Christ's Flesh & Blood

[Webers_Home]

.
I feel confident that in order to properly understand the Lord's Supper
(a.k.a. Communion) it's necessary to begin with the origin of Christ's body.

His blood began its curious odyssey first by divine edict.

● 1Pet 1:18-20 . . For you know that it was not with perishable things such
as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed
down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a
lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the
world.

His flesh began its own curious odyssey with Adam and his wife Eve.

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

To my knowledge, none of Eve's children were virgin-conceived; but even
had they been, those would've still been Adam's children because her body
was made with materials taken from his.

● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and,
while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a
woman

The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the
only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an
English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places,
it's translated "side" which is really how tsela' should be translated because
according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam included some of his
flesh; and seeing as how the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then
I think it's safe to assume that the flesh God took from Adam's body to
construct the woman contained some of his blood too.

The most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created
directly from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet creation, i.e.
Eve wasn't her own unique specie.

Being as Eve was constructed from Adam's flesh, blood, and bones, then the
flesh, blood, and bones of her body were reproductions of his flesh, blood,
and bones. Therefore any and all progeny produced by Eve's body, whether
virgin-conceived or normally conceived, would consist of Adam's body, i.e.
they would be his progeny just as much as Eve's if any part of her body was
in any way at all involved in the conception.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
The Lord's body was not only Eve's biological progeny, but also David's.

● Luke 1:31-32 . . the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

When Joseph adopted Jesus into Solomon's lineage, it gave the child a legal
opportunity to inherit David's throne, but it didn't give him a natural
opportunity, viz: in order to fully qualify as a candidate for the throne, Jesus
absolutely had to be David's biological progeny.

● Ps 89:3-4 . . I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to
David My servant: I will establish your seed forever, and build up your
throne to all generations

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from which He will not
turn back: Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.

● Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto
David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.

The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the natural requirement in
those Psalms.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to
biological progeny; for example:

● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. But the seed in Rom 1:1-3 is
biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his
physical human body.

David's seed according to the flesh not only validates Jesus' natural
candidacy for David's throne, but also verifies that Adam was Jesus'
biological progenitor because the Bible traces David's lineage all the way
back there in Luke's genealogy.

But even without Luke's information, it's easy to prove that Adam was
David's biological progenitor simply by referring to the fact that all human
beings, regardless of race or color, are Adam's biological progeny; which of
course includes David.

● Gen 3:20 . .The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the
mother of all living.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man God made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

Now, unless somebody can prove clearly, conclusively, iron clad, and without
spin and sophistry that David's body was in no way biologically related to
either Eve's body or Adam's, then we have to conclude that baby Jesus'
body was also biologically related to Eve's and Adam's bodies due to his
natural descent from David, and then there's also this to consider too:

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Just about everybody agrees that passage in Genesis refers to Christ.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Eph 2:3 . . .We were by nature objects of wrath.

When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just
as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till
Adam tasted the fruit that her conscience was altered.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, pass
it on to her biologically by means of procreation, nor by means of his body
parts that God used to construct Eve.

Now, the question is: Whence did Eve obtain her so-called fallen nature?
Well it clearly wasn't from the chemistry of the fruit because it had no effect
upon her. And it didn't come from Adam either because she was born before
he ate it.

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My
money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with
the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph
2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death
the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me
how quickly it sets in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

In other words: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological
father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called
fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's
biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father: the Devil--
ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a
simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via
a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the
world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: If it's true that the Lord's body was David's biological progeny, and
true that David's body was Eve's biological progeny, and true that Eve's
body was Adam's biological progeny, then it must be that Christ's body is
Adam's biological progeny. Well then; how was Christ not affected by the so
called original sin?

A: Christ shared the ramifications associated with eating the forbidden fruit
just the same as all the rest of Adam's biological progeny.

● Rom 5:12-13 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

The term "all sinned" is grammatically past tense; indicating that everyone,
that is in any way, biologically related to Adam, even those yet to be born,
are accounted as having tasted the forbidden fruit for themselves back then,
in real time, i.e. right along with Adam.

The iron-clad evidence that the Lord was effected by Adam's sin was his
death. Had Christ been 100% clear of Adam's transgression, his body
would've been immortal; viz: impossible to kill.

● Rom 5:17 . . By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that
one man

FAQ: What does any of this Adam stuff have to do with the Communion
service?

A: Primarily because it's a sin to partake of the Lord's Supper while not
knowing anything about its details.

● 1Cor 11:28-29 . . A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It's important to know that the diners don't eat 100% sinless flesh in the
communion service. They eat flesh tainted by at least one sin: Adam's. The
reason being that they eat the Lord's natural flesh-- the flesh that hung on
the cross --rather than his supernatural flesh-- the flesh that's now seated
alongside God up in heaven.

However, in reality, the diners are eating flesh tainted by far more sins than
only Adam's; their own sins are in the mix too.

● Isa 53:6 . . Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

FAQ: How can we be sure that the Communion elements represent the
Lord's natural flesh?

A: Because during the last supper, Jesus designated his soon to be crucified
body rather than the body he has now.

● 1Cor 11:23-26 . . The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took
bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: This is my body,
which is 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; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance
of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes.
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you for yet another thinly-veiled anti-Catholic attack.

As it happens, Christ was born from sinless flesh and therefore was not tainted himself by Original Sin.
His Father is God, so there is no sin here, either.

Mary’s title of "Kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28 assures us that she was perfected in grace before the Angel visited her. The term, "Kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”
The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, “Hail, Kecharitomene.”

This Scriptural and linguistic truth is also the constant living Tradition of the 2000 year-old Church - and testified to by the UNANIMOUS witness of the Early Church Fathers:

Irenaeus
Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya
A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug
The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary [ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist
Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[Illuminator]

.
FAQ: If it's true that the Lord's body was David's biological progeny, and
true that David's body was Eve's biological progeny, and true that Eve's
body was Adam's biological progeny, then it must be that Christ's body is
Adam's biological progeny. Well then; how was Christ not affected by the so
called original sin?

A: Christ shared the ramifications associated with eating the forbidden fruit
just the same as all the rest of Adam's biological progeny.

● Rom 5:12-13 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

The term "all sinned" is grammatically past tense; indicating that everyone,
that is in any way, biologically related to Adam, even those yet to be born,
are accounted as having tasted the forbidden fruit for themselves back then,
in real time, i.e. right along with Adam.

The iron-clad evidence that the Lord was effected by Adam's sin was his
death. Had Christ been 100% clear of Adam's transgression, his body
would've been immortal; viz: impossible to kill.

● Rom 5:17 . . By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that
one man

FAQ: What does any of this Adam stuff have to do with the Communion
service?

A: Primarily because it's a sin to partake of the Lord's Supper while not
knowing anything about its details.

● 1Cor 11:28-29 . . A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It's important to know that the diners don't eat 100% sinless flesh in the
communion service. They eat flesh tainted by at least one sin: Adam's. The
reason being that they eat the Lord's natural flesh-- the flesh that hung on
the cross --rather than his supernatural flesh-- the flesh that's now seated
alongside God up in heaven.

However, in reality, the diners are eating flesh tainted by far more sins than
only Adam's; their own sins are in the mix too.

● Isa 53:6 . . Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

FAQ: How can we be sure that the Communion elements represent the
Lord's natural flesh?

A: Because during the last supper, Jesus designated his soon to be crucified
body rather than the body he has now.

● 1Cor 11:23-26 . . The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took
bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: This is my body,
which is 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; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance
of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes.
_

So you are saying that Jesus is really there (Jesus designated his soon to be crucified body)
but He is not really there (the body he has now).

Either Jesus’ body and blood are substantially present or not. If they are, then they are really there! You can’t deny that the elements are transformed (Catholic view) or joined by the true body and blood (Lutheranism) and still hold that there is substantial or “real” presence. Why? Because this is an internal contradiction. Calvin is saying that Jesus is simultaneously there and not there. Even God is bound to that sort of elementary logical distinction. God can’t be and not be at the same time. And He can’t be “here” and “not here” at the same time.

Miracles are not irrational. The supernatural is not irrational; it simply transcends natural laws governing matter or is outside of it (as spirit, since science and naturalism deals with matter). It will do no good to simply say, “it is above our understanding, and so we will construct irrational scenarios and not try to make them coherent.
It’s a mystery . . . ”

The bottom line is my original criticism about this “mystical view” of Calvin: if Jesus is really there it seems that he must adopt either a Catholic or Lutheran position. If He isn’t really (substantially?) there, then the Calvinist Eucharist is scarcely distinguishable from the omnipresence of God or Zwinglianism. So God is there but is not “really” or “substantially” there. So what? How is that particularly special or unique? It still appears to me to be a “mystical Zwinglianism.”

I don’t understand how saying Jesus is “mystically” (but not substantially) present is logically distinguishable from pure Zwinglian symbolism, or how this is a miracle at all, because Jesus is already “mystically present” at all times and even lives within us. What sense does it make to say that “He is always here spiritually and now He is here ‘in Spirit more than He was’ “? Spirits have no spatial or quantitative qualities. It reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witness “invisible” return of Jesus in 1914. No one saw anything, but it really happened!

If we take away the conversion of the elements and transubstantiation, the distinctiveness and “sacramentality” of the miracle is abolished, thus we deprive the rite of its very essence. Unless something physical is there, it can’t be a sacrament, by definition, because a sacrament is the conveying of grace by physical means. If it isn’t substantial, it reduces to symbolism, because why should we receive a spiritual presence that we already have through omnipresence and the indwelling? So it strikes me as betwixt and between; neither fish nor fowl.

Calvin’s and the Calvinist eucharistic view involves massive self-contradiction:

1. Jesus is physically present in the Supper.

2. But He is physically present at the right hand of God.

3. We are physically present with Christ in the Supper.

4. But we are physically present with Christ at the right hand of God.

Contradictions: 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, and 1 vs. 4.

Why take this view but oppose the view that Jesus is sacramentally present in the Supper? God can perform miracles but He can’t transcend the laws of logic. If we want to restrict ourselves solely to the literal post-Resurrection body of Christ, then we can’t say that is “physically present” in the Supper while simultaneously at the right hand of God, because that is a contradiction, as much as it would be a contradiction to say that Jesus was physically present in Jerusalem during His crucifixion, but simultaneously at the Sea of Galilee.

But the Catholic view is not contradictory because the miracle of transubstantiation is an additional mode of presence of Jesus that is physical in a way approximating spiritual omnipresence (similar in a sense to His post-Resurrection body when He appeared to His disciples and seemed to walk through walls). We are not with Jesus in heaven yet but He is sacramentally and eucharistically with us, by the miracle of the transformation of the elements. In other words, one has to posit the additional miracle of transubstantiation (or at least consubstantiation) in order to have the physical presence.

If Calvin and the Reformed believe that we are actually transported to heaven to meet Jesus there (during Holy Communion), why is it so difficult to believe that He can substantially be present here under the appearances of bread and wine? Both scenarios involve something that transcends our senses, and must be believed on faith. But I think one involves a logical contradiction and the other does not.

We say it is the accidents which are spiritual and not what they appear to be. So Reformed say, “He is truly here physically, but you are not physically eating His body.” Catholics say, “He is truly here physically, and you are physically eating His body, even though it appears to be merely bread and wine.” I do see a certain symmetry between the two views because both are saying that you have to deny the evidence of your senses and believe that something miraculous is taking place. The difference is that we cannot yet be in heaven with Jesus because we are not yet glorified bodies and spirits as He is. He can make Himself physically present with us because He is God and can do anything. We can’t literally be with Jesus in heaven until we die and go there or unless we have some miraculous experience like Paul, being taken up to the third heaven.

Sure, we must all admit that God could conceivably perform a miracle like that, too, but I see no reason to believe that He in fact does, because there is no indication in Scripture that such a thing occurs at every Eucharist. Thus, I would say that the Reformed view fails the tests both of Scripture and patristic belief.

We’re told by Reformed that Jesus is physically present at the Lord’s Supper, but not in the bread (or what was formerly bread). This makes no sense, and is contradictory:
read more here

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 6:53 . . I tell you the truth: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

I'm not dead, I'm alive, or so I thought anyway. Apparently the kind of life
that I have as a creature is existence, which is in some way, somehow,
technically different than life. So then, if I exist without life; then I must be
a dead man walking, so to speak.

Well; in point of fact, the kind of life that Jesus spoke of is eternal life; which
is quite a bit different than human life.

● John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Eternal life is impervious to death; simply put, it cannot be killed nor can it
grow old and die. Jesus had it prior to his crucifixion.

● John 5:26 . . As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son
to have life in himself.

● 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands
have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the
eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Eternal Life and Immortality are not synonymous because the Lord's eternal
life didn't prevent his death on the cross.

And according to John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too, but it didn't
prevent their deaths either. They're all gone.

Note the grammatical tense of the statement below; it's present tense rather
than future, indicating that when people correctly eat and drink the Lord's
flesh and blood, they obtain eternal life immediately-- no delay and no
waiting period.

● John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Whereas according to 1Cor 15:51-53, they obtain immortality later.

Most importantly; seeing as eternal life can't be destroyed, then there is no
need to keep coming back for it over and over again on a weekly basis. One
helping of eternal life is all somebody needs because eternal life doesn't get
old, it doesn't wear out, it doesn't get weak, nor does it die, i.e. once
somebody has eternal life, they're stuck with it.

● John 3:16 . . For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only
Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

● John 10:27-28 . . My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they
follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish
_

 

[farouk]

.
● John 6:53 . . I tell you the truth: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

I'm not dead, I'm alive, or so I thought anyway. Apparently the kind of life that I have as a creature is existence, which is in some way, somehow, technically different than life. So then, if I exist without life; then I must be a dead man walking, so to speak.

Well; in point of fact, the kind of life that Jesus spoke of is eternal life; which is quite a bit different than human life.

● John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Eternal life is impervious to death; simply put, it cannot be killed nor can it grow old and die. Jesus had it prior to his crucifixion.

● John 5:26 . . As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

● 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Eternal Life and Immortality are not synonymous because the Lord's eternal life didn't prevent his death on the cross.

And according to John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too, but it didn't prevent their deaths either. They're all gone.

Note the grammatical tense of the statement below; it's present tense rather than future, indicating that when people correctly eat and drink the Lord's flesh and blood, they obtain eternal life immediately-- no delay and no waiting period.

● John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Whereas according to 1Cor 15:51-53, they obtain immortality later.

Most importantly; seeing as eternal life can't be destroyed, then there is no need to keep coming back for it over and over again on a weekly basis. One helping of eternal life is all somebody needs because eternal life doesn't get old, it doesn't wear out, it doesn't get weak, nor does it die, i.e. once somebody has eternal life, they're stuck with it.

● John 3:16 . . For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

● John 10:27-28 . . My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish
_

I don't see the Lord's Supper in John 6 at all; John 6 is indeed speaking of saving faith in the Person and Work of Christ.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Now, the question is: which form of Jesus' body are people supposed to eat?
The body he got from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and
Rev 22:16, or the body he has now up in heaven per Rom 6:9 and1Tim
6:14-16?

The reason to ask is because we're talking about two very different kinds of
flesh. That of his original body was normal, natural flesh, whereas the flesh
of his glorified body is supernatural.

The Lord's natural flesh no longer exists. His body underwent a sort of
metamorphosis when it was transformed into the condition in which it is
today; yet the wording of the last supper strongly suggests that it's his
normal, natural flesh, that Jesus instructed his men to eat.

● Luke 22:19 . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke
it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.

Jesus didn't give his supernatural body for them; he gave them his soon to
be crucified body; i.e. his normal, natural body; the one he got from Adam,
Eve, and David.

In addition; Jesus specifically identified his normal, natural body, as the
source of the flesh that's to be eaten.

● John 6:51 . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if
anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall
give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Jesus came down from heaven with normal, natural flesh: that which he got
from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16; so
then that's the bread people are supposed to eat.

This may seem splitting hairs, but unless people eat Jesus' normal, natural
flesh, they will not only fail to to obtain eternal life, but also fail to obtain
immortality.

● John 6:58 . .This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as
the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

This situation is very problematic for Catholics because the Lord's original
flesh and blood aren't available for transubstantiation. But in order for
transubstantiation to work properly, it has to reproduce the Lord's body the
way it was on the cross rather than the way it is now in heaven; otherwise
the service will proclaim his resurrection while failing to proclaim his death in
accord with 1Cor 11:23-26.

NOTE: I don't as yet know the exact chemical properties and/or substance
of the Lord's supernatural flesh, but I do at least know two of its
characteristics besides immortality:

1) It can imbibe ordinary beverages.

● Matt 26:29 . . I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

2) It can dine upon ordinary foods.

● Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

● Luke 22:28-30 . . You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I
confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that
you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom
_

 

[Joseph77]

This abominable idea of "flesh", as if physical flesh at all, totally and ridiculously and utterly fails

Jesus' Words "My Words ARE SPIRIT, and they ARE LIFE".

Just as the food Jesus ate was "to do the Father's Will".

yet the wording of the last supper strongly suggests that it's his
normal, natural flesh, that Jesus instructed his men to eat.

● Luke 22:19 . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke
it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.

Jesus didn't give his supernatural body for them; he gave them his soon to
be crucified body; i.e. his normal, natural body; the one he got from Adam,
Eve, and David.

In addition; Jesus specifically identified his normal, natural body, as the
source of the flesh that's to be eaten.

● John 6:51 . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if
anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall
give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Jesus came down from heaven with normal, natural flesh: that which he got
from Adam, Eve, and David per Gen 3:15, Rom 1:1-3, and Rev 22:16; so
then that's the bread people are supposed to eat.

This may seem splitting hairs, but unless people eat Jesus' normal, natural
flesh, they will not only fail to to obtain eternal life, but also fail to obtain
immortality.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 6:48-52 . . . I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven,
that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down
from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; 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?

The flesh that Jesus would give for the life of the world was standing right
there before them. But they misunderstood him to mean cannibalism. Well;
he laid that idea to rest with this statement:

● John 6:61-62 . . Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus
said to them: Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend
to where he was before?

In other words; in order for people to successfully cannibalize Jesus' body, it
would have to be accessible where they could cut into it with a knife and
fork. Were he to depart for heaven, which he eventually did; people would
lose access to his body and thus find it impossible to comply with his
teaching. So we can rule out a literal meaning of his words right off the bat.

Jesus' teachings were supernatural, i.e. somewhat cryptic.

● John 6:63 . .The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I
have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Spirit words oftentimes contain hidden meanings not easily discerned by
human intelligence.

● 1Cor 2:13-15 . .We speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in
words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The
man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned.

Jesus' spirit words were not well-received by the audience that day.

● John 6:66 . . From this time many of his disciples turned back and no
longer followed him.

Well; no surprise there. The reason they gave up on Jesus was simply
because they were listening to his spirit words with human ears instead of
hearing them with ears provided by God; ergo:

● John 6:63-65 . .There are some of you who do not believe. This is why I
told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.

In order to get in on the Father's enabling, people must first be confident
that Jesus' teachings are reliable.

● John 6:67-69 . . You do not want to leave too, do you? Jesus asked the
twelve. Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have
the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of
God.

That was easily the wisest decision Peter ever made. Though he didn't have
a clue what Jesus was talking about in this section, our guy was confident
that Jesus was the voice of God. That's a really, really good place to start
with Christ.

● John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: Didn't the Lord clearly state that the bread and wine were his flesh and
blood? (Matt 26:27-28)

A: Not all things "clearly stated" in the New Testament are meant to be
taken literally; for example:

Was John the Baptist really a reincarnation of Elijah the prophet?

● Matt 11:14 . . And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to
come.

Is Christ really a beast with two horns, cloven hooves, and fleece covering
its skin?

● John 1:35-36 . .The next day John was there again with two of his
disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said: Look, the lamb of God!

● Rev 13:8 . . All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose
names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the lamb that
was slain from the creation of the world.

Is Jesus really a garden planting?

● John 15:1 . . I am the true vine

Is Jesus really a geological feature like those in Utah's Canyon Lands?

● Matt 21:42 . . Jesus saith unto them: Did ye never read in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the
corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

● Acts 4:11 . . He is the stone you builders rejected

Does Jesus belong in a zoo?

● Rev 5:5 . . .Then one of the elders said to me: Do not weep! See, the Lion
of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed.

Was his piety adequate nourishment to keep Jesus from getting hungry?

● John 4:34 . . My food, said Jesus, is to do the will of Him who sent me
and to finish his work.
_

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

1Pet 1:18-20 . . For you know that it was not with perishable things such
as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed
down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a
lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the
world.[/Quote\]

At the end of this scripture you quoted, the phrase, "before the creation of the world," I disagree with that translation because the Greek word there, "kataboles" has for its first definition:

(1) A throwing or laying down
(a) the injection or depositing
of the virile semen in the
womb
(b) of the seed of plants and animals
This tells me that Jesus was chosen after Adam and Eve sinned but before Eve conceived and got pregnant.
I know that this Greek word has for it's 2nd definition as, "a laying down foundation" but it would still have to be in agreement with the first definition, otherwise you're translating scripture to teach people that God's plan included sin and death or that it was God will or purpose that Adam and Eve be disobedient so that a savior would be needed. I myself don't believe it was God will or part of his plan or purpose that sin and death would be included in his plan or purpose.
Sure Adam and Eve were disobedient when they ate the forbidden fruit, but that doesn't mean that it was God's will that Adam and Eve be disobedient, nor does it mean that God looked into the future before creating mankind to see if Adam would sin or not.
I've never found a scripture that said that God did look into the future to see if Adam would sin. I know that God has the ability to see the future but that doesn't mean that he did look into the future before creating Adam.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: Well then; how might somebody actually go about eating and drinking
the Lord's flesh and blood if not literally?

A: There's really only one sane way to go about it; based upon Jesus'
statement that his words are life rather than his flesh (John 6:63). It's
simply a matter of following the prophet Jeremiah's example.

"When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's
delight" (Jer 15:16)

In other words: the correct way to eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood is by
swallowing his teachings hook, line, and sinker; so to speak.

● John 5:24 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and
believes in the one who sent me has eternal life, and will not come to
condemnation, but has passed from death to life.

● John 6:47 . . I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

FAQ: Which teachings?

A: Start with the one below.

● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story
short: Moses' people became weary of eating manna all the time at every
meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine
benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational;
angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; God
sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking
people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged
Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image
of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying
from venom could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the
people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church
attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not
the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday
school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments,
not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing
else would suffice to save their lives.

As an allegory, the brazen serpent indicates that Christ's crucifixion for the
sins of the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and
when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they
qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion as
the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears, are already on the
docket to face it.

● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does
not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
name of God's one and only Son.

His son's "name" in this case is relative to the brazen serpent incident.
_