Interpretation

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So what is your interpretation of Jesus' saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood?

I'm certain you've been told this before but, you're a little on the
strange side. What's your story? You're obviously not a Christian.
You seem to be more of a "spiritualist" or some form of Gnostic?

 

[HisServant]

If I didn't meet Jesus in a church building, and realize God uses those places to bring about good you may have more of an argument. All it is, is a place to gather large amounts of His children, and where others can meet him. There are logistical reasons For having the buildings.

You didn't meet Jesus in a church... I can assure you that.. you met something else.

And its not logistics... its laziness.

 

[PureX]

People who need to believe in their ideology absolutely, to believe in them at all, will insist that the meaning of biblical text clear, absolute, and unquestionable. Because that's what they need it to be. And to maintain that belief, they have to assume that any other interpretation but their own is simply "wrong". It has to be wrong, because there is only one right interpretation (in their mind) and their interpretation is it.

I don't really see much point in arguing with these folks because they cannot tolerate alternative interpretation. They can't even conceive of the idea that there might be a legitimate alternative interpretation.

Those folks aside, it is clear that there are alternative ways of interpreting the text to that of the literal extremists. And they are not "wrong" just because the literal extremists say so.

One of the things that have always intrigued me about these texts (that the literal extremists tend to completely overlook) is the purpose for which they were written. The ancient Hebrews that created them believed in a "living God"; a God that people lived with, and struggled with, and often even contended with. Their idea of God was not that of a static absolute, but of a very dynamic, and often inexplicable God that directly impacted their lives on a daily basis.

These texts were produced to be used in this dynamic relationship between these men and their God. The men would gather on a regular basis, and read these texts, and discuss and debate their meaning. Often even argue amongst themselves over them. And in this way, they believed, they were keeping that relationship with their God alive, and active, because their's was the 'living God'.

The purpose of those texts was not to tell the men who used them what to think, but to inspire them to think more, and to think more deeply, about their God. And about how God relates to them in the everyday course of their lives. The texts were not overtly literal, on purpose. Because they were meant to inspire men to consternation, and to wonder, and to contemplate the inexplicable nature of God throughout their day, as they went about their lives. That's what they meant by their God being a 'living God'. Their idea of God was an idea that they lived with, in their minds and hearts, all the time. And those texts were intended to help them do that; not by telling them what to think, but by offering them images of God and God's relationship to man that kept them wondering and thinking about it.

Example: God tells Abraham that he demands the sacrifice of his son. Abraham naturally agonizes over this demand, greatly, as would any sane human. But finally decides to kill his own son. Then at the last instant, God reneges and stops him from doing it. And anyone who reads this story has to be asking themselves what kind of monstrous God is this? … That would demand the death of a child at the hands of his own father, just to assure the obedience and loyalty of the father? That's the behavior of a paranoid sadist! Is that what the Hebrews believed their God was?

I don't believe that's what they thought their God was. But I do believe that they recognized the fundamental unfairness of life and they had difficultly understanding why God allowed this to go on. And they wrote stories like these to force themselves to confront the inexplicable and sometimes cruel nature of this God of theirs. Not so that they could find the answers. But so that they would stay aware of this inexplicable nature and reality of God. And to live in fear and awe of it.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I'm certain you've been told this before but, you're a little on the
strange side. What's your story? You're obviously not a Christian.
You seem to be more of a "spiritualist" or some form of Gnostic?

I don't identify with any religion in particular but I do see truth in a lot of them. I think they all have some pieces to the puzzle but rarely do any of them have all the pieces. I do know there is a deeper aspect to who we take ourselves to be and because I was brought up Catholic I use the term "soul" to point to the infinite and eternal part of us. That is what I identify with.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

People who need to believe in their ideology absolutely, to believe in them at all, will insist that the meaning of biblical text clear, absolute, and unquestionable. Because that's what they need it to be. And to maintain that belief, they have to assume that any other interpretation but their own is simply "wrong". It has to be wrong, because there is only one right interpretation (in their mind) and their interpretation is it.

I don't really see much point in arguing with these folks because they cannot tolerate alternative interpretation. They can't even conceive of the idea that there might be a legitimate alternative interpretation.

Those folks aside, it is clear that there are alternative ways of interpreting the text to that of the literal extremists. And they are not "wrong" just because the literal extremists say so.

One of the things that have always intrigued me about these texts (that the literal extremists tend to completely overlook) is the purpose for which they were written. The ancient Hebrews that created them believed in a "living God"; a God that people lived with, and struggled with, and often even contended with. Their idea of God was not that of a static absolute, but of a very dynamic, and often inexplicable God that directly impacted their lives on a daily basis.

These texts were produced to be used in this dynamic relationship between these men and their God. The men would gather on a regular basis, and read these texts, and discuss and debate their meaning. Often even argue amongst themselves over them. And in this way, they believed, they were keeping that relationship with their God alive, and active, because their's was the 'living God'.

The purpose of those texts was not to tell the men who used them what to think, but to inspire them to think more, and to think more deeply, about their God. And about how God relates to them in the everyday course of their lives. The texts were not overtly literal, on purpose. Because they were meant to inspire men to consternation, and to wonder, and to contemplate the inexplicable nature of God throughout their day, as they went about their lives. That's what they meant by their God being a 'living God'. Their idea of God was an idea that they lived with, in their minds and hearts, all the time. And those texts were intended to help them do that; not by telling them what to think, but by offering them images of God and God's relationship to man that kept them wondering and thinking about it.

Example: God tells Abraham that he demands the sacrifice of his son. Abraham naturally agonizes over this demand, greatly, as would any sane human. But finally decides to kill his own son. Then at the last instant, God reneges and stops him from doing it. And anyone who reads this story has to be asking themselves what kind of monstrous God is this? … That would demand the death of a child at the hands of his own father, just to assure the obedience and loyalty of the father? That's the behavior of a paranoid sadist! Is that what the Hebrews believed their God was?

I don't believe that's what they thought their God was. But I do believe that they recognized the fundamental unfairness of life and they had difficultly understanding why God allowed this to go on. And they wrote stories like these to force themselves to confront the inexplicable and sometimes cruel nature of this God of theirs. Not so that they could find the answers. But so that they would stay aware of this inexplicable nature and reality of God. And to live in fear and awe of it.

We're finally starting to make some great progress on this thread. I have had a similar experience about God being dynamic and living. The bible is a living breathing text that we actually participate with by experiencing ourselves as the characters in the stories. The scriptures are meant to be applied to our lives as we live them. That is really the only way to experience the kingdom. It is found in the timeless present moment. God dwells in utter stillness and complete silence. How can we get to such a state if we are always trying to grasp onto a belief? It doesn't matter how good the belief is. If we are tempted to reach for something in the future or dwell on fixing the past we miss the right here and right now. The part of us that is one with this timelessness is the soul and it is unconditionally present everywhere. Like Father like Son.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Then what is your interpretation of Jesus saying to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

You can continue with your moving the goal posts all day. Hopefully you will eventually come to realize that literal interpretation includes consideration of the particular literary method being deployed by the writers of Scripture.

In this case, the meaning is sign symbolic of the elements of the supper. First, bread and wine are signs, which represent unto us the invisible food which we receive of the flesh and blood of Christ. The only meat of our soul is Christ, and therefore the heavenly Father calls us to him, that being refreshed with common partaking of him, we may from time to time gather lively force, until we attain to heavenly immortality. When we see wine set forth for a sign of his blood, we must call to mind what uses wine is of to the body, that we may consider that the same are brought to us spiritually by the blood of Christ; those uses are to cherish, to refresh, to strengthen, to make merry.

The Holy Spirit makes us present to Christ such that the believer is lifted up to sup with Christ and feed on His body and blood and receive spiritual nourishment from Him.

By a work of the Holy Spirit, believers are brought into the heavenly presence of Christ, there to feed upon him spiritually by faith, which Calvin took to be a real presence, albeit a spiritual one.

AMR

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I think we need to define reality and truth to include us. Why should we unconsciously exclude ourselves from truth, from reality, from the universe, from creation? If we continue doing this we won't know when to quit. We go so far as to exclude ourselves from the unconditional presence of God too. We won't even notice this to be a problem and that is how the adversary is so effective. The identity behind all this is the personality. It is trying to recover a sense of meaning and significance that it lost by believing it is separate from infinite and eternal value, from the world, from reality, from the universe, from God. The true self of the soul is the source of self worth. It cannot be replaced with the imposter of the personality. Without the soul humanity is lost. The pain from losing connection to self worth is so great we develop ways to block our awareness of it. This includes holding onto beliefs. The fact that we have identified with the enemy and we aren't aware of it is its secret weapon.

His weapon is pride. We are nothing that God has not made us to be and defines. Which is dust made into something He values because of the potential of love to be shared with Him.
One factor that I see you continually ignore in God's perfection is love and justice. Completely showed at Calvary. We could say how is it just that Christ payed the price for sin? It's that mercy, love and justice are all demonstrated at once.
You can say all day it's all stories, but those of us who have experienced our shame removed, our hearts filled with love we all long for, we can not deny the reality of Him and what He says. You have the will given by Him to ignore us and Him. Its your choice. Or you can say I need you Lord to see the light, to know the truth, because we all do.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

You can continue with your moving the goal posts all day. Hopefully you will eventually come to realize that literal interpretation includes consideration of the particular literary method being deployed by the writers of Scripture.

In this case, the meaning is sign symbolic of the elements of the supper. First, bread and wine are signs, which represent unto us the invisible food which we receive of the flesh and blood of Christ. The only meat of our soul is Christ, and therefore the heavenly Father calls us to him, that being refreshed with common partaking of him, we may from time to time gather lively force, until we attain to heavenly immortality. When we see wine set forth for a sign of his blood, we must call to mind what uses wine is of to the body, that we may consider that the same are brought to us spiritually by the blood of Christ; those uses are to cherish, to refresh, to strengthen, to make merry.

The Holy Spirit makes us present to Christ such that the believer is lifted up to sup with Christ and feed on His body and blood and receive spiritual nourishment from Him.

By a work of the Holy Spirit, believers are brought into the heavenly presence of Christ, there to feed upon him spiritually by faith, which Calvin took to be a real presence, albeit a spiritual one.

AMR

I'm not trying to move the goal post to annoy you. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. So some things we can take literal and others not, correct? Or should we not take any of it literally? So this thread is about interpretation. What do these conclusions tell us about there only being one truth? Is there only one truth and more than one way to see this truth? Also, how can we not be a part of this truth?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So what is your interpretation of Jesus' saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood?

It appears to be a symbolic reference to these two verses:

Deuteronomy 12:27 27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.​

Eating the flesh of the Son of man is a metaphor for the literal act of fully accepting His sacrifice as an acceptable offering to God for your sins.

Deuteronomy 12:23 23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.​

Drinking His blood is a metaphor for the literal act of being raised from the dead, since the blood is life.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

His weapon is pride. We are nothing that God has not made us to be and defines. Which is dust made into something He values because of the potential of love to be shared with Him.
One factor that I see you continually ignore in God's perfection is love and justice. Completely showed at Calvary. We could say how is it just that Christ payed the price for sin? It's that mercy, love and justice are all demonstrated at once.
You can say all day it's all stories, but those of us who have experienced our shame removed, our hearts filled with love we all long for, we can not deny the reality of Him and what He says. You have the will given by Him to ignore us and Him. Its your choice. Or you can say I need you Lord to see the light, to know the truth, because we all do.

I am not claiming perfection. Thank you for what you shared.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm not trying to move the goal post to annoy you. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. So some things we can take literal and others not, correct? Or should we not take any of it literally? So this thread is about interpretation. What do these conclusions tell us about there only being one truth? Is there only one truth and more than one way to see this truth? Also, how can we not be a part of this truth?

We take everything in the Bible literally. Again, I refer you to my original response to all your questions in the OP. I clearly explain what "literal" means. It is not wooden literalism, as in God has a hand, a mouth, an arm, Our Lord is knocking on a Door, Peter is a rock, the whole world came out to see Him (really, each and every person on the planet earth? :AMR1 and so on.

Please take this into consideration the next time you question what "literal" means. Idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and illustrations are all a natural part of language and should be recognized as such. So, when Jesus speaks of His flesh being “food” in John 6: 55, we know He is speaking figuratively—“food” is an obvious metaphor. We follow the rules of language. We should be alert to metaphors, anthropopathisms, the signals of similes, etc.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

We take everything in the Bible literally. Again, I refer you to my original response to all your questions in the OP. I clearly explain what "literal" means. It is not wooden literalism, as in God has a hand, a mouth, an arm, Our Lord is knocking on a Door, Peter is a rock, the whole world came out to see Him (really, each and every person on the planet earth? :AMR1 and so on.

Please take this into consideration the next time you question what "literal" means. Idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and illustrations are all a natural part of language and should be recognized as such. So, when Jesus speaks of His flesh being “food” in John 6: 55, we know He is speaking figuratively—“food” is an obvious metaphor. We follow the rules of language. We should be alert to metaphors, anthropopathisms, the signals of similes, etc.

AMR

:thumb:

 

[Prizebeatz1]

We take everything in the Bible literally. Again, I refer you to my original response to all your questions in the OP. I clearly explain what "literal" means. It is not wooden literalism, as in God has a hand, a mouth, an arm, Our Lord is knocking on a Door, Peter is a rock, the whole world came out to see Him (really, each and every person on the planet earth? :AMR1 and so on.

Please take this into consideration the next time you question what "literal" means. Idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and illustrations are all a natural part of language and should be recognized as such. So, when Jesus speaks of His flesh being “food” in John 6: 55, we know He is speaking figuratively—“food” is an obvious metaphor. We follow the rules of language. We should be alert to metaphors, anthropopathisms, the signals of similes, etc.

AMR

Okay. Some of us were raised Catholic and they take the eating flesh and drinking blood literal. That is my background so that is where I'm coming from. So how does this relate to truth? The claim is there is only one truth. Do you think there is more than one way of seeing the same truth? If so, then one could feasibly be more accurate than another. Correct? Can we judge for ourselves or is it more important we go along with the status quo or tradition or what the church says?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

It appears to be a symbolic reference to these two verses:

Deuteronomy 12:27 27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.​

Eating the flesh of the Son of man is a metaphor for the literal act of fully accepting His sacrifice as an acceptable offering to God for your sins.

Deuteronomy 12:23 23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.​

Drinking His blood is a metaphor for the literal act of being raised from the dead, since the blood is life.

Those all seem like valid possibilities. But there could be something deeper. What do we do if the answers we think we have don't seem to totally satisfy? Should we stop questioning or give up and default to what is widely accepted?

 

[PureX]

We're finally starting to make some great progress on this thread. I have had a similar experience about God being dynamic and living. The bible is a living breathing text that we actually participate with by experiencing ourselves as the characters in the stories. The scriptures are meant to be applied to our lives as we live them. That is really the only way to experience the kingdom. It is found in the timeless present moment. God dwells in utter stillness and complete silence. How can we get to such a state if we are always trying to grasp onto a belief? It doesn't matter how good the belief is. If we are tempted to reach for something in the future or dwell on fixing the past we miss the right here and right now. The part of us that is one with this timelessness is the soul and it is unconditionally present everywhere. Like Father like Son.

I agree that the characters in the Bible stories are meant to be take as metaphors for ourselves, so that their quandaries represent our quandaries, and their misfortunes represent our misfortunes. And their sins represent our sins. That's how those stories become relevant to us, and how their struggle with their idea of God helps us struggle with our idea of God. That's how these stories were intended to be taken. And not as historical or literal facts. I think the authors and the readers of their time would have been stunned by our debate over whether or not these characters were "real". Because they knew the characters were all of us.

 

[PureX]

Okay. Some of us were raised Catholic and they take the eating flesh and drinking blood literal. That is my background so that is where I'm coming from.

I was raised Catholic as well, but I do not recall any insistence that the words of the Bible be taken literally. And I do not recall anyone insisting that the wine and bread be considered, literally, the body and blood of Jesus. I was taught that they were symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. And that it was the meaning of that symbolism that we were to contemplate as we participated in the sacrament of communion. So I truly don't understand where this insistence on "holy hocus-pocus" comes from! As it's both dishonest and irrational. And I don't believe Jesus ever insisted that we had to be dishonest and irrational to be Christians.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Those all seem like valid possibilities. But there could be something deeper. What do we do if the answers we think we have don't seem to totally satisfy? Should we stop questioning or give up and default to what is widely accepted?

Where do you think my answer comes from?
Have you ever heard anyone else link the sacrifices in the books of Moses with Jesus telling people to eat His flesh and drink His blood?
I can't remember anyone else mentioning a connection like my answer did.

I have heard people claim that Jesus was referring to the last supper (Eucharist), but that does not really fit when you consider who Jesus was speaking to and when He said it in comparison to the time of the last supper.

I am not satisfied with what others have said to try to explain the words of Jesus, but I have studied the Bible with a mind open to what the people hearing Jesus would have known of the scriptures (Old Testament), and I know how to draw my own conclusions.

When Jesus spoke of drinking His blood, everyone hearing Him would have immediately thought of the commandments against the drinking of blood, which would then have led to remembering that the reason for the commandment was because the life is in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.​

From the starting point of what the words of Jesus would have caused the hearers to remember, an explanation for His words became obvious to me.

You seem to have a different starting point than I do, probably because of looking at it from the teaching of the Catholic church instead of looking at it from the common knowledge of the people that heard Jesus speak.

If you start from the teaching of the Catholic church, you will end up with a different conclusion than the one I did.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I was raised Catholic as well, but I do not recall any insistence that the words of the Bible be taken literally. And I do not recall anyone insisting that the wine and bread be considered, literally, the body and blood of Jesus. I was taught that they were symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. And that it was the meaning of that symbolism that we were to contemplate as we participated in the sacrament of communion. So I truly don't understand where this insistence on "holy hocus-pocus" comes from! As it's both dishonest and irrational. And I don't believe Jesus ever insisted that we had to be dishonest and irrational to be Christians.

Somehow I got a different impression about the body and blood being real. I think they call it transubstantiation. I knew in my heart that it couldn't actually be real but I just accepted it as true along with a lot of the other beliefs because I didn't know any better. When it comes down to it though, in my heart I accepted the parts that made sense to me and rejected the ones that didn't. So I kind of customized things in a way. Call me a non-believer if you want.

Now let's take things a little deeper. I looked up the word literal and found the definition to be "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory." This sounds a bit subjective. Do we actually take the raising of a dead man as usual or basic for example? This seems to raise more questions than it provides answers. That is the theme that highlighted my experience as a Catholic but of course I kept my mouth shut because I thought it was more important to stay in line than to follow my own heart and instincts. Looking back I can see that was a mistake.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Where do you think my answer comes from?
Have you ever heard anyone else link the sacrifices in the books of Moses with Jesus telling people to eat His flesh and drink His blood?
I can't remember anyone else mentioning a connection like my answer did.

I have heard people claim that Jesus was referring to the last supper (Eucharist), but that does not really fit when you consider who Jesus was speaking to and when He said it in comparison to the time of the last supper.

I am not satisfied with what others have said to try to explain the words of Jesus, but I have studied the Bible with a mind open to what the people hearing Jesus would have known of the scriptures (Old Testament), and I know how to draw my own conclusions.

When Jesus spoke of drinking His blood, everyone hearing Him would have immediately thought of the commandments against the drinking of blood, which would then have led to remembering that the reason for the commandment was because the life is in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.​

From the starting point of what the words of Jesus would have caused the hearers to remember, an explanation for His words became obvious to me.

You seem to have a different starting point than I do, probably because of looking at it from the teaching of the Catholic church instead of looking at it from the common knowledge of the people that heard Jesus speak.

If you start from the teaching of the Catholic church, you will end up with a different conclusion than the one I did.

Brilliant. I can see you have done a lot of homework and I agree with your conclusion in this post. But what I don't agree with is that drinking the blood is a metaphor for the literal act of being raised from the dead. In my opinion it is symbolism for connecting with what is infinite and eternal. We can eat the flesh and blood, or the infinity and eternity of the soul which Jesus is a symbol for, through meditation for example. We can become aware that we are one with timelessness and stillness. The infinite and eternal part of us is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world because it is our true identity. We don't have to identify with the personality any more. Again, this is one way out of many ways to see it. I'm not trying to argue or discount anyone's views. I simply offer this as an alternative alongside what is already available. I think it's healthy and good to explore the options.

 

[PureX]

Somehow I got a different impression about the body and blood being real. I think they call it transubstantiation. I knew in my heart that it couldn't actually be real but I just accepted it as true along with a lot of the other beliefs because I didn't know any better. When it comes down to it though, in my heart I accepted the parts that made sense to me and rejected the ones that didn't. So I kind of customized things in a way. Call me a non-believer if you want.

Now let's take things a little deeper. I looked up the word literal and found the definition to be "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory." This sounds a bit subjective. Do we actually take the raising of a dead man as usual or basic for example? This seems to raise more questions than it provides answers. That is the theme that highlighted my experience as a Catholic but of course I kept my mouth shut because I thought it was more important to stay in line than to follow my own heart and instincts. Looking back I can see that was a mistake.

I was very fortunate. When I was very young, in kindergarden, a nun told us that "God" was the "green in the grass, and the warmth of the sun on our face, and love of our mom" … and things like that. And I believed this. Around that same time, I had a personal 'God-experience' that was very intense, but I was not frightened by it because I understood that God was good and that God loved us, and that was what I experienced.

Later, when I went to regular Catholic school, if one of the nuns or priests characterized God as dogmatic, judgmental, vengeful, scary, and so forth, as some of them tend to do, I didn't believe them. Because I had experienced God for myself, and I knew this was not the case. And as I got older, as soon as I could, I got clear of Catholicism (at about the age of 14). Because it seemed to me all they wanted to do was place themselves between me, and God, so they could tell me what to think, and what to do, and what not to do, according to their own will and desire. And I wasn't having any of it.

Once free from it, I took some time to work out for myself what I thought of Jesus, and I held onto what I thought was good and sensible, while dropping what I thought was ugly and irrational. And since then I've trimmed and amended my beliefs regularly.

So I was fortunate from the beginning to have been given the gift of my own autonomous 'sense' of God. And I had the tenacity to keep to it in spite of the many religious bullies I've encountered, since, who seem to think it's their place is stand between everyone else, and God, and dictate the terms of the relationship. And I just don't allow it. That upsets the absolutists, who think they are absolutely right about everything, and think everyone else should follow their dictates, but who cares? Their myopia is their own problem, not mine.