Why wouldn't one rush (Jesus) and strip a hunk of bloody flesh?


These quotes were moved from a thread where they were totally off topic, and succeeding in derailing the thread.

Jesus’ body had not yet been given, MfM. He gave them the consecrated bread and wine at the last supper, then gave his own flesh on the cross the next day. After that, they disciples sunk their teeth into Him. They were too polite to “bum rush” the Lord. Out of respect for His body, they waited until He gave it to them. :thumbsup:


Of course, Martin forgets that virtually all save the disciples, on hearing the words of Jesus, found the saying ‘too hard’ and left Him.

He also forgets that the Real Presence is not only taught and practiced by Catholics, but by the Orthodox and has such has been ongoing for some 2000 years. . .whereas the erroneous and misinterpreted ‘symbolic’ treatment of ‘bread and wine’ was something ‘dug up’ a mere 400 years or so ago, and that even some Protestants (Lutherans and high church Episcopalians) still believe in “real flesh and blood”.

So. . .1500 years of ‘false interpretation’ by ‘all’ Christians, followed by another 500 years or ‘false interpretaton’ by many Christians, as opposed to 400-500 years of sudden ‘truth’ by the ‘symbolic crowd’?

I dinna think sae.


What an eye-opening example of how some non-Catholics see communion. The answer is : we don’t TAKE Communion. We RECEIVE it as a gift. People rushing up to bite Jesus would be TAKING something from Him, which is not what Communion is all about. Communion is passively receiving what Jesus gives when Jesus sees fit to give it. The first time Jesus gave us this gift was at the Last Supper.


Because his diciples had more respect, more awe, more decorum, more common decency and more fear of God than some Protestant apologists who think up lurid and disgusting questions to attack Catholic doctrine.


Oh good heavens…What a:eek: horrible, horrible thing for MFM to say. That’s just :mad: outrageous.
:rolleyes: Lovely attitude toward the Lord Jesus Christ, Martin. For shame!!

Its like I keep saying: There are some people who just seem to :frowning: hate Catholics more than they love Jesus…:frowning:
But that’s:eek: beyond all bounds.


Dictionary.com Unabridged
**ar·ro·gance **
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

American Heritage Dictionary - **ig·no·rance ** (ĭg’nər-əns)
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Sounds more like ignorance. But I think MFM needs a better explanation on why we believe this.

Lets see if we can show him the great mystery of our faith.

Who is up for the challenge?


In Genesis 1 we see how powerful the word of God is

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

In John 6 again we see how powerful the word of God is when He says

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

It is a statement. Jesus said “This bread is my flesh”

A metaphor is when someone says “it is raining cats and dogs outside” We know cats and dogs don’t fall from the sky. We understand it means it is raining hard.

Jesus did not say the bread is like my flesh.

He said it IS!

The miracle of the bread and the fish was a foreshadow of what was to come!

Jesus feeding all of us!

Having us share His Flesh and Blood like a real family!

Jesus is the Passover meal that we share!

Don’t you see the connection?

The Jewish people took the blood of an unblemished lamb (Jesus) and took some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts (made of wood = the cross) Then they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Exodus 12

All sacrifices were to be eaten!

C.S Lewis said Jesus said to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, not eat the flesh and understand!!!

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “**This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” **

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?

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

They took what Jesus said as a statement!! Because it** was**!!!

I believe in the power of the word of God and that anything is possible for God!

Don’t you believe God fed the many people the bread and fish?
Don’t you believe that God changed the water into wine?
Don’t you believe that God healed the sick?
Don’t you believe that God raised the dead?
Don’t you believe God fed His people manna from heaven?
Don’t you believe God parted the Red Sea?


I like that old saying that says “You are what you eat”.

If you eat a symbol, then you are a symbol.

If you eat the “real thing”, then you are the “real thing”.

Protestants are a symbol of christianity, Catholics are the real thing.:thumbsup:


Could you imagine if it did happen though? Jesus would whirl around and ask:

“Who bit me!? I felt the life-blood gong out of me!”

And the disciples: “Lord, the crowd is pressing on all sides – What to you mean, *Who bit me? *?”…




This (above) is an excellent post!:thumbsup:

At the time, I believe the Apostles and disciples who DID stay were also confused by what Jesus expressed to them. The difference between those who walked away and those who remained was that those who remained abandoned their will to Him who has the words of eternal life. Peter may have been confused, but he demonstrated strong faith and humble submission.


[quote=fellowChristian]A metaphor is when someone says “it is raining cats and dogs outside” We know cats and dogs don’t fall from the sky. We understand it means it is raining hard.

”It is raining cats and dogs,” is not a metaphor, it’s an idiom

Here are some others:He’s the top dog around here. (ie., the one in charge)

It’s time to hit the sack. (ie., time to go to bed)

He spilled his guts. (ie., confessed; told the truth)

She had a cow when I got home late last night. (ie., she was angry)

I’m just pulling your leg. (ie., teasing, joking)

They’re horsing around. (ie., silly playing)

It’s still up in the air. (ie., it is uncertain)

I punched his lights out. (ie., I hit him)

You hit the nail on the head. (ie., you got it right)

Here are two biblical idioms:**John 6:51

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

**(ie., physical bodies live temporally by eating bread, the new life is nourished by feeding on Christ in the heart by faith).

John 6:53

So Jesus said to them, “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 yourselves.

(ie., except you feed on Christ in the heart and partake of His life (be covered by His blood in faith—the life is in the blood—you have no life in you).

[quote=fellowChristian]It is a statement. Jesus said "This bread is my flesh"

The blue in your post is a metaphor.

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

This is my body…this is my blood

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.


Well, that is just not true. The Catholic church only formerly defined the doctrine in around the year 1215.


Wow, I find the quotes from MfM not even worth the bandwidth. :rolleyes:


“Formally defined” is not the same as “first taught”. It seems we have to point out this distinction at least once a day here.


Doctrines are believed long before they are “formally defined.” 1215 was the year that trasubstantiation was formally defined — not the year that people began believing it.

I forget who was the first Reformer to propse that the Eucharist was merely symbolic. It wasn’t Luther, I know that much. Was it Calvin?


:banghead: Actually, you seem to be a bit mistaken or confused. Catholic belief in the Real Presence is ancient and evidenced by the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. What happened in 1215 is that we finally came up with the right word to use to describe the change from bread and wine to Christ’s flesh and blood: transubstantiation.

Hope this helps. :thumbsup:

Have a blessed day.


[quote="Palladio]Let’s end the ad hominem here and get on with the true faith and right reason which concerns all Catholics.

For it to have been ad hominem it would have had to be against mfm himself. As it stands, the comments have been against what mfm says.

We have already set out diverse and enlarging points of view on this same subject on this thread:

Why did He let them walk away?

On this I disagree. I think John 6 portends in part the advent of Protestantism around two points of departure: doctrine and community.

Those who walked away were disciples. Those who stayed were disciples. Both groups would have to have been deeply familiar by then with Jesus’s doctrine and with Jesus’s community.

This was an opportunity for the disciples to make a decision not only as to what they would decide but also as to how they would decide: doctrine and community.

The disciples coming over the hill were ‘not looking for symbols.’ Their minds were buzzing with a fresh experience of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They wanted more loaves and fishes.

Jesus could not have allowed them to walk away without knowing fully what they were choosing. So they could not have been confused. Jesus is not the author of confusion. Satan is.

Jesus could not give a snake or a rock to a child who was asking for bread. He could not give something which would not nourish the disciples or something which would lead the disciples into loaf-and-fish worship rather than worship of the Real Presence of God.

Therefore Jesus did not say that His ‘hard saying’ was figurative. Note that in other bible passages He always said when He was using a figure of speech. He did not say the ‘hard saying’ was figurative because it was not. It was REAL.

To assist the disciples in their choice, Jesus gave the ‘hard saying’ plainly, clearly, and repetitiously. More than that, the disciples had the benefit of His Real Presence. They knew He meant what He was offering. They just did not want what He was offering.

The disciples walked away because they wanted loaves and fishes. They did not want the Eucharist. They knew what they were choosing. They chose. It would not be possible for them to choose if they were confused.

Note here that they not only chose a doctrine differing from the Real Presence, but they chose a community of belief which manifested in them walking away.

The disciples chose separation of doctrine and community. This portended the Reformation.


[quote=sandusky]The blue in your post is a metaphor.

No. It is a symbol.

[quote=sandusky]A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

No. This is not a metaphor. It is a symbol.

[quote=sandusky]Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.


[quote=Ani Ibi]**To answer the question ‘Why did the disciples leave Jesus?’

**Can we clarify what ‘non-literal’ and ‘literal’ are? I have often seen posters on this board say that the opposite of ‘literal’ is ‘symbolic.’ No, the opposite of ‘literal’ is ‘figurative.’ And there are many literary devices which fall under ‘figurative.’

Consider, for example, the metaphor:

Metaphor. A comparison which imaginatively identifies one thing with another dissimilar thing, and transfers or ascribes to the first thing (the tenor or idea) some of the qualities of the second (the vehicle or image). Unlike a simile or analogy, metaphor asserts that one thing is another thing, not just that one is like another. Very frequently [but not always] a metaphor is invoked by the to be verb.

metaphor: 1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora “a transfer,” especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. “a carrying over,” from metapherein “transfer, carry over,” from meta- “over, across” (see meta-) + pherein “to carry, bear” (etamonline.com).

The reason the disciples left is the same reason the apostles stayed. Why do I say that? Parallelism. Jesus sets up the parallelism by noting that some left and some stayed.

The apostles stayed because:

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.

To whom shall we go refers to community. The words of eternal life are doctrine.

The disciples left because:

(parallell to 68) They had other people they would rather hang out with; other people who had other words, such words referring to things other than eternal life.

(parallel to 69) While they did come to believe and were convinced that Jesus was the Holy One of God, they placed no value on this experience.

They chose to separate doctrine and community from the plain, clear instructions of Jesus and from the Real Presence of Jesus. In this way, this passage portends the Reformation.

When Simon Peter says “You have the words of eternal life” he probably means that not only does Jesus have the words but also that it is important that these words come from Jesus because He is the Holy One of God."

Let us keep in mind that the Word of God (logos) had a long history of referring to the Second Person of God which is Jesus. [see my signature]

A metaphor is figurative speech. But this does not mean that one part of the metaphor is real and the other part is unreal. The reality of one part transfers into the second part.
Therefore the second part is the first part.
The Bread of Life is Jesus.


You know better than this. We have explained this to you numerous times. The Church formally defines teachings which have been in practice all along – only when heresy necessitates clarification in order to protect the innocent from predation by heretics. To say that a teaching did not exist before the definition of doctrine around that teaching is to equivocate and mislead.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.