Eating the body of Jesus doesn't compute

February 13 2021 | Self

[HypatiaTaught]

Good morning my conservative FRiends.

I am reaching out to hopefully get an answer to my lifelong question of a central belief in the Christian faith, especially the Roman Catholic faith.

Background: I grew up in a very Roman Catholic family. I am number 10 of 13 children, 8 boys, 5 girls. Mom also had 2 miscarriages which in truth, she became pregnant with 10 boys rather than the 8. Mom had 15 pregnancies in 17 years.

We went to Mass every Sunday and all the holy days. Mom actually taught Catechism to the community and was a very loving soul.

My question since the age of eight and remains 50 years later, why do we have the belief of actually having to eat the body of Jesus Christ?

I am a very logical person, but this concept of consuming the flesh of God's son to obtain salvation simply doesn't make sense. I get that he died for our sins and was sacrificed. I know the history of sacrifices 2000 years ago. Tribes sacrificed lambs, goats and other livestock. But why the eating of his body or any human body? We don't eat humans. I don't even eat animals any more, for digestive purposes. Maybe I am the only one who finds this tenant extremely disturbing.

[daniel1212]

I agree. I use to tell my mom, I think this eating of his body is not literal. But her and the Catholic Church states it is to be taken literally.

The devil is in Rome's details, for while the "words of consecration that Caths claim to take literally state, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me," (1 Corinthians 11:24)” and “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," (Matthew 26:27-28)

And Scripture emphasizes the manifest physicality of the incarnated Christ of Scripture in contrast to a docetist Christ or gnostic Christ of the anti/alterchrist spirit whose manifest appearance did not correspond to what He physically was:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1)

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)

Yet what Rome means when it teaches,

at the words of the priest bread and wine are “substantially changed into the true and proper and being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) Thus the statement, "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

This does not mean the bread and wine are literally transformed into actual literal human flesh with its manifest properties as Christ's incarnation required, but it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time) only exists until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to (visibly) decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641)

And which nt only means that "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") ; but that this christ only exists under that form ".. until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) Meaning neither the bread and wine - which at least appear and would test to be what they materially are as would the real body of Christ in His incarnation - actually exist, but when a non-existent host begins to visibly (and paradoxically sight here is a stipulation) then Christ also no longer exists under that form. That metaphysical contrivance is what the plain "literal" Catholic interpretation is, resulting in a christ that is actually akin to Gnostic thought, while the only Christ in Scripture is one that was manifestly physical.

[fidelis]

"A lot of words, but I don't disagree."

If the greatest disagreement we have is the number of words we use, then I think we are doing well. God bless you. :)

[daniel1212]

This belief sounds like a vampires tenant.

Well, if we can believe the reports as below, then once again this is not unique:

Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural.

Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

The controversial "Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941) reports (regardless of some of his conclusions):

The custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

[daniel1212]

By the way, this isn't a "Roman Catholic" [sic] distinctive.

The distinctive use of the term "Roman" in identifying your "Roman church" preceded the Reformation and was used by her after it to refer to the one (all 24 rites) "holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church."

All non-Protestant Christians accept it. Nobody within the church even questioned it for the first 800 years of Christian history.

No they did not! The RC metaphysical contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one the distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

I could make a list, by the grace of God, of what you can only wish that record showed NT church believed concerning this.

[daniel1212]

Yes. But why can’t we remember him without EATING him.

Let me use this opportunity to again expound on this somewhat. To "remember" in Biblical use is to be effectually believe and thus effect one, as in:

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. (2 Timothy 1:6)

Which in the context of 1 Co. 11:17-34 means not to simply remember the sufferings and death of the Lord, but its purpose and effect, that of redeeming souls and purchasing them, individually and as a body, with His sinless shed blood.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Which means that to remember the Lord's death is to show it, which here is by sharing food with fellow members of the body, confirming that they are such and as soul "bought with a price," and which thus are to be holy and caring for each other as members of that body of Christ, thus showing union with Him and each other.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:20)

Which holiness and caring union is so much emphasized by Paul in particular, as one who used to be persecute Christ by mistreating its members, and thus this theme continues into the next chapter.

And consistent with that emphasis Paul reproves the Corinthians for acting just the opposite of showing the Lord's death by how they treated its members for whom Christ died: Declaring that even though they came together for the purpose of eating the Lord's super, and were indeed eating under that presumption, yet they were not acting eating the Lord's supper, because they were acting completely contrary to what the Lord's death meant by mistreating members bought by His blood, thus not showing unity with Christ and each other, but treating members as if they were spiritually unclean:

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

Therefore the apostle re-minds of the Lord's institution of that memorial meal and its purpose,

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Paul (by the Spirit of Christ) then adds,

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:26-29)

It is not the nature of the bread and the cup that is the focus, but the purpose of the meal, which is to show (kataggellō: to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, etc.) the Lord's death, which again is by sharing food with other members bought His the Lord's sinless shed blood. And thus to treat other holy members of that body as if they were outcasts was to not recognize the Lord's body, which Paul here refers to as the church he used to persecute.

Thus in the previous chapter the church is called "one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread," (1 Corinthians 10:17) thereby showing communion/fellowship with Christ and each other, just like pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, as would Christians if they took part in them:

Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:18-21)

Again, to take part in such feasts is to have fellowship with the object of the dedicatory feasts, but which was not be literally consuming the flesh and blood of them, while to act contrary to the Lord's death and its purpose, by mistreating holy members of it, is to not actually eat the Lord's supper and have and signify fellowship with Christ and each other.

And as that was the sin being reproved in 1 Co. 11:17-34, of some eating separately in lust for food, and ignoring others to their shame who were given nothing, then the solution was for members to examine their spiritual condition in the light of this, and as a practical measure, not come hungry to the Lord;'s supper, and be driven by hunger so as to treat it as if satisfying oneself with food itself was the purpose.

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

And as the body of Christ as the church (for whom Christ died) was the subject, then in the next chapter that theme continues.

Now for me to better live according to what I just expounded.

[daniel1212]

He never said, “No! You don’t get it... it’s just a metaphor!” And he certainly didn’t mean to con us into putting out faith in him.

He never said such things as "living water" was a metaphor either, neither that this "Take, eat" bread henceforth did not exist having been replaced with a body that looked like bread but which body itself would no longer exist under that false appearance once the non-existent bread started to manifest decay, either.

Nor did the Lord or Scripture ever refer or example the true Christ in His incarnation as having an appearance that did not conform to what He materially was, but in fact He and Scripture emphasized the manifest physicality of Christ in contrast to the a christ whose appearance that did not conform to what He materially was.

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1)

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

But what the Lord and the Jews (and Greeks) did was often engage in allegorical and metaphorical language, including as concerns nourishment:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. (Isaiah 55:1-3)

And such use for eating or drinking is what the apostles would have been familiar with, to which the Lord's representative use of bread and wine for His body and bread is correspondent to, versus the foreign concept of requiring physical consuming human flesh for spiritual purposes. A few more examples from Scripture pertinent to this are:

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

Here, David clearly calls drinking water human blood, and consistent with the command of Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23 (cf. Lv. 17:10,11), he poured it on to the ground, and did so as an act of worship unto the Lord. What David did not do was contrive some metaphysical justification for drinking this, but to be consistent with the professed plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist they hold to in regards to "this is my body," then they should also insist this was literal in this case. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:

• “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

• The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

• David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

• And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

• While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

• But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

• And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

• And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,

"Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)

• Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') basically means to crumble, to break, crush, etc. as well as bruise..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

•I n John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Thus even a partial examination reveals that such use of figurative speech especially abounds in John, with over 35 instances of such even before the use of "meat" and drink" in chapter 6. And which gospel characteristically contrasts the physical with the spiritual, as is the case contextually in chapter 6, in which the Lord feeds multitudes physically and in response to the demand for more, tells the supplicants labor not for the meat which does perish, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, and which He then defines as believing on Him. (Jn. 6:27-29) And which is how He "lived by the Father," and said that we are to live by Him (Jn. 6:57) believing and thus doing His will, that being His "meat," (Jn. 4:34) and thus the Jn. 6 discourse ends with the Lord declaring that the flesh (as in consuming it) profits nothing, but His words they "are spirit and are life." (Jn. 6:63)

Thus in contrast to the "real" Christ of Catholicism in the form of bread and wine, in John and rest of the Scripture spiritual life is never obtained by literally physically eating anything, nor spiritual nourished by the same, but by believing the gospel and being strengthen in faith by the word of God, and thus living it out. Consistent with this, it is the word of God that is referred to as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ^

[daniel1212]

Catholics are transubstaniation which means that the host becomes physically the body and the blood

"physically? They could only wish their priests were serving the same actual manifestly physical body and blood of Christ that was "broken," whose manifest physicality Scripture invoked as being in contrast to one whose body did not correspond to what he materially was.

Study here and start here on this thread, by the grace of God.

[daniel1212]

When I kiss you, my lips touch your cheek.

I'll pass.

And, to work “by the numbers,” so to speak, it is the risen body of which we partake, a “spiritual body,” says St. Paul. I don't know how to think of this, but I'm pretty sure it's not cannibalism.

No, unlike your metaphysical christ the spiritual body of Christ was manifestly physical, and stands in contrast to a body whose appearance did not conform to what he materially was, thus,

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)

Nowhere was Christ present as an inanimate object or like a phantom.

[metmom]

Absolutely.

It’s faith that saves.

In John 6:63, Jesus says that the flesh profits nothing, it’s the Spirit who gives life. The words that He spoke in the dissertation were spiritual truths, not literal, physical actions.

Besides, God, since the beginning of time, has forbidden the consumption of blood. To claim that you have to literally eat and drink Jesus’ physical flesh and blood is to deny and violate what God has ordained.

[metmom]

Okay into little more detail it’s a symbolic sacrifice instead of a real sacrifice -in the old days they used to actually sacrifice a lamb.

Which is a symbolic representation of Jesus, just like the bread and wine are.

The Israelites were not saved by eating the meat of the lamb and they most certainly did not drink its blood.

The lamb was looking forward to Jesus. The bread and wine are looking back, remembering.

[dangus]

Actually, the bible was quite clear the sense in which he meant, “I am the living water.”

On the last day, the climax of the festival, Jesus stood and shouted to the crowds, “Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Anyone who believes in me may come and drink! For the Scriptures declare, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.’” When he said “living water,” he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.

And rather than walk away from him for being a nut, they knew exactly what he meant:

When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, “Surely this man is the Prophet we’ve been expecting.”

And even STILL, what he said was LITERALLY true, in addition to its symbolic meaning, because when he said,

“Anyone who drinks of the water which I shall give shall live eternally,” water is a part of the eucharist/communion/lord’s supper and by turning that water into his blood (which is also water), so yes, he does give us water, which also becomes he himself, in the absolute physical, observable sense.

>> Nor did the Lord or Scripture ever refer or example the true Christ in His incarnation as having an appearance that did not conform to what He materially was, but in fact He and Scripture emphasized the manifest physicality of Christ in contrast to the a christ whose appearance that did not conform to what He materially was. <<

Well, first, you’re wrong. He came to Saul, and no-one could see him. Even when he did appear on the road to Emmaus, the disciples couldn’t recognize him: he was there in the flesh and they could not discern his presence until they had received Supper with the Lord. And while he allowed Thomas to feel his human flesh, he told the women at the tomb, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the father.”

[amorphous]

We'll have to try harder to find something to argue about next time!

God bless you too!! It's very nice to meet someone who has a good heart these days. :)

Take care,

[MHGinTN]

placemarker

[narses]

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

[Nifster]

He also said I am the truth, the light, and the way

[MHGinTN]

If ther Catholic mind allows itself to realize the exercise is symbolic as a remembrance then the work of doing doing sdoing exposes Catholicism as a wroks based religion, not base on faith ALONE in Christ ALONE to be born again in the now and have God’s seed abiding in the new borns (1 John 3:9).

[narses]

Wait until you sober up and repost that in English.

[2nd amendment mama]

Placemarker

[metmom]

Is your ability to defend the Catholic position really so weak that you have to resort to slander, accusations of drunkenness, and personal attack instead?

Do you have anything of any substance with which to defend your position?

[Pikachu_Dad]

So how many accounts are you running?