English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

At the Last Supper, Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, "this is a symbol of my body and blood."

The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is

So my question is, with these facts alone, why don't you believe in the True Presence?

2006-11-26 12:05:10 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Eric, no. Not canabalim. The early Christians were accused of it too, you know.
1.) We eat for spiritual nourishment, not physical.
2.) We eat the whole, (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity), not part, as canables do.

2006-11-26 12:11:00 · update #1

6 answers

It is NOT symbolic for a Catholic. It is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus because we have the direct succession from the Apostles. I think other denominations defend their belief in its being a symbol because for them it is. It is not the real presence they receive.

Il Padrino: it is not "you cannot be my disciple", it is "You have no life in you" You better go back to the Church so you know the real Bible.

2006-11-26 12:20:38 · answer #1 · answered by Midge 7 · 2 1

Jesus told the Pharasees that "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot be my disciple"

They thought He was nuts because they didn't understand the symbolism behind what it meant. I assume your Catholic by your statements and use of the word "eucharist".

It is meant to be symbolic because in Corinthians, He said, "Do this in rememberence of me". It is a tradition designed for us to remember the sacrafice Jesus made for us. It is not meant to be a voodoo ritual turning bread and wine into real flesh and blood.

Jesus set up this tradition in accordance with the passover. Part of the original requirement that saved the first born from the plague of death was that they had to eat a lamb without spot or blemish. That was a pre-cursor to the significance of Jesus' sacrafice although they didn't know it at the time. That is why Jesus said you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It has nothing to do with a literal transnebutation like the Catholics believe happens.

I used to be Catholic until I started to study the bible for myself. Many things they do traditionally are absolutely against what Christ taught.

Edit:
Excuse me Midge, you are correct about the exact wording. However, it doesn't change the understanding. If you do not have the life of Jesus in you, you cannot be His disciple. Stop straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
There is no way I could go back to being a Catholic after learing the truth. The Christ of Catholicism is not the same Christ as depicted in the bible.
Ask yourself, if Christ said He will cleanse all sin, then why is there a doctrine of purgatory that supposedly cleanses you the rest of the way? Is Christ's blood not enough as He said it was?
Also ask yourself why Mary is such a prominent figure if she was never given that role in the bible? Or why there are statues in the church when one of the 10 commandments clearly says to not have graven images.
Ask yourself why pray a rosary when Christ clearly said to not use vain repetitions when you pray.
You need to ask yourself many questions that the Catholic church does in contradiction to scripture.

2006-11-26 12:14:02 · answer #2 · answered by IL Padrino 4 · 1 1

The Eucharist ritual as much as many christians won't admit it predates Christ and was used by both ancient Jewish and Egyptians

Gn 14:18 "Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …" to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass


the Athenian playwright Euripides (c. 485-406 BC) has the prophet Tiresias observe that Demeter and Dionysus, respectively, gave humanity two indispensable gifts: grain or bread to sustain life and wine to make life bearable. Harris claimed, in line with Michael Cacoyannis's translation of the play (see below), that Tiresias urges his hearers to see in Dionysus's gift of wine a beverage that brings into communion with the divine.[9]

What Euripides, who lived centuries before Christianity, actually wrote is as follows:

For mankind, young man, two elements hold the first place.
The goddess Demeter - that is the soil, whatever name you may wish to call it -
this gives solid nourishment to human beings.
A later arrival, the son of Semele, invented and introduced to mortals
the corresponding liquid drink of the grape-bunch.
It relieves the grief of wretched human beings,
when they are replenished with what flows from the vine.
It bestows sleep, oblivion of each day's troubles.
No other remedy is there for woes.
This, having become a god itself, is poured in libation to the gods,
with the result that it is through it that men have benefits.[11]

the givbing of bread and wine as a relgious sacrement are not solely related to christianity ,

I also suggest you do a websearch of the Mass of the pheonix as this is a form of Eucharist adapted by practioners of High Magick , uses real blood

2006-11-26 12:48:53 · answer #3 · answered by harro_06 4 · 1 1

Sorry, it represents the body and blood of Christ which was shed for us. It to remind us of his sacrifice. Christ gave the disciples bread and wine . . . he didn't carve himself up and give them his flesh or slit a vein and ask them to drink blood. He was present, if he wanted the world to do it literally, He would have done it literally and said use bread and wine when I am not physically present.

2006-11-26 12:09:13 · answer #4 · answered by whozethere 5 · 0 1

Are you sure those are the words he used? I mean you have like an audio or video recording of this or are you just going on the handwritten history written by a man? Just checking...

2006-11-26 12:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by onottopilot 4 · 1 1

Mmmmmm, cannibalism

2006-11-26 12:09:15 · answer #6 · answered by Cartman 5 · 1 1

Do not uphold this sacred mystery for the mockery of those who have no understanding!

2006-11-26 12:10:39 · answer #7 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 0 2

because it's a metaphor, not a simile.
Just because you don't say "like" or "as" doesn't mean it should be taken literally.

2006-11-26 12:08:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers