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 1 by Elijah John]

Is not the cup the cup (and blood) of the new covenant? Why would those who were under the law covenant be keeping a requirement of the new covenant?

No one is saved by being "theologically correct". Jesus emphasized love leading to action.

Indeed.

Hence, it is kind of a moot point to argue over whether or not the bread and the wine literally become His flesh and blood - or if the bread and the wine MEAN His flesh and blood - if one is not going to bother obeying His command to eat or drink the bread and wine, to begin with.


If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14:15

Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him." John 14:21

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me. John 14:24

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?" Luke 6:46

And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.� Mark 9:7

And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.� In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22:19,20




He said to do this.

He also said that if we love Him, we will do as He has said. Also discerning/believing that the bread means His body (and that His body is real food, and that He is the true manna from heaven - food for the spirit; and that the wine means his blood - real drink - the blood of the new covenant and for forgiveness of sins).





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

[Elijah John]

Was James point about the importance of believing the right things? Or about putting one's faith and belief into action.

But if one believes the wrong thing how can that be putting his faith into action?

Is believing that love is Divine, and from God, "the wrong thing"? That "God is love"? And to love is to be like God, a reflection of Him?

One can still do this whether one's theology regarding the Trinity, the transubstantiation, the atonement etc. is right, or is wrong. There are loving Trinitarians, as well as loving absolute Monotheists. Both Jews and Christians can and do love God and neighbor.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 29 by Elijah John]

No evidence that James' theology included the Trinity. Just the absolute Oneness of God. Shema-monotheism. "You believe that God is one, you do well..." Notice he did not say, "you believe that God is Triune, you do well...Why not? Did James believe wrongly when he in effect, re-affimed the Shema, the absolute Oneness of God?

Sorry, I’ve discussed the evidence of the Trinity in Sacred Scripture in many other threads. Go check them out. The notion that the Trinity is not Scriptural couldn’t be more false. Also, it is what Christendom all believed. I’m afraid you are in the minority on this one and unfortunately then it clouds your vision on many other things.

And even though James probably did not believe that same way you do, what is your guess, was James "saved"?

I think James believed exactly what Christ’s Church has always taught, so I would actually throw that question back at you.

Is believing that love is Divine, and from God, "the wrong thing"? That "God is love"? And to love is to be like God, a reflection of Him?

No.

One can still do this whether one's theology regarding the Trinity, the transubstantiation, the atonement etc. is right, or is wrong. There are loving Trinitarians, as well as loving absolute Monotheists. Both Jews and Christians can and do love God and neighbor.

I already said this can be the case. HOWEVER, that does not negate the fact Truth exists. Christ would not have told us all the things He did if they don’t matter! I also think there is a danger in living according to some vague motto like ‘be a good person’. Uuummm . . . what is good? What can I do practically speaking to achieve goodness? Can I claim to believe that love is Divine and from God and justify abortion? Many do. Can I claim to believe in God but ignore what He says regarding Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, listening to His Church? Many do.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 29 by Elijah John]

No evidence that James' theology included the Trinity. Just the absolute Oneness of God. Shema-monotheism. "You believe that God is one, you do well..." Notice he did not say, "you believe that God is Triune, you do well...Why not? Did James believe wrongly when he in effect, re-affimed the Shema, the absolute Oneness of God?

Sorry, I’ve discussed the evidence of the Trinity in Sacred Scripture in many other threads. Go check them out. The notion that the Trinity is not Scriptural couldn’t be more false. Also, it is what Christendom all believed. I’m afraid you are in the minority on this one and unfortunately then it clouds your vision on many other things.

And even though James probably did not believe that same way you do, what is your guess, was James "saved"?

I think James believed exactly what Christ’s Church has always taught, so I would actually throw that question back at you.

Is believing that love is Divine, and from God, "the wrong thing"? That "God is love"? And to love is to be like God, a reflection of Him?

No.

One can still do this whether one's theology regarding the Trinity, the transubstantiation, the atonement etc. is right, or is wrong. There are loving Trinitarians, as well as loving absolute Monotheists. Both Jews and Christians can and do love God and neighbor.

I already said this can be the case. HOWEVER, that does not negate the fact Truth exists. Christ would not have told us all the things He did if they don’t matter! I also think there is a danger in living according to some vague motto like ‘be a good person’. Uuummm . . . what is good? What can I do practically speaking to achieve goodness? Can I claim to believe that love is Divine and from God and justify abortion? Many do. Can I claim to believe in God but ignore what He says regarding Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, listening to His Church? Many do.

RESPONSE: Christ didn't tell us anything. The four gospels were written 40 to 65 years after his death by non-witnesses with the intent of making converts to a new religion.

[Jack]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

Proverbs 14 "there is a way that seems right to man but leads to death" so it may seem unbelievable that Jesus would tell us literally "unless you eat the my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you, unbelievable for a man. A man can brush it off as a metaphor and that may seem to be right for a man but it sounds like that route of thinking may lead to death.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by brianbbs67]

Proverbs 14 "there is a way that seems right to man but leads to death" so it may seem unbelievable that Jesus would tell us literally "unless you eat the my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you, unbelievable for a man. A man can brush it off as a metaphor and that may seem to be right for a man but it sounds like that route of thinking may lead to death.

If Jesus' imperative was not a metaphor but literal, how can one possibly, literally, eat his body, or drink his blood 2000 plus years after he left the planet?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 35 by Elijah John]

If Jesus' imperative was not a metaphor but literal, how can one possibly, literally, eat his body, or drink his blood 2000 plus years after he left the planet?

Seriously? Dude – He’s also God.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 35 by Elijah John]

If Jesus' imperative was not a metaphor but literal, how can one possibly, literally, eat his body, or drink his blood 2000 plus years after he left the planet?

Seriously? Dude – He’s also God.

Yes, seriously. So how does "being God" make it possible, in what tangible, demonstrable way.

If Jesus is God, he certainly can change bread and wine into his body and blood, quite literally, even after 2000 plus years. But he does not. The transubstantiation is still a form of ritual metaphor, even after 2000 plus years, and even if Jesus is God.

Also, even though the Bible is authoritative on this particular forum, it is not established that "Jesus is God".

We have a significant community of Jehovah's Witnesses that would disagree with you on that.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

Then why wasn't the "essential" role of the future Messiah in spiritual salvation made abundantly and repeatedly clear to the ancient Israelites?

Because, it wasn't necessary, until Israel became unreliable. They were supposed to be an example nation to all other nations, showing that their obedience to God's ways brought them great blessings. But, because of disobedience, they became cursed instead of blessed (for the most part) even though God was "extremely patient" towards them. Once, it became clear that Israel would not (fully) obey God's instructions, thus continually breaking the covenant God made with them, it became obvious that a new agreement was needed and a new path to redemption. So, the future or new covenant was foretold by Jeremiah in chapter 31 (about 600 B.C.) and Ezekiel in chapter 36 (about 570 B.C.).

Were they attempting to please God in vain by trying to observe HIS Commandments?

This isn't the way they viewed it. There were laws, offerings and Holy Day rituals, which was understood to have "cleansed" them from their sins. So, from a human nature perspective, it was thought that they had "an out" repeatedly every year and most took advantage of this. It seems that the only real disadvantage they initially realized, was a loss of livestock and/or money (so they thought: foolishly). The reality of being taken captive and losing everything began to sink-in, but even this didn't make a difference. Thus, it is clear that God's will, won't be permitted to be mocked indefinitely…

There is only one Saviour in the Hebrew Bible, and his name is YHVH. (Yah). Not the Messiah, not Jesus.

That depends on a person's understanding.

The bible makes it clear that all powers and abilities comes from the Supreme Being or God. But, it also claims that God gives to His servants the authority and powers needed to accomplish His will. So, giving the Messiah or Christ the power and authority to resurrect human being, thus giving them the opportunity to accept God's ways and be given life beyond the physical is biblical and does not take away from God's Superiority.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 35 by Elijah John]

If Jesus' imperative was not a metaphor but literal, how can one possibly, literally, eat his body, or drink his blood 2000 plus years after he left the planet?

Seriously? Dude – He’s also God.

RESPONSE:

Actually, Jesus himself never made that claim, only to be the messiah (one of four messiah-candidates at that time, all of which were executed by the Romans).

Starting about 85 AD, Jewish- Christians began to claim that that Jesus was divine. This resulted in them being expelled from Judaism as apostates ("minim").

Look up the 12th Benediction on the web.