Where do you suppose they came up with the term Blood is thicker than water?
2007-03-09 05:01:16 · 16 answers · asked by Midge 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Better yet, no one has ever been able to explain this:
The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).
Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
2007-03-09 05:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by SpiritRoaming 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I fail to see how those two things have anything to do with each other. The term blood is thicker than water refers to family relationships, how does that apply to communion?
2007-03-09 05:05:14 · answer #2 · answered by real illuminati(Matt) 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Okay, you just jumped the shark with that one. Those little wafers DO NOT magically turn into the flesh and blood of a guy who's been dead for 2000 years. Okay, NO. Get a grip.
And they came up with the term "blood is thicker than water" because it is. It has to do with family, not Jesus.
2007-03-09 05:06:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who knows?
I'm not Christian and this is the first I've heard of that saying being attributed to Jesus.
My guess is that it is based on the significance of family relations.
Or, it could simply be a literal observation, as the viscosity of blood is, in fact, thicker than water.
2007-03-09 05:06:11 · answer #4 · answered by docscholl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Blood is thicker than water, reflects on family relations, being stronger than other relations. It has nothing to do with religion.
And as a blood donor, I can assure you blood is, in fact, thicker than water.
2007-03-09 05:14:23 · answer #5 · answered by thijspieters 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because blood IS thicker than water.
Also, don't you think that the body of Christ could have just a little more taste? Come on. He's the creator of the universe, and all the food, too. His blood tastes like juice, but his body is bland, bland, bland. Couldn't he just be a little salty or something?
2007-03-09 05:08:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do you constantly use little sayings that have nothing to do with the point to try and prove the unprovable?
The saying "Blood is thicker than water" has nothing to do with communion.
2007-03-09 05:08:00 · answer #7 · answered by millajovovichsboyfriend 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I doubt that phrase came from Holy Communion.
Not to be picky, but I'd think that whether Communion is the body of Christ or is symbolic, is of little importance for 2 reasons: 1. In the case that it's the other way of than you believe, your believing won't change it. 2. The physical body of Christ is not the thing being venerated by Communion but his sacrifice.
It's questions like these that make me glad to be an atheist.
2007-03-09 05:10:38 · answer #8 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
.... um OK? Why do you take communion more than once when Jesus said He who driks and eats of me will never thirst or hunger again? You guys eat those things every other week as if your still hungry... maybe its because its not the body and the blood of Jesus.
Besides eating the flesh and blood of a man is a sin. Jesus was using something called symbolism.
2007-03-09 05:07:35 · answer #9 · answered by Tripper 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, I suppose they came up with that expression because blood is thicker than water.
2007-03-09 05:05:14 · answer #10 · answered by happygirl 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋