"Eat my flesh and drink my blood" - Metaphorical?

[Shermana]

All the people got grossed out and left, I guess they must have missed out that he was just talking metaphorically?

The Catholics certainly don't think so with their wafers and wine.

Was Jesus just being metaphorical here when he said "Verily" or are the Catholics on to something?

Communion was certainly a part of early pre-Roman Christian churches to say the least. The Didache testifies to the practice for one thing.

[Kuan]

All the people got grossed out and left, I guess they must have missed out that he was just talking metaphorically?

The Catholics certainly don't think so with their wafers and wine.

Was Jesus just being metaphorical here when he said "Verily" or are the Catholics on to something?

Communion was certainly a part of early pre-Roman Christian churches to say the least. The Didache testifies to the practice for one thing.

Im pretty sure that it is metaphorical.

[myth-one.com]

Was Jesus just being metaphorical here

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Revelation 2:7)

The tree of life is now in the midst of the paradise of God. This "tree of life" was first mentioned in the Garden of Eden:

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)

Notice that we must eat of the tree of life to gain eternal life. Now consider the following verses describing the Lord's Supper:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)

We are to eat of Jesus' body and drink of His blood under the New Testament covenant for forgiveness of sins! When the tree of life was in the Garden of Eden was Jesus there also? Speaking of Jesus, or the Word, John states:

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (John 1:3)

A creation was taking place in the garden and the Word created everything! Therefore, the Word (who became flesh as the man Jesus) was there in the Garden of Eden. The tree of life has now relocated to the "midst of the paradise of God."

Where's that? We are instructed to pray to, "Our Father which art in heaven." Therefore, the tree of life is now in heaven. Jesus is also in heaven now, preparing the place He will bring back to earth upon His return.

Seems that Jesus and the tree of life are at the same places at the same time.

Until Jesus' return, we are to perform the sacrament of the Lord's Supper that symbolizes our eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood.

Making this long story short, the "tree of life" is simply one of many names for Jesus Christ.

And yes it is a metaphor. Jesus is not really a tree from which we can eat fruit. Drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Jesus is a metaphor for eating fruit from the tree of life. And the tree of life is a metaphor for Jesus.

Jesus states that He will not have another Lord's Supper with us until His return:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)

After Jesus' Second Coming, Jesus will defeat Satan and the earth will once again become part of the paradise called the Kingdom of God, and believers will have access to the Tree of Life for all eternity.

[gegraptai]

All the people got grossed out and left, I guess they must have missed out that he was just talking metaphorically?

The Catholics certainly don't think so with their wafers and wine.

Was Jesus just being metaphorical here when he said "Verily" or are the Catholics on to something?

Communion was certainly a part of early pre-Roman Christian churches to say the least. The Didache testifies to the practice for one thing.

It has to be symbolic rather than literal. The last supper occurred prior to His actual sacrifice on the cross. If it was literal, then the bread and wine He offered to the disciples would have been a sacrifice that hadn't yet occurred. It also couldn't be literal because He was standing right there when He said it, so it couldn't have been his literal body and blood.

And if the Mass, culminating in transubstantiation, is truly a sacrifice as the Catholics believe, then Christ would be sacrificed over and over again. Yet Scripture tells us that He was sacrificed once for all, and that by a single sacrifice believers are perfected:

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

[Shermana]

"who are being sanctified"

Now who is being sanctified exactly, and who is a 'believer'? What is it to be "sanctified"? Isn't that what the Catholics mean with the bread and wine? Sanctification? What is their reasoning behind the practice in its relation to the verses in question? Every early Christian community that followed texts like the Didache had a specific prayer just for the Communion.

Mormons have "Sacrament" with Bread and water instead, although this practice may be from the Book of Mormon and not the Gospels.

I don't ascribe to Ignatius's views, but considering his position in Orthodoxy, this is one of the (generally agreed) Authentic epistles.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

From the Didache

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

[gegraptai]

Now who is being sanctified exactly, and who is a 'believer'?

Here we go again. Are you really going to turn a thread about communion into another, "Only those who keep the Law of Moses are true believers" thread? I'm not buying it and your position is indefensible. If you want to talk about communion, fine, but I'm not going to argue with you about Law and Grace again. I believe I've already shown that you cannot adequately defend being justified by the Law.

Now to answer your question, those who are being sanctified are those who have been justified.

[Kuan]

Mormons have "Sacrament" with Bread and water instead, although this practice may be from the Book of Mormon and not the Gospels.

Sorry, I think that I missed the how this relates to the rest of the post...

And if I may correct you, its not from the Book of Mormon but rather from D&C (Doctrine and Covenants).

[Shermana]

So we have replaced one vague word "sanctified" with another "justified".

I also asked WHAT it means to be sanctified, so you answered the WHO is being sanctified is who is being justified.

So we still have to define Sanctification and now "Justification" requires definition.

[Shermana]

"
Here we go again. Are you really going to turn a thread about communion into another, "Only those who keep the Law of Moses are true believers" thread? I'm not buying it and your position is indefensible."

Actually no, I was going to get into the Didache and early documents that discuss this practice which was done by almost every early Christian community. But as for my position being indefensible, only because of how you choose personally to consider what is defensible. You can interpret Matthew 7:23 how you want, and you can choose to say I'm wrong for interpreting it literally. You can choose to interpret Matthew 5:17-20 to mean "I did not come here to abolish the Law, I came to abolish it" and use the word "fulfill" to mean "abolish" if you wish, I'll choose to use it as the word "fulfilled" is used 100 other times. You can choose to think that Luke 16:16-17 only says "Until John" to mean "no longer than John" even though "heaven and earth will collapse first". You can choose to interpret "til all is accomplished" to mean when he died on the cross if you want, as if that means EVERYTHING is accomplished already, and nothing more is being accomplished. I also brought up 1 John 3:4-6 and I think you said its talking about another Law. And then you said that Romans 3:31 is somehow saying we substitute the Law instead of "uphold/establish/obey". That's your choice if you choose to consider my positions indefensible in the face of your Theological positions of the verses I base my positions on, but don't act like its the single Objective position in the face of the literal text by itself. You asked for proof of early Christian communities obeying the Sabbath, I guess 1 John 3:4-6 which was written after Paul died, is as you say talking about another law or only those re-iterated in the Books Canonized in the NT? Your position that Jesus was preaching to Jews who refused to listen to him regarding running on the Sabbath I asked you to back up and you laughed at and then just said I have no proof, as if your position requires none but mine requires more than that verse and all the verses which mention the Law. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't mention the Sabbath to the rich man, but I mentioned he says "Thou shalt not Fraud" (not in the famous 10, mentioned right after "Don't steal" so its not the same) and you simply went off on the grammar of "Defraud" as if my point didn't register. Neither does Jesus mention thou shalt covet or idolatry or taking the name in vain, so are those laws dropped there with the Sabbath too that aren't mentioned? Since he mentions "Defraud" looks like he might be talking about more than the 10..... He says "You know the commandments" and lists some of them, your argument was because Sabbath isn't mentioned, it's not there. So why is "not defrauding" mentioned if that's not in the original 10?

[Darias]

I being raised Protestant have always viewed Communion as a symbolic tradition. Given the fact that Jesus often spoke in parables, I find it strange that people would apply a literal interpretation to it.

Transubstantiation makes no sense to me. Clearly Jesus knew His life was in danger and he was drawing an analogy between His death and the Passover meal.

I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't understand how people think Welches Grape Juice and bread wafers turn into Jesus' human flesh and blood, except remains in the form of juice and bread. That's a whole world of faith right there. If you believe that my hat's off to you.

For me, Christian Communion seems like an evolution of an actual meal, into a religious custom. Part of me wishes that Christians had stayed true to the Passover tradition -- after all that's what the Last Supper was.

About a decade ago, I had a traditional passover meal at my grandma's Baptist Church. It was great; the herbs were indeed bitter. There was also this sweet stuff that was like oatmeal but fruitier. I can't remember what it was.

I remember it so vividly because I almost caught the table on fire; everyone in the room had pamphlets which had the steps of the passover. There was a rabbi speaking. I was following along when I realized my paper was hovering over one of the burning candles on the table. Needless to say, the paper went up in flames, but it didn't burn anything else thankfully.