This is, yet again, an attempt by the Usual Suspects to make the Eucharist strictly symbolic. The argument goes, “If it wasn’t symbolic, then Christ broke the Law, and Christ never broke the Law.”
Except when He healed a man on the Sabbath, or publicly forgave a man his sins which only God could do, or interrupted the legal stoning of the woman taken in adultery, or ate grain from a field on the Sabbath...
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did. But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
If we had an open forum with Jewish posters willing to participate on this issue, it would be clear that this is not possible without God himself abrogating his own word, but I do understand that this is essential doctrine for Christians and that it is a core belief which cannot be compromised, or else the whole thing falls apart.
But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
You are thinking logically and clearly, JA. No one walked away when he said he was the vine and they were the branches, or when he said he was the light, and the way, just as no one walks away when we speak of the "Christian heart" for that matter, because no one takes these expressions literally.
His followers left him, as you say, because they understood his words as literal cannibalistic implications and Jesus made no effor to dispel their impression.
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did. But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Acts 17:24 - Not in a Monstrance or Roman tabernacle
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Matt 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom
Don't you believe that Jesus kept the Law perfectly?
Except when He healed a man on the Sabbath, or publicly forgave a man his sins which only God could do, or interrupted the legal stoning of the woman taken in adultery, or ate grain from a field on the Sabbath...
Oh, I guess not.....
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did.
Now He did ? Which is it. Did He or didn't He?
But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
Jesus also said that if the woman at the well drank the water He gave her that she'd never thirst and taht anyone who drank it would have springs of living water flowing from them? Is that literal or symbolic?
Jesus said He was the bread of life. Does that make Him the Pillsbury Dough Boy?
He said he was the door to the sheepfold and the true vine. Is He made of wood or green and leafy?
Jesus called the cup *the fruit of the vine, as recorded in three of the Gospels.
Why don't Catholics insist on reading THAT literally? It's part of the same passage of the Last Supper said immediately after saying the cup is the new covenant in His blood.
Or are we again, dealing with selective literal/figurative/metaphorical interpretation on a sentence by sentence basis with no consideration of applying the same standards to the entire passage.
Catholics are astounding in their ability to reconcile and state two contradictory statements and proclaim that they're both true and not contradictory.
Scripture cannot be broken. Jesus did not eat His own flesh and blood in violation of the Law. He did not force His disciples to, neither did they in Peter's own words.
In either case, Jesus would have sinned and he could not have been the perfect sinless sacrifice for our sins.