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)

[ttruscott]

In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood.

I do not accept that things said/written are requirements above and beyond faith in Him...the thief next to Him had none of these extras...they are self proofs of the Spirit within us as we yo-yo through our training in righteousness to keep our faith from flagging, Heb 12:5-11.

[RightReason]

[Replying to ttruscott]

I do not accept that things said/written are requirements above and beyond faith in Him...the thief next to Him had none of these extras...they are self proofs of the Spirit within us as we yo-yo through our training in righteousness to keep our faith from flagging, Heb 12:5-11.

Yes, of course bringing back the age old question how those who were not told about Jesus, lived prior to Jesus, etc could be saved. God as the ultimate judge can adequately know what or what was not our fault and what or what we were not capable of. Can a human being with severe brain damage be expected to profess his belief in Jesus Christ? I don’t think anyone objects to ‘exceptions to the rule’ so to speak.

But does that mean man is not accountable to the commands of God? Why would Jesus have spoken about Baptism or the Holy Eucharist (eating His Body and drinking His Blood) if He did not expect us to do those things? Would seem kind of silly to talk about those things at great lengths if they were not necessary.

[Elijah John]

Now THAT is the million dollar question. And indeed why would Christ have repeated this statement of His 4 times to be exact?

4 times in the Gospel of JOHN. Which begs the question if consuming his body and blood is so important to salvation, why didn't Matthew, Mark or Luke's Jesus explain the dire consequence of NOT eating his body and drinking his blood? Notice even at the last supper, he did not warn his followers "do this, or you have no life in you", as he did in John in a different setting. Seems a rather serious omission, wouldn't you say?

And why were His followers so shocked and outraged? And why did Jesus use terms like my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink – a bit odd don’t you think for someone going for a symbolic meaning to emphasize something like REAL?

Simply because Jesus was speaking poetically, and they took him literally. Remember, the disciples could be obtuse and simpletons at times.

"REAL" not meaning literal, but meaning eternal, lasting spiritual food. This to contrast with temporal food for the body. If one eats physical food, one gets hungry again, if one eats the Spiritual food which Christ provides, one will not hunger, spiritually anyway. That's how I read it.

Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose that Jesus did not teach them at the time that he meant a ritual consumption of his body and blood if RCC interpretation is accurate? Seems he needlessly introduced the notion of cannibalism. If Christ was not speaking poetically but literally, why didn't he slice off a finger and feed it to his disciples? Isn't ritual a form of dramatized metaphor? After all, one would find no actual human DNA in the host or in the wine if it were scientifically analyzed, even AFTER the Priest's consecration.

[marco]

Just a clarification. The OP does not seek to understand whether the consumption of Christ's body and blood is literal or metaphorical. It is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically. (RCC interpretation and the Eucharist is another debate/question)

Just wondering how Christ can make such a statement. In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood. Isn't it assumed that the heroes of the OT also were partakers of eternal life? Yet they did not consume the body and blood of the Messiah, whether literally OR figuratively.

Look at these two statements, from NT and OT:


"But 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." John 4: 14KJV



"For My people ........ have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water...." Jeremiah 2: 13

Jesus presents himself as offering what the Father has given. The Father is the fount of this metaphorical spring water and Jesus likewise passes this grace on. The water of grace that the prophets drank is the same that Jesus is offering. There is no need to regard Jesus as God or existng in Abraham's time. What he carries existed then and he is metaphorically what he carries. (I am the Life.)











Or did they? If so, how so?[/quote]

[Elijah John]

Just a clarification. The OP does not seek to understand whether the consumption of Christ's body and blood is literal or metaphorical. It is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically. (RCC interpretation and the Eucharist is another debate/question)

Just wondering how Christ can make such a statement. In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood. Isn't it assumed that the heroes of the OT also were partakers of eternal life? Yet they did not consume the body and blood of the Messiah, whether literally OR figuratively.

Look at these two statements, from NT and OT:


"But 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." John 4: 14KJV



"For My people ........ have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water...." Jeremiah 2: 13

Jesus presents himself as offering what the Father has given. The Father is the fount of this metaphorical spring water and Jesus likewise passes this grace on. The water of grace that the prophets drank is the same that Jesus is offering. There is no need to regard Jesus as God or existng in Abraham's time. What he carries existed then and he is metaphorically what he carries. (I am the Lifee)

Interesting parallel. And Jesus also uses the metaphor "living water" with the woman at the well. Seems Jesus added metaphor upon metaphor, even to his own re-interpretive statements.

But if one can (and always could) drink from the Prophets, why did Jesus seem to insist that it was only he who could provide? I wonder why he did not point back to the prophets but rather to himself, if he and they were referring to the same, sustaining lessons?

Did his 'New Covenant" nourishment invalidate the old? If so, then the OT heroes do not have life in them, it would seem.

And this addressed Bluethread's comments as well. (thanks to BT as always for providing Hebraic context)

If Christ was referring to the same thing the OT heroes partook of, doesn't that make the "New Covenant" nourishment superfluous?

If not, then there is no real nourishing provision for the heroes of the Hebrew Bible, and they never had any "life in them" because they did not enjoy the benefit of consuming Jesus body and blood even in the guise of his teachings. (Jesus teachings differed somewhat, did they not?)

Seems we cannot have it both ways.

If the teaching of God through the prophets was insufficient, then it seems they were malnourished, at best.

[marco]

But if one can (and always could) drink from the Prophets, why did Jesus seem to insist that it was only he who could provide? I wonder why he did not point back to the prophets but rather to himself, if he and they were referring to the same, sustaining lessons?

Did his 'New Covenant" nourishment invalidate the old? If so, then the OT heroes do not have life in them, it would seem.

If we dwell completely in Christ's metaphor that he is the incarnation of Biblical Truth (and I can see no other meaning in: I am the Truth) then metaphors flow easily. When he says you must follow ME; or I AM he isn't arrogating divinity to himself but rather existing in his chosen metaphor. He is the WAY to heaven;he supplies the grace to get there. Nobody goes to God except through HIM - but remember not the man, but the thing he personifies, Truth and Goodness.

So his words mean simply: Unless you have grace, are honest and love your fellow humans, you go nowhere. Instead of taking an arrogant interpretation we can regard it as the humblest of all - he is subservient even to ignominious death on a cross - (am I actually saying this?) - and his personal pronouns pertain only to the qualities he advertises. That makes a far more understandable picture than regarding him as about 33% of God.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

4 times in the Gospel of JOHN. Which begs the question if consuming his body and blood is so important to salvation, why didn't Matthew, Mark or Luke's Jesus explain the dire consequence of NOT eating his body and drinking his blood?

Mentioned only in John? What book are you reading? The entire Bible leads up to and discusses the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The OT prophesizes it and the NT repeats it and shows the first Christians fulfilling this command of Christ. Historical record from Apostolic times to today shows the reality of Christ’s words. Even Martin Luther (the “great Protestant Reformer�) who left the Catholic Church believed in the True Presence – all of Christendom did. It IS what was taught since the beginning and rightly so as it’s all over Scripture.


This is mentioned by all Gospel writers, Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Luke – hardly just John. In fact, the uniformity of expression across the four authors affirms the literalness of Christ’s words. In all of their accounts they say Jesus said, “This is my body� and they all wrote about doing this – continuing this. So, yeah, I would say sounds like it was kind of important! Again, not one of them said Jesus said, “This represents my body.� They say He said, “This IS MY Body.�


We even have Paul expounding on Christ’s words of eating His Body and drinking His Blood . . .


Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).


So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).


"To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/christ-in-the-eucharist

Did you catch that? Whoever eats and drinks without discerning. LOL – sounds pretty clear.


Here is some more you seem to miss in your Bible showing all of the other Gospel writers talking about this as well. And OT references too. They sure seem to make it sound important . . .



Luke 14:15 – blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus commands the apostles to “do this


Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 – Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten)

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 – Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.


Heb. 9:14 – Jesus offering Himself “without blemish� refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 – the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:8 – But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 – Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.�

Luke 2: 7,12 – Jesus was born in a “manger� (which means “to eat�). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.


Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 – to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,� not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.� This, of course, is absurd.



Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.


https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-eucharist/


Again this is not some brief teaching of John. Also, even though I have shown that thinking we only hear about this in John is incorrect, it is kind of an odd comment to think something in the Bible is insignificant if it isn’t mentioned elsewhere. The Bible isn’t that big so I would think all of it is significant. What’s weird would be to dismiss something claiming it isn’t really important. Why would you even for a second think John saying Jesus said, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you� isn’t important?


The OT is full of the parallels of Christ being the Body and Blood necessary for our salvation. The Bible was always intended to be read as a whole and when one does Scripture really comes to life. This is incredible stuff . . .



Malachi 1:11 – this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer� (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer� is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 – God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Gen. 22:9-13 – God saved Abraham’s first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel’s true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 – the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 – Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:8,11 – the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to “pass over� the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 – no one outside the “family of God� shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Exodus 12:49 – no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 – the paschal lamb’s bones could not be broken. John 19:33 – none of Jesus’ bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 – God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 – the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal – the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.


Lev. 7:15 – the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia� which means “thanksgiving�).


2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 – God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-eucharist/



There is soooo much more than I posted, but had to show you why/how it is that Christ’s Church teaches the Real Presence.

Notice even at the last supper, he did not warn his followers "do this, or you have no life in you", as he did in John in a different setting. Seems a rather serious omission, wouldn't you say?

There was no omission. They all unanimously proclaimed Jesus’ words. In the Last Supper Jesus does NOT say, “This represents my body. This represents my blood.� He said this IS my body! Not only that, but they mentioned the significance and importance of partaking . . .



Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).


So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).


"To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/christ-in-the-eucharist

RightReason wrote:


And why were His followers so shocked and outraged? And why did Jesus use terms like my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink – a bit odd don’t you think for someone going for a symbolic meaning to emphasize something like REAL?


Simply because Jesus was speaking poetically, and they took him literally. Remember, the disciples could be obtuse and simpletons at times.

Riiiiiight . . . so men are much smarter than people were then? When Jesus previously said things like I am the vine or I am the door did they all gasp and consider Him cray cray? Of course not – they knew He was speaking symbolically, yes even though they were simpletons. And yet you expect me to believe they would have taken Jesus’ words here literally and Jesus not correct them? In fact, did Jesus not only not correct them – He doubled down and used words like, “Truly, Truly I say to you . . . “ He used words like REAL food to clarify. He let them walk away without any attempt to tell them they were getting it wrong – that they had misunderstood. And your summary of that Gospel account is the people were stupid? Yeah, I’m sure Jesus and the remaining few had a good laugh. “Those guys actually thought you were speaking literally Jesus. What morons!� Sorry, but that is completely inconsistent with everything we know about Jesus from previous Scripture.

"REAL" not meaning literal, but meaning eternal, lasting spiritual food. This to contrast with temporal food for the body.

Riiiiiiight . . . which brings us back to trying to understand why they were so offended? If REAL just meant He was referring to Himself as spiritual food, why the outrage? What exactly couldn’t they handle about that? Also, He didn’t just say you must eat my body, He used words like munch/gnaw. Why would He do so? Doesn’t make for great poetry. If as you suggest He was just being poetic. Your interpretation fails to accept Jesus’ actual words and what they would have meant to His audience. And it fails to put their reaction into context.

If one eats physical food, one gets hungry again, if one eats the Spiritual food which Christ provides, one will not hunger, spiritually anyway. That's how I read it.

Sorry doesn’t cut it. Again, why would they think Jesus was telling them to literally eat Him if He wasn’t? Why would anyone think anyone would ever use a literal analogy like that? In fact, to do so in that time period was to hate someone. So why would Jesus have chosen an analogy equivalent to saying You must revile me in order to be saved? Yeah, sorry MAKES NO SENSE! No poet would say, “Unless you hate me and profane me, you will have no life in you.� Does Jesus completely fail to know His audience?

Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose that Jesus did not teach them at the time that he meant a ritual consumption of his body and blood if RCC interpretation is accurate?

He did. What are you talking about? That’s what all the Apostles went on to talk about. And THAT is in fact why many left Him that day. And every Gospel writer wrote about continuing to do this. That this IS what was being required.

Seems he needlessly introduced the notion of cannibalism.

<sigh> the ‘ole cannibalism criticism. First, cannibalism involves eating a dead person. Jesus isn’t dead. He is very much alive. Second cannibalism involves the eating of human flesh only. Jesus is both human and divine – so not the same. But yes, wouldn’t that have been really weird for Jesus to use words that implied cannibalism? No wonder Scripture tells us the people were shocked and outraged and said, “This is a hard saying – who can accept it?� So, clearly they also understood Him correctly, because why was that everyone’s reaction? Even those who stayed? Jesus even turned to them because they stood there shocked as well and Jesus asked, “Do you too wish to go?� But Peter, even though he himself did not fully understand said, “To whom should I go Lord, you alone have the words of eternal life.� Even Peter’s words to Jesus would have made no sense if they both didn’t know He was in fact speaking literally! They knew exactly what His words meant. And like I said, Jesus didn’t correct them. He repeated using even more graphic words to describe the reality. So, yes, you are right -- would have been a needless way to get His point across. Boy, someone should have given Jesus a PR lesson. He sure didn’t know how to preach to the crowd if He in fact was suggesting cannibalism.

If Christ was not speaking poetically but literally, why didn't he slice off a finger and feed it to his disciples?

Because He never planned for this beautiful mysterious method of our eternal salvation to be repulsive. We needed simply to trust Him and believe Him when He said we are in fact receiving His Body and His Blood. Real food as He tells us. Do we trust Him?

Isn't ritual a form of dramatized metaphor? After all, one would find no actual human DNA in the host or in the wine if it were scientifically analyzed, even AFTER the Priest's consecration.

I don’t know was Jesus turning the water into wine a metaphor? Did He actually do it? Were they consuming water or wine? Was it water that tasted like wine or wine? Did they all just think they were drinking wine? Where did the wine come from? How can one change water into wine?

Why do you think Jesus could not give us His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist while not making it actually taste like human flesh and blood? Is that something He couldn’t do?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Interesting parallel. And Jesus also uses the metaphor "living water" with the woman at the well. Seems Jesus added metaphor upon metaphor, even to his own re-interpretive statements.

Yes, He did and when He did no one was horrified. The woman at the well said show me where this water is that I may never have to drink again, but Jesus went on to say, “Woman,� Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.� He explained to her He was not actually speaking about some hidden spring where she could find a never ending supply of water. She left satisfied infact overjoyed that she had met the Messiah. She went on to tell everyone she knew. But Jesus didn’t explain to those that you claim misunderstood him. He didn’t try a different approach until like the woman at the well they got it. Why? Because there was no other approach. The words He said were true. He did intend them literally.

But if one can (and always could) drink from the Prophets, why did Jesus seem to insist that it was only him who could provide? I wonder why he did not point back to the prophets but rather to himself, if he and they were referring to the same, sustaining lessons?

Indeed.

Did his 'New Covenant" nourishment invalidate the old?

It was what everything else was leading up to.

If so, then the OT heroes do not have life in them, it would seem.

I’m still unclear why this would be a stumbling block. Do you not think a person with minimal brain activity can be saved? What about a 3 month old baby? How does the baby come to profess his/her belief in Jesus Christ?

No one has life in them until it is given to them by Christ Himself and can’t He decide what we have to do to receive this life? I’d say He has spoken, quite plainly and frankly I might add and I don’t know about you but I hear, “Truly, truly, I tell you,unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Sonof Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever 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. . . .�

If Christ was referring to the same thing the OT heroes partook of, doesn't that make the "New Covenant" nourishment superfluous?

Yes, it would.

If not, then there is no real nourishing provision for the heroes of the Hebrew Bible, and they never had any "life in them" because they did not enjoy the benefit of consuming Jesus body and blood even in the guise of his teachings. (Jesus teachings differed somewhat, did they not?)

Seems we cannot have it both ways.

Of course you can. With God all things are possible. God can command we do something while simultaneously make exceptions as He sees fit. I would see no contradiction in this. You do? A loving parent could have strict rules, but also recognize that circumstances could occur that one has no control over. A good parent would take this into account AND has the power to do so.

If the teaching of God through the prophets was insufficient, then it seems they were malnourished, at best.

I have no doubt they were, but also have no doubt our Lord made up for any nutritional deficiency they may have experienced while on earth in heaven. Do you think they will hold it against Him?

[marco]

If Christ was referring to the same thing the OT heroes partook of, doesn't that make the "New Covenant" nourishment superfluous?

If not, then there is no real nourishing provision for the heroes of the Hebrew Bible, and they never had any "life in them" because they did not enjoy the benefit of consuming Jesus body and blood even in the guise of his teachings. (Jesus teachings differed somewhat, did they not?)

Perhaps I didn't dwell on this point enough. It would seem that the Prophets had some direct link temselves to God, a link denied the masses. In fact people were afraid of God. Far from being undernourished, prophets had direct access to the spring. The Prophets taught; Jesus personified. The prophets pleaded on God's behalf; Jesus was the route to heaven; they described what they saw as truth; Jesus was the Truth; touch his garments and you were savd; die and you were reborn; be ill and you were healed. These incidentals were just manifestations of the living spring that he was. The mission of Christ was for people to have life and "have it more abundantly." This suggests that there is a recognition it was formerly in short supply for the majority.

I agree that the appearance of Jesus does suggest something negative about what was. He's not giving a new God, just making God more directly available. In a way it is the old message wrapped in flesh; the old spring flowing with his blood. Where words were used before, flesh and blood have become the medium of transmission. Perhaps it is something much more powerful than a metaphor, if it's all true.

[Elijah John]

If so, then the OT heroes do not have life in them, it would seem.

I’m still unclear why this would be a stumbling block. Do you not think a person with minimal brain activity can be saved? What about a 3 month old baby? How does the baby come to profess his/her belief in Jesus Christ?

Exactly, and I would like to zero-in on this point, for the time being and for the purpose of clarification. I do believe that salvation is a matter of the heart, not the head. Jesus seems to have made that point over and over again as well. No one is saved by getting their theology "right". Jesus did not seem to care about that, but rather about how truly and consistently one loves. God and neighbor.

This paradigm of the heart enables many to be saved who are not orthodox Trinitarian (small "o") Christians, who are not "theologically correct". This would, or course, include babies, who have no theology at all.

On the other hand, if salvation depends entirely on understading and professing each article of the Creed, and consuming the Eucharist with the "proper" understanding, then that would exclude babies, "Old" Testament prophets, devout Muslims and Jews, and people of other religions, and of no religion. Even if they manifest the fruits of the Holy Sprit in their lives. (Patience, kindness, love, etc.) How does one explain the manifest evidence of the Holy Spirit even in those who get their theoogy "wrong"?

Don't you think it is possible that the heart of God transcends theolgical "correctness"?