not believe these 12 facts. If so what is your reasoning behind our doubt.

[RightReason]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

Do we have a record in Scripture of anyone actually eating the body of Jesus and drinking the blood of Jesus?

Yes! Are you kidding?

It was their common practice . . .

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."-1 Cor. 11:23-27

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. -1 Cor. 11:29


46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,- Acts 2:46

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. –Acts 20:7

11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. –Acts 20:11

Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!� –Rev 19:9

We see this in the frequency of the New Testament’s explicit discussions of the Eucharist. The institution of the sacrament is recounted four times: three times in the so-called synoptic Gospels (Mt 26, Mk 14, and Lk 22) and once in St. Paul’s letters (1 Cor 11:25).


the Acts of the Apostles conveys the worship of the earliest Christians in a compact statement: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers� (Acts 2:42). The Church in every succeeding age observed those four elements in one action: the holy sacrifice of the Mass.



The Eucharist, instituted on the night he was betrayed, was the Savior’s first order of business when he rose from the dead. It was the Church’s constant concern as it went out from Jerusalem to the whole world.


http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachi ... c-hahn.pdf



Also, there is tons of historical evidence showing the Church did just that! The writings of the early Church refer to the True Presence! It was believed and taught from the get go!

So are you trying to say the 12 ate the flesh and drank the blood of Jesus?

Absolutely! It is in your Bible too!

That never recorded in Scripture or anywhere else.

It is recorded in Scripture AND elsewhere!

The crowd left because Jesus was not going to feed them like they wanted.

Is that what they said? They actually said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� Also, keep in mind these were His followers up until this point. They were the ones who had previously watched Him perform miracles and speak words of wisdom. Jesus already had them, but now He was asking that they really trust Him and really believe His words. They understood Him correctly. They knew He was speaking literally, which is why Scripture tells us they were offended. They were shocked they were going to have to eat His flesh and drink His blood. THAT they couldn’t accept. And since Jesus didn’t correct them and explain He was speaking metaphorically, but rather double downed that in fact He meant what He said, they wanted no part of it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 69 by Tired of the Nonsense]

So you do not believe the events of the Bible? Then how do you explain Christianity and its beginnings in the same area in which Jesus was crucified and the rest of the disciples lived.

Nearly all critical historians of the Bible do agree on these twelve facts about the resurrection. By Dr. Habermas

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

So are you saying you do not believe these 12 facts. If so what is your reasoning behind our doubt.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.--- This is plausible and I have no reason to question it.
2. He was buried. --- The body of Jesus was taken to Joseph's new tomb to be washed and wrapped because it was late in the day and the tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus was executed.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. --- The apostles disappeared.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). --- The tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. Just as the chief priests feared.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). --- The disciples spread the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Again, just as the chief priests feared.

Matthew 27:
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

So are you saying you do not believe these 12 facts. If so what is your reasoning behind our doubt.

The NT indicates that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and subsequently flew off up into the sky. Which is roughly comparable to believing in flying reindeer. Except that the reindeer didn't have to come back to life.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 74 by marco]

You rely a lot on this method of reaching a literal interpretation. People can take offence at anything but when somebody says you've to munch my flesh and gobble up my blood, then the listeners might well be disgusted, since those who have come to listen are hardly brash barbarians but pious believers in heaven. Would Jesus use such bold metaphors? Of course he would.

Why? Why would He wish to scare away His followers? And why are we supposed to see His words as figurative today when His audience at the time didn’t? I’m sorry, but that simply makes no sense. Again, are you saying His followers were just a bunch of overly sensitive individuals who could not handle dramatic symbolism and vibrant poetry? Is that really your argument? I’m afraid that interpretation requires far more of a leap then believing Christ meant what He said.