Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont see anyone defending the Eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Christ - which I would have expected. That ritual, to me, is a little bizarre and slightly worrying.
Even back then, people found it a little bizarre. Manna seems a little bizarre too.
Quote:
John 6:52-70
52 The Jews (apostles) therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
Even back then, people found it a little bizarre. Manna seems a little bizarre too.
In the quote you cite, it is pretty clear that Jesus is deploying a common tactic of preachers ... the colorful and provocative metaphor, full of symbolism, designed to drive home a lesson. It is clearly not literal. One is invited to engage the lesson behind the symbol.
Although I would say Jesus arguably overplayed his hand here ... the mental image is rather, er, distracting from the lesson. I would not choose cannibalism as a device to teach people about their proper source of spiritual sustenance. But ... that's just me I guess.
In the quote you cite, it is pretty clear that Jesus is deploying a common tactic of preachers ... the colorful and provocative metaphor, full of symbolism, designed to drive home a lesson. It is clearly not literal. One is invited to engage the lesson behind the symbol.
Although I would say Jesus arguably overplayed his hand here ... the mental image is rather, er, distracting from the lesson. I would not choose cannibalism as a device to teach people about their proper source of spiritual sustenance. But ... that's just me I guess.
And yet this very point divided who would stay and who would go.
Everything Jesus said was ancient taken from ancient concept.
Have you ever heard of Issachar and Zebulun as two merchant sailors in a boat upon the seas selling their wares?
Most have not, but from this one ancient concept we get a great deal of the New Testament derived from that one concept, and the concept leads to Peter jumping from the boat as the daily catch to feed God's people, Jesus asked Peter 3 times," Do you love me?"
Jesus asked THREE TIMES," DO YOU LOVE ME?"
The point may be lost on many, but Jesus had to ask in Issachar, in Zebulun, and in Judah.
He was asking Peter in all 3 of the East, and Peter moved from the camp of Judah to the camp of Dan.
In the quote you cite, it is pretty clear that Jesus is deploying a common tactic of preachers ... the colorful and provocative metaphor, full of symbolism, designed to drive home a lesson. It is clearly not literal. One is invited to engage the lesson behind the symbol.
Although I would say Jesus arguably overplayed his hand here ... the mental image is rather, er, distracting from the lesson. I would not choose cannibalism as a device to teach people about their proper source of spiritual sustenance. But ... that's just me I guess.
Well, you aren't Jesus and neither am I - so we don't know what Jesus meant exactly. Perhaps St. John Chrysostom does:
Quote:
The Holy Eucharist is indeed a mystery (in Greek – mysterion means a secret, a hidden thing to the human eye), since in it, to use the words of St. John Chrysostom, “What we believe is not the same as what we see. One thing we see (bread and wine), and another we believe (Body and Blood of our Lord). And such is the nature of our Mysteries” (cf. Hom. on 1 Cor. VII , 2).
And it is a unique mystery, since by Holy Communion we receive not only the increase of saving grace, by the very Author of grace, our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus we become intimately united with our Savior, who assured us : “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him!” (In. 6:56). Hence the reception of the Holy Eucharist is called – Holy Communion (from Latin – *** + unio, united with), meaning united with the Holy One.
The point may be lost on many, but Jesus had to ask in Issachar, in Zebulun, and in Judah.
He was asking Peter in all 3 of the East, and Peter moved from the camp of Judah to the camp of Dan.
Jesus doesnt believe in cannibalism.
Thank you. No cannibalism here.
The number 3 has mystical importance. Three Magi with 3 gifts, Peter had denied Jesus three times, Jesus crucified on one of three crosses. and Jesus arose after three days in his Tomb.
In many Italian families, you shake the pasta in a colander three times - once for the Father, second for the Son and third for the Holy Spirit. It's symbolic (don't get crazy about it - nothing bad happens if you forget).
The number 7 is used frequently. There are 7 days in a week, 7 feasts in a year, 7 Catholic sacraments, Jacob's 7 years of work, when Peter asked about forgiveness Jesus’ answer 70 times 7, at the Sermon on The Mount, originally there was only five loafs and two fish (7) before Jesus' miracle. Evidentially, 7 is used frequently in Revelations.
Also the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles.
Of course, this numerology began with the Greeks and was adapted by the Jews. While its all interesting, I don't focus or study it. It's an interesting piece of trivia. BTW: I don't believe in New Age numerology.
In the quote you cite, it is pretty clear that Jesus is deploying a common tactic of preachers ... the colorful and provocative metaphor, full of symbolism, designed to drive home a lesson. It is clearly not literal. One is invited to engage the lesson behind the symbol.
Although I would say Jesus arguably overplayed his hand here ... the mental image is rather, er, distracting from the lesson. I would not choose cannibalism as a device to teach people about their proper source of spiritual sustenance. But ... that's just me I guess.
Very insightful because for such carnal minds, the idea of sustenance of life from eating (a la "manna") and drinking was central. Then as now, the concept of POE applied as evidenced in the literalism of fundamentalists. His prior and consistent use of parables was simply overlooked, as has been the spiritual import of what He was trying to communicate about God and our relationship with Him, IMO.
The number 3 has mystical importance. Three Magi with 3 gifts, Peter had denied Jesus three times, Jesus crucified on one of three crosses. and Jesus arose after three days in his Tomb.
In many Italian families, you shake the pasta in a colander three times - once for the Father, second for the Son and third for the Holy Spirit. It's symbolic (don't get crazy about it - nothing bad happens if you forget).
The number 7 is used frequently. There are 7 days in a week, 7 feasts in a year, 7 Catholic sacraments, Jacob's 7 years of work, when Peter asked about forgiveness Jesus’ answer 70 times 7, at the Sermon on The Mount, originally there was only five loafs and two fish (7) before Jesus' miracle. Evidentially, 7 is used frequently in Revelations.
Also the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles.
Of course, this numerology began with the Greeks and was adapted by the Jews. While its all interesting, I don't focus or study it. It's an interesting piece of trivia. BTW: I don't believe in New Age numerology.
Way more 3's than most people have suspected beginning with the 3 in the garden going through 3's in geneologies to Tabernacle design where there are 3 names for all four sides of the tabernacles showing two brothers who struggle and the outcome of the struggle.
The bible could have simply been named," 3."
3 sections of the temple showing body, soul, and spirit as all the 3's do until we get to Jesus between two thieves with the 3 showing body, soul, and spirit.
The bible is the human handbook of what we are as body, soul, and spirit. Tabernacle design is derived from human anatomy with 3 harvests of body, soul, and spirit pertaining to 3 sections of the Tabernacle where one begins in the courtin a progressivewalk to the holy of holies.
Very insightful because for such carnal minds, the idea of sustenance of life from eating (a la "manna") and drinking was central. Then as now, the concept of POE applied as evidenced in the literalism of fundamentalists. His prior and consistent use of parables was simply overlooked, as has been the spiritual import of what He was trying to communicate about God and our relationship with Him, IMO.
I completely agree he was not talking about literal cannibalism but it is hard to get the resulting lurid imagery out of your mind one he puts it out there.
In fairness to fundamentalists, they don't take this nearly as literally as Catholics do with their doctrine of transubstantiation. Heck, many fundamentalists serve grape juice rather than wine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very insightful because for such carnal minds, the idea of sustenance of life from eating (a la "manna") and drinking was central. Then as now, the concept of POE applied as evidenced in the literalism of fundamentalists. His prior and consistent use of parables was simply overlooked, as has been the spiritual import of what He was trying to communicate about God and our relationship with Him, IMO.
