Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: A question about Jesus

  1. #1 A question about Jesus 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1
    What did Jesus mean when he said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood". What do christians say that he meant by this. How many different answers are there and which is the correct one.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Well, he said no such thing. He is described as taking bread and wine, and describing the bread as "my body" and the wine as "my blood". The symbolism of the acts is surely undeniable. After all, how hard was it for him to cut a tiny knob of flesh off the end of his finger, and make his disciples eat the actual body and drink his actual blood? If he had intended his followers to literally eat his flesh, it was surely not that hard to do. Instead he made them eat bread and drink wine, and to do this "in memory" of him.

    Now, of course the Catholic Church maintains a rite of Communion in which a wafer of unleavened bread is blessed and handed over to acolytes with the words "The Body of Christ". And there is a doctrine of "Transubstantiation" in which it is supposed to be necessary to believe that the bread has changed its substance literally into that of the Body of Jesus. On the other hand, nobody expects the bread to taste of anything but bread. I'm sure 90% of Catholics don't "really" believe it.

    But then, the nature of faith for Catholics has always been slightly different from the nature of faith for certain other kinds of sects. They are happy with "faith" taking the form of words, whereas the stricter Protestant sects, particularly the fundamentalist Evangelicals, require that faith to be literally almost able to move mountains. That is why they excoriate Holy Communion in the Catholic rite as "cannibalism", since they would never themselves be able to say as a matter of faith that the bread had been transformed.

    Likewise with the remission of sins by the priest giving the Last Rites. Catholics are asked if they are sorry for all their sins, and if they say so, and go through the anointing, they are considered absolved. But nobody expects the dying person to literally consider every one of their sins throughout a lifetime, whether they truly repent of each one that they committed, or are examining their soul to see if they are only saying so to get into Heaven. And if the person is in a coma, or has actually already died in medical terms, the priest goes through the ritual in any case, on the assumption that the person might be able to hear and repent. This kind of faith is indicative of the Universal nature of the Catholic church - that they are really attempting to save as many souls as possible. That would not be possible for the Evangelicals, because faith really has to be felt in the heart, along with Jesus's actual presence.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Well rather than let silas wrote stand ...

    I suppose there are a lot of people who do not take the Bible very seriously and do not believe Jesus really said some of the things attributed to him. But even the tests of literary and historical criticism are likely to pass this one as authentic because it caused the Christians so much trouble, and therefore it is unlikely to have been attributed to him by later Christians.

    There are more than one such verse, but here is John 6:53

    "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

    This is usually understood as representing the sacrament called communion, but even this is usually considered a symbolic gesture representing taking Jesus inside oneself and making him a part of you. Born again Christians call this having a personal relationship with Jesus, and it means making Jesus a part of your life. This means talking to him, considering him and what he would want in the choices you make, asking things like, "if Jesus were faced with this choice, then what would he do?" The primary means of developing this relationship and having some idea what Jesus would do comes from studying his words and actions in the Bible.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Well rather than let silas wrote stand ...
    Hey, Mitchell, you don't have to make it quite so personal! So, maybe I was a little misinformed, I can accept that! At least I was trying to defend a Christian practise!

    Of course it's "understood" as symbolic and "representing the sacrament of communion". What I'm thinking, however, is if, as you aver, Jesus actually used those extremely literal-sounding words to his Disciples, then all I can say is he must have been a) feeling the strain a bit, and b) getting to be a bit full of himself. Though, come to think of it, it's less surprising coming from the Gospel of John, in which Jesus talks about himself much more than in any other Gospel, and not in modest terms, either!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Well rather than let silas wrote stand ...
    Hey, Mitchell, you don't have to make it quite so personal! So, maybe I was a little misinformed, I can accept that! At least I was trying to defend a Christian practise!

    Of course it's "understood" as symbolic and "representing the sacrament of communion". What I'm thinking, however, is if, as you aver, Jesus actually used those extremely literal-sounding words to his Disciples, then all I can say is he must have been a) feeling the strain a bit, and b) getting to be a bit full of himself. Though, come to think of it, it's less surprising coming from the Gospel of John, in which Jesus talks about himself much more than in any other Gospel, and not in modest terms, either!
    No offense intended. There are a lot of difficulties involved when someone makes a religious claim. I cannot presume that you just did not read the Bible. It could really have been a disagreement about what Jesus really said. Actually I think that Jesus, like other great religious leaders, but even more so, used shocking statements in order to break through the rigid mindsets of the people of his time. There are aspect of the accounts in John that hint at things going on under the surface which suggest that this account is very accurate in places and this is one of those places. In this part of the story Jesus had just won great enthusiasm of the people for him because of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But the story suggests that Jesus was disgusted by this because they were only getting excited by someone who could solve mundane problems like famine (and the political power this would bring). Therefore he started speaking about the need for them to eat his own flesh and blood to shock them out of their mundane socio-political enthusiasm to get them to see the spirtual nature of his message (while hinting at the necessity of his death). The Bible relates just how greatly they were disappointed and shocked by what Jesus said. John ^:60 "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said. 'This is a hard saying; who can understand it.' " John 6:66 "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with him no more."

    Jesus' conflict with and repeated rejection of the desires of the zealots among his disciples and listeners to make him a political leader is a constant undercurrent of the whole story of Jesus' ministry, and it was the fear that the zealots would make such a use of him which lead the leaders in Jerusalem to plot to kill him. That the Jews we teetering on the edge of disaster, is shown by the fact that only 70 years later the zealots finally brought down the wrath of the Roman empire down on the Jewish people, and that was the end of Israel.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 bread and wine 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    93
    Some things are literal and some are not.
    The bread symbolizes his teachings and standards of conduct,
    and revelation of GOD.
    The wine symbolizes the blood he sheds when he gives his life
    on behalf of humanity.
    You have to keep in mind his purpose for being on the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A question about Jesus 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Name
    What did Jesus mean when he said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood". What do christians say that he meant by this. How many different answers are there and which is the correct one.
    I did not know that Jesus spoke English. We have already seen some of the undoutedly very large number of interpretations. What makes you think any or only one of the interpretations can be correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: bread and wine 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by phyti
    You have to keep in mind his purpose for being on the earth.
    and what may that be, prey tell.
    matt 10, 34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. "
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Both cannibalism and the consumption of blood were contrary to Jewish custom and practise.

    However, in all cultures is the concept of 'You are what you eat'. That's why some tribes in Africa ate (still eat) lion, especially the heart, to gain strength and courage. The American Indian ate buffalo, partially to gain strength. Various American Indian tribes ate their enemies as a way of assimilating them. "Liver Eating" Johnson used the practise to terrify the Crow nation for some thirty years.

    When Jesus said, "This is my body, take and eat", He was telling His disciples (including those living today) to take on His characteristics. Other passages in the New Testament indicate part of the process of being a Christian is to be remade in the image of God.

    Drinking blood was forbidden in Jewish law. The reason given in Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:14 and Deuteronomy 12:23 was the blood contained the life. So, when in the Last Supper, Jesus tells His followers to drink His blood, He is telling them His life is in them.

    Catholocism teaches the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Most non-Orthodox groups do not. Which is correct? Jesus command was "Take and eat", not "Take and figure it all out intellectually". Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of Me".

    Whoever does it to remember and honor the sacrifice of Jesus is doing it right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i think that blood thing is just an axcuse for priests to get whine to drink :wink: :wink:
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    i think that blood thing is just an axcuse for priests to get whine to drink :wink: :wink:
    "Whine" to drink?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    Don't bash our Lord and Savior, the man divine who walks on water, heals the sick, is the right hand of God himself, and who now can conveniently be eaten in the form of a cracker.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    he's crackers, so he does exist.

    better eat him withs some cheese, or put in the asylum. lol
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    It is amazing how people disagree on what the Bible said, let alone what it means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
    It is amazing how people disagree on what the Bible said, let alone what it means.
    Yup - which is a good reason to not take the Bible as literal fact, but rather try and understand the message of the Bible and take that away instead. Isn't that what should be important? The message, not the details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •