Eating Jesus

[rizdek]

To me a literal interpretation implies cannibalism, which kind of offends me too, one reason being it sends the wrong message to potential converts especially Jews who are repulsed at the idea. It's just one more doctrine I'm required to untangle when I discuss Jesus. I don't want to derail the topic but that's my position on that interpretation.

(I also replied in the new thread you created, I will discuss it further over there if you want. Thanks.)

Actually it implies worse than that...if such could be the case. It celebrates human sacrifice. It is depressing that so many willingly and gladly partake of this ritual all because their God couldn't (or wouldn't) figure out a better way to accomodate the human weakness of his creation. What is it with God and his need for someone to suffer and blood to be shed. Even if he does have trouble associating with totally sinful beings (which I find preposterous since somehow Jesus managed to do it) or even if somehow his greatness would kill humans if subjected to his full holiness, why does someone have to suffer terribly and die? How is that supposed to work? According to Peter this was the plan from the beginning.

I can well envision God, Jesus and the HolySpirit sitting around the table before creation. Jesus asks brightly, "so what're we going to do today. And God produces his "plan." Jesus the the HolySpirit look it over. The HolySpirit says, well, my part looks easy enough, but Jesus do you see what the plan calls for here? Jesus says, "That's your plan?" "Your going to create life and humans knowing they are going to fail, you're going to wait 4000 years while humans flounder around roasting lambs because they think that will atone for their sins, then I have to go and suffer because they did what you knew they'd do all along? Maybe Holy and I can revise it a bit so it's less confusing and doesn't make you look so dim.

Do you think the real God is going to be offended that this is what Christians believe about him?

[spiritmech]

The answer for Orthodoxy is A. We are fed by a priest (or someone ordained to distribute, such as a deacon) using a spoon. On the spoon is Body and Blood.
sm

[straggler]

Actually it implies worse than that...if such could be the case. It celebrates human sacrifice.
...
Do you think the real God is going to be offended that this is what Christians believe about him?

Clearly you don't understand the Christian theology. It has nothing to do with Jesus blood or the sacrificing of Jesus as a human. As I understand Christian theology from the Christians on TWEB, all you need to do is believe that Jesus was the son of God and accept his forgiveness for sins.

[MarcusAndreas]

The answer is A.

[John Goddard]

Actually it implies worse than that...if such could be the case. It celebrates human sacrifice. It is depressing that so many willingly and gladly partake of this ritual all because their God couldn't (or wouldn't) figure out a better way to accomodate the human weakness of his creation. What is it with God and his need for someone to suffer and blood to be shed. Even if he does have trouble associating with totally sinful beings (which I find preposterous since somehow Jesus managed to do it) or even if somehow his greatness would kill humans if subjected to his full holiness, why does someone have to suffer terribly and die? How is that supposed to work? According to Peter this was the plan from the beginning.

I missed this reply way back when. In short it celebrates obedience to God. In Jesus' cases, even to martyrdom. He suffered for the good of God against evil people so it is most reasonable to blame evil people, not God.

I can well envision God, Jesus and the HolySpirit sitting around the table before creation. Jesus asks brightly, "so what're we going to do today. And God produces his "plan." Jesus the the HolySpirit look it over. The HolySpirit says, well, my part looks easy enough, but Jesus do you see what the plan calls for here? Jesus says, "That's your plan?" "Your going to create life and humans knowing they are going to fail, you're going to wait 4000 years while humans flounder around roasting lambs because they think that will atone for their sins, then I have to go and suffer because they did what you knew they'd do all along? Maybe Holy and I can revise it a bit so it's less confusing and doesn't make you look so dim.

Do you think the real God is going to be offended that this is what Christians believe about him?

I wouldn't put it like that. More like Jesus is a good king who comes to power fighting for his people, feigned defeat in battle to let the evil enemy get lazy while he strengthened his army, then returns to kill the enemy.

Evil people get enough rope to hang themselves, while good people grow stronger.

Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

I think that's a better analogy.

[joel]

Depending on sect it is either purely symbolic or it is believed that the bread and wine are a divine incarnation in food form. Or another way of putting it is that God possesses the bread and wine.

It's not the case anyone thinks the physical substance changes to flesh and blood.

That's not true.

Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation, change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Others believe in consubstantiation, where the substance of the body and blood of Christ is added alongside the substance of the bread.

Others believe that the body and blood of Christ is really present, but in a spiritual/metaphysical sense, rather than physically. This is not to be confused with taking it in a symbolical or figurative sense. I guess it's more like the "God possessing" it, as you put it.

I think all 3 of these fall under answer (A).

[faithymom]

I am a Christian, but not a Catholic.
I don't really have a denomination...most churches I've gone to have been non-denominational.

I take communion as a remembrance of Jesus's broken body and shed blood that paid the debt of my sin.
I hold the ceremony as symbolic.

[tomsawyer25]

Shalom Tanakh Keeper,

I take the bread and wine to have the real presence of Yeshua. Exactly how to define that I can not say. It challenges one's notions of "to be"

I believe that to be a minority opinion among Messianic Jews.

Regards,

Tom

[Rushing Jaws]

Shalom Yall

Another dilemma has occurred on a Jewish website about Christian practices. We were talking about the bread and wine that yall eat in your services. Several different opinions are being debated, and I want to ask Christians about Christian practices. Regarding the meaning of the wine and bread (wafers?), is it:

a) Actually eating your god’s blood and body,
b) Symbolically eating your god’s blood and body,
c) Eating wine and bread as a remembrance of your god’s death, or
d) Eating wine and bread as a remembrance of your god’s blood and body.

It’s been opinioned that different denominations have different answers. So if you could also state your denomination when answering that would be very helpful to me.

As a side issue, whenever I’ve seen this practice in movies, the congregants are always kneeling and being hand-fed by the priest. Is this the normal practice?

Another side issue, can grape juice be used instead of wine? Can the wine or grape juice be white instead of red?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

## Answer a) is usually treated as being the Catholic doctrine & practice; the matter is not quite so simple. Answers a) to c) inclusive are all parts of the Catholic doctrine & practice, but do not exhaust it.

Only wine, mixed with some water, can be used, & not grape-juice. In the Roman Rite unleavened bread is to be used; leavened bread would be valid, but illicit. In at least some Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches leavened bread is licit as well as valid. I'm not well informed about the details of the non-Roman Churches. FWIW, Ukrainian Catholics administer the Eucharist, as well as Confirmation, to newly-baptised infants; reasonably enough: First Communion in the Roman Rite is deferred until the child is able tell the difference between the Eucharist & common bread. Ukrainian Catholics receive under both kinds on a spoon: another interesting & important variation from the practice familiar to most Catholics, the vast majority of whom belong to the Roman Rite.

From a Catholic POV, talk of "eating Jesus" is gravely, if subtly, inaccurate. The Person of Christ is not eaten; the Body, which is not the person, is eaten & His Blood drunken. To speak of a subject named Jesus, is to speak of a person. (There is the further awkwardness that the only the Divine Person of the Incarnate Word is the personal subject of the Incarnation - there is no *human* person here; but let's not complicate things.)

Present poster's theoretical religious affiliation: RC

[Tanakh Keeper]

a) Actually eating your god’s blood and body,
b) Symbolically eating your god’s blood and body,

the matter is not quite so simple. Answers a) to c) inclusive are all parts of the Catholic doctrine & practice, but do not exhaust it.

I don't understand how A and B can both be right. A is only actual and B is only symbolical. How can be both be true?

From a Catholic POV, talk of "eating Jesus" is gravely, if subtly, inaccurate. The Person of Christ is not eaten; the Body, which is not the person, is eaten & His Blood drunken.

Unless your deity has one name for his person and a different name for his body, I don't see how my question is inaccurate.