Replies

If Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:21 Luke 22:19 were meant to mean that the communion was to be the literal physical body of Christ, then Christ would not have used bread at that specific meal, but he would have torn off pieces of his flesh and opened a vein. He didn't. He used the bread as a symbol and told them to eat it. They were told to do communion "in remembrance of me". Thus it is clear that the meaning is that the flesh and blood were spiritual and not physical.

And if we assume that John 6:53 was meant to mean that the Disciple was to eat the physical flesh of Christ at communion, then we have to admit that the rest of the passage wherein Jesus claims to be "Bread" would mean that his body was not composed of human flesh, but that Jesus was actually made of wheat and barley flour. If he meant that we are to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then we must admit that Jesus was made out of bread.

Of course we believe that Christ was instituting the Eucharist for future use at the Last Supper. Your objection is the same one the disciples had who "walked with him no more." They were totally grossed out (not to mention horrified at the sacrilege.) But as C.S. Lewis says, Christ tells a West African convert to uphold the ethical and moral code, but he tells a 20th century prig like me to come fasting to eat the Body and Blood.

Wrt John, you need to read Aquinas on the doctrine of Accidents or Appearances. Readers Digest version: the "accidents" or appearances of the bread and wine remain the same, but the essence or substance is miraculously transformed into the Body and Blood. Read all about it: Transubstantiation

6:52.If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

6:64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.*

I was reading Jn. 6 earlier, as I had been directed there by something I was reading, and I've included a couple of things that strike me as persuasive, insofar as your take is concerned. I didn't include all the preceeding Text even though it would have been beneficial, because it took up too much space.

But, in light of first passage, those who walked away from Him couldn't have believed that he really meant that he was going to offer his body up, as was, for His followers to feast upon, or drain a vein to drink from, could they? They must not have understood what he was really getting at, because he doesn't back down from the command, in fact, He becomes more forceful about it, and less enigmatic.

And if we assume that John 6:53 was meant to mean that the Disciple was to eat the physical flesh of Christ at communion, then we have to admit that the rest of the passage wherein Jesus claims to be "Bread" would mean that his body was not composed of human flesh, but that Jesus was actually made of wheat and barley flour. If he meant that we are to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then we must admit that Jesus was made out of bread.

Yeah, that's the same level of understanding Cartman had.

SD