Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood...

[Elijah John]

The Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

For debate,

-Did King David, Moses, Elijah or any of the other heroes or heroines of the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Messiah?

-If so, how so? If not, did they have any "life" in them? The kind Jesus was speaking of in John? (presumably eternal life)

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 51 by tam]

But you said that Him telling the apostles to do this (eating and drinking) in remembrance of Him was instituting "the priesthood".


How does that institute "the priesthood?"

Those were Jesus’ words to the Apostles at the Last Supper, where He had established the priesthood and was basically telling His Apostles to carry out what He was asking of them . . .


For full explanation see https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... riesthood/


But this is an excerpt . . .


Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. It’s the same pattern found in John 13: Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples’ feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice.


In short, in John 13 we have the disciples receiving a new status, the status of priests, as made clear by the substantial parallels to passages about priesthood in the Old Testament.


https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... riesthood/

You know that the footwashing is for everyone to do right?

So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example so that you should do as I have done for you.

He later told the apostles,

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."


So how can that be the institution of a separate priesthood (the separate priesthood that the RCC teaches)?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Impossible. That understanding renders the passage nonsensical. Why would His followers say, “This is a hard saying? Who can accept it? And why would Jesus respond to Peter, “Do you take offense at this too?� Sorry, makes no sense . . .

A lot of things make no sense until you get down to examining them. I felt that about tensor algebra when first assaulted by it.

Hard saying: difficult to get one's mind round. It is a difficult metaphor.

The ingredients of the metaphor are disgusting; its employment is disgusting; that would turn people off as I have said before. I don't see why this makes no sense.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 60 by marco]

Hard saying: difficult to get one's mind round. It is a difficult metaphor.

LOL! Metaphors aren’t difficult. The truth they are revealing perhaps, but no metaphor is difficult. And why would such a clever, charismatic speaker purposely wish to offend His followers?

The ingredients of the metaphor are disgusting; its employment is disgusting; that would turn people off as I have said before. I don't see why this makes no sense.

Which proves He was NOT speaking metaphorically! His words would have made NO sense! Why would anyone say, “Unless you hate and revile me, you have no life in you?� Clearly, NO ONE thought He was speaking metaphorically. They all understood Him correctly. Hence their question, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� They did not say, “Why is this man using such harsh words?� No one said, “That is a disgusting choice of words Jesus!� No they asked, “How can this be possible?� They wanted to know how Jesus was going to be able to give them His Flesh to eat? And then they ask, knowing He meant exactly what He said, “Who can accept this?� What would one be accepting if His words were merely symbolic? You claim, like some others, we would be accepting that Jesus was just asking us to believe Him and consider Him as our spiritual food. THAT is not difficult to accept! And then you want to suggest Scripture tells us many left Him that day – because Jesus Christ offended them with His usage of rude language? THAT IS ABSURD!

[Jack]

[Replying to tam]

The priesthood is instituted by what Jesus tells the apostles to do. The apostles are told to re-present the last supper sacrifice. The ministerial priests are acting in Jesus's place to perform the Pascal Sacrifice of Jesus's body and blood under the sense perceptual signs of bread and wine.

Jesus also ordered the apostles to forgive sins, "whatever sins you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven what ever sins you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven". These are priestly jobs. So even though they are not called priests in the bible what they are told to do is a priests job.

[WPG12]

It's all metaphors actually.

Jesus called his people sheep

Sheep eat grass, grass which grows from the earth

He leads them to green pastures

where they eat the grass that grows.

Sheep know what to eat and don't really need to be told.

But today we have farmers, that pen the sheep up and hand feed them
Store bought grain, not to raise a heathly flock, but for their own gain..

Sheep chew the cud, they stop to think or "chew on" the things they take in for nourishment, more than once.
They also have a cloven hoof, two parts that become one, a firm foundation.

Which makes them good for food.

Goats aren't much different than sheep, but sheep have a quality that goats don't.
Sheep put off wool, naturally, which the Shepherd takes from them to use to clothe others.

Whether you eat his flesh and drink his blood, or call yourself a sheep, it is all metaphorical.
It's a matter of understanding, and yes, not only was David led to green pastures where he ate freely, while his shepherd protected him from wolves, David also ate his flesh, and drank his blood. Whether it's understood by swine who trample down the grass while digging for truffles or not, is a different matter.