Funny how you can just pick and choose which things Jesus said that were "hyperbole" and which are supposed to be literal. When Jesus declared that "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life", He had ALREADY just got done feeding a vast multitude and tied it into how HE was the bread of life and "Whoever comes to Me will never hunger, and whoever believes in Me will never thirst." and "Truly, truly, I tell you, he who believes has eternal life.". Yet, you insist Jesus meant everyone must literally eat His human flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life! It's pretty obvious He was speaking figuratively.
No one is picking and choosing but you.
Jesus repeated thrice what he said.
“This is my body” and “This is my blood.” What exactly did Jesus mean by these words spoken the night before his crucifixion? He knew that his words were to be repeated throughout the entire world for the rest of time. Surely he put a tremendous amount of thought into how he would express himself during this crucial night.
If He was tryto say it in your false way he would have said This bread only represents my body.”
But Jesus did NOT say it your way.
What Jesus did say was
I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. . . . The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. . . . I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. . . . I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. . . . Stop grumbling among yourselves. . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: “They will all be taught by God.” Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . . I tell you the truth, 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. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever (Jn 6:26-59)
Jesus defines what we must do (“work”) for God: we must believe in Jesus. The Jews then ask for a sign from Jesus to prove he is worthy of belief. Jesus responds by claiming that he is “the bread of life”. This is an analogy just like “I am the door” or “I am the vine.” It could be understood in a multitude of ways, unless Jesus goes on to explain his analogy. He does exactly that: “This bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world.” Jesus says the bread of life is his flesh. Lest we not understand whether he means “flesh” in a real, physical, touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the Cross! He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers.
The analogy has been clearly explained. There is no doubt about its meaning. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a “figurative way”, or “spiritually speaking”, then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative.
Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must “eat his flesh”. He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated “to chew”. This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the faith-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal.
Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must “eat his flesh”. He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated “to chew”. This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the faith-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal.
Catholics believe that Jesus is really present in the consecrated Host.
This is the only way to explain adequately Paul’s assumptions in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
How could one be “guilty” of the Body and Blood of Christ if the service is only a memorial? Granted, the service is done in remembrance. Evangelicals and Catholics agree on that.
But Catholics teach that it is more than that. We must recognize (discern) the bread for what it truly is, “the body of the Lord”, or be judged.
How much clearer could Paul be than this? I could find no textual basis for the Evangelical teaching that communion is only a memorial.
Your post is precisely right, as usual, Boatbums. Who knows when with Catholicism things are to be taken literally or figuratively. Seems to depend on what they want to use to hoodwink the gullible.
Might I add that even if there was a scintilla of the idea that Jesus meant for them to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood, that it was an instruction given to Israel still under the Law at that time, as there was not the new covenant in force when He spoke the same. So, if an argument were advanced that it was a new instruction from Our Lord who broke not one commandment, and certainly would NOT have told His disciples to do so, cannot be considered in any way correct. It’s a blasphemous idea. Also, if Peter had any doubt that Jesus meant it figuratively, he sure didn’t say so. Peter knew that it was figurative. Being a Jew, he certainly would have made an issue of it. Why didn’t Peter say, “Lord! You know that would be breaking the Law of Moses!”
When Peter asked Our Lord, “To whom shall we go?” he was speaking to the only promised Jewish Messiah who had come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Peter, of course, knew that blood was forbidden and yet he says not a word? Not one word about eating human flesh and drinking human blood? Really?
There was no Church as we know it today at the time this conversation took place nor could it have been, so it’s evident that the instruction was not to the Church, as the mystery of the Church had not then been disclosed to the apostle Paul. Even more, had Jesus meant it literally, there would be something in the OT to tell us so for Jesus never once broke Scripture.
Two cross-references that immediately DO come to mind:
Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
Eze 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
AND:
Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
Is it not plain that the language is figurative?