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

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:05 am

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 · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:43 pm

Elijah John wrote: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 · Post by **RightReason** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:43 pm

[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 · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:59 pm

RightReason wrote:

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?

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.

"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 · Post by **marco** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:18 pm

Elijah John wrote:

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 · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:37 pm

marco wrote:
Elijah John wrote:

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 · Post by **marco** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:49 pm

Elijah John wrote:

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 · Post by **RightReason** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:53 pm

RightReason · Post by **RightReason** » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:54 pm

marco · Post by **marco** » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:50 am

Elijah John wrote:

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 · Post by **Elijah John** » Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:26 am

RightReason wrote:
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"?