Posted on 06/13/2009 5:00:57 PM PDT by bdeaner
Second, bdeaner derives his opinion of Genesis from nineteenth century German Biblical criticism and comparative mythology. And you have no objections to this as a source of Biblical interpretation?
And third, my point is the utter hypocrisy of insisting that John 6 be interpreted literally while insisting just as vehemently that Genesis 1-11 need not be interpreted literally. While I hold no brief for Raymond Brown, I give him this much: unlike most Catholic critics of Genesis, he was consistent.
And as to "one post," anytime there's a thread dealing with the Vatican or the Catholic Church and its position (or non-position) on Genesis the thread fills up with Catholic evolutionists and higher critics.
Not so long ago an atheist science professor stirred folks up by impaling a consecrated host with a nail. The same people who laugh at people who accept Genesis at face value suddenly became simple illiterate peasants in their eucharistic beliefs and nearly had a conniption. I say such an occurrence was justice for Catholic indifference (or hostility) to Genesis (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible for that matter). The J*sus seminar is another example of the chickens coming home to roost.
How you people can base a true "new testament" on a "mythical" old one is beyond me.
You wrote:
“First of all, the Kolbe Center is a good outfit. I wish they’d update their web page.”
Yeah, me too. More than six months is too long for an update.
“Second, bdeaner derives his opinion of Genesis from nineteenth century German Biblical criticism and comparative mythology.”
St. Augustine wasn’t German and didn’t live in the 19th century.
“And you have no objections to this as a source of Biblical interpretation?”
St. Augustine? Nope.
“And third, my point is the utter hypocrisy of insisting that John 6 be interpreted literally while insisting just as vehemently that Genesis 1-11 need not be interpreted literally.”
I think you’re making a serious mistake there. Someone could claim (not that I agree with it), that Genesis 1 is a metaphor or allegory. No one can seriously claim that for John 6. Why? The two most important reasons - outside of Christ’s own insistence that He was not speaking metaphorically by repeatedly saying “Amen, amen”, and not correcting the understanding of those who abandoned Him - is 1) that we know what the metaphor for eat my flesh is. Look at Ps. 27.2 and you’ll know what I’m talking about, and 2) the Church ALWAYS said John 6 is what it is.
“While I hold no brief for Raymond Brown, I give him this much: unlike most Catholic critics of Genesis, he was consistent.”
Raymond Brown was Catholic? I’m not so sure about that. ;)
“And as to “one post,” anytime there’s a thread dealing with the Vatican or the Catholic Church and its position (or non-position) on Genesis the thread fills up with Catholic evolutionists and higher critics.”
I really have not seen that.
“Not so long ago an atheist science professor stirred folks up by impaling a consecrated host with a nail. The same people who laugh at people who accept Genesis at face value suddenly became simple illiterate peasants in their eucharistic beliefs and nearly had a conniption. I say such an occurrence was justice for Catholic indifference (or hostility) to Genesis (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible for that matter).”
So if Baptist Freepers doubt your understanding of the Bible you would be okay with...burning their churches down? How about relieving blatters on their altars? If a Lutheran disagrees with you, it’s okay to drop trou at next Sunday’s services? I know you think these examples are ridiculous, but they pale in comparison to what we think is actually going on when someone commits sacrilege against the Eucharist.
“The J*sus seminar is another example of the chickens coming home to roost.”
A Protestant effort not approved of by the Catholic Church.
“How you people can base a true “new testament” on a “mythical” old one is beyond me.”
How you can conflat issues that no else is is beyond me.
My question then....would be....How was it they (the Disciples) procured a sacrificed lamb from the temple if the sacrifices would not begin until the following afternoon? Notice that the Jews would not enter the Palace of the Roman Governor on the morning of the 14th (Passover/Leviticus 23:5) as they had not yet eaten the Passover (the lamb) which would not yet be prepared until 3:00 P.M. that afternoon. This was the morning following His arrest in the garden.
None of the four Gospels mentions a lamb being eaten at the "last supper." The time had not yet come to slay the Passover when Christ and his disciples ate their last meal together. He WAS THE PASSOVER!
I'm not of "Their" religion....by the way.
How you can conflat issues that no else is is beyond me.
Oh. The Bible says in one place that the earth was created in six days (and gives a very detailed chronology of when) and in another (your bible, that is) it says that the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood. One is literal and one isn't. You think insisting they must both be literal is "conflating issues no one else does?" I wish my old friend wideawake were still here.
Bdeaner and the other Catholics on this thread are not singling out the days of creation but the entire first eleven chapters of the book which includes Cain and Abel, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Furthermore he invoked Gilgamesh, an ancient Babylonian myth seized on by German atheists in the late nineteenth century, to justify this. He used quotes from ancient church authorities to defend transubstantiation but he obviously rejects the church fathers as "men of their time" when it comes to Genesis because he invokes Gilgamesh. So if the church fathers were ignorant, naive, pre-scientific men when it comes to Genesis, then one must also admit that they could be equally ignorant, naive, and pre-scientific when it comes to transubstantiation. To not admit this, to hold that the church fathers are authoritative on one matter but not another, is to show they aren't really the reason one believes in transubstantiation in the first place. Could it be a visceral reaction to "those awful people?" Must we believe anything they do not and disbelieve everything they do?
Let us say that it doesn't matter whether or not the world was created in six literal days. Does it matter if one believes that Adam and Eve were two real people? That Cain and Abel actually existed and that the former murdered the latter? That there was a Flood out of which only eight people were saved? That mankind's languages were confounded at Babel? That there were exactly twenty-six generations (all carefully dated) from the Creation of Adam to the birth of Moses? Just which of these is unimportant, Vlad? No, I'm serious. Which is optional?
Maybe it doesn't matter whether or not Israel was ever enslaved in Egypt. Maybe the story of the sea parting is a silly myth invented by primitive people before the enlightenment showed us such things can never be.
Listen to me, Vlad. You have in the past accused me of slandering the Catholic Church and Catholics, yet you have admitted that even to you, who believe in the events related in Genesis, it just isn't that important. You have just confirmed everything I have ever said (or thought) about Catholics and their hypocritical vendetta against the Hebrew Bible.
Every chr*stmas eve the priest chants out the chronology of creation until the birth of J*sus--but no one actually believes it. It's a pantomime! Ditto for the prayers in the mass that invoke the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedeq. If Genesis doesn't matter--if it is just as likely to be myth or parable as actual history--then all these prayers are reduced to a pantomime recited by a play actor, somewhat on the level of the "Hiram Abiff" legend during a Masonic initiation. What kind of church is this? What kind of church says that these events invoked in its holiest prayer may have happened, but they didn't necessarily actually happen? I've got news for you: the prayers in the `Amidah and Birkat HaMazon that invoke the events of Purim and Chanukkah could not be uttered if the events they thank G-d for didn't actually happen; that would be a sin!
You're right about Raymond Brown. He couldn't possibly have been Catholic. He was too consistent and too honest. Only someone who holds--or who defends the right of others to hold--that the Jewish part of the Bible is didactic mythology while the chr*stian part of it is "real history" is not only a hypocrite but a theological anti-Semite.
Oh, and don’t even get me started on Catholics who go into spasms of ecstasy at the thought of Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917 who smirk at the Bible’s narrative of the sun standing still for Joshua!
I neglected to give you a scripture reference for the Jew’s hesitation to enter the Palace for cleanliness reasons. It is: [John 18:28-29].
You wrote:
“I was not aware that Augustine was that up on the epic of Gilgamesh. Wow. Learn something new every day.”
He was up on Genesis which is what bdeaner cited him for.
“Oh. The Bible says in one place that the earth was created in six days (and gives a very detailed chronology of when) and in another (your bible, that is) it says that the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood. One is literal and one isn’t.”
No. Everything in the Bible has a literal meaning, but that doesn’t mean they are to be taken ONLY literally. Also, Genesis offers no time specific chronology of creation. It offers a sequence of events. If there was a time specific chronology then there would be specific time references and yet we only get “In the beginning...”
“You think insisting they must both be literal is “conflating issues no one else does?” I wish my old friend wideawake were still here.”
No, I think you conflate all sorts of issues. You always do. You assume one thing is another. You are, right now, conflating the idea that every verse has a literal meaning with the idea that every verse’s literal meaning was meant to be taken as plain explanation. St. Paul talks about allegories for a reason.
“Bdeaner and the other Catholics on this thread are not singling out the days of creation but the entire first eleven chapters of the book which includes Cain and Abel, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel.”
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I’m not wasting my time to check because I already know that you simply can’t talk about this issue with any clarity. Again, you’ll conflate one thing with another.
“Furthermore he invoked Gilgamesh, an ancient Babylonian myth seized on by German atheists in the late nineteenth century, to justify this. He used quotes from ancient church authorities to defend transubstantiation but he obviously rejects the church fathers as “men of their time” when it comes to Genesis because he invokes Gilgamesh.”
No. In post #19 bdeaner posted this: “St. Augustine (A.D> 354-430) wrote on this topic in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. This quote comes from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.”
Do you see it? LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
So there you are conflating two DIFFERENT things again as if they were the same. Transsubstantiation is not the same thing as LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
“Listen to me, Vlad. You have in the past accused me of slandering the Catholic Church and Catholics, yet you have admitted that even to you, who believe in the events related in Genesis, it just isn’t that important.”
No. Again you’re saying one thing is the same as another. I said:
“You want everything to be neat and tidy and plainly black and white and have everyone agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of scripture. That ain’t gonna happen. I take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realize God can create in anyway He chooses. bdeaner doesn’t take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realizes God can create anyway He chooses. So, while you’re losing sleep over this, and worrying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of it, I, in my bed, and bdeaner in his, will be sleeping just fine.”
That is WAY DIFFERENT than, “it just isn’t that important.”
Again, you are making it look like one thing is the same as another.
“You have just confirmed everything I have ever said (or thought) about Catholics and their hypocritical vendetta against the Hebrew Bible.”
Oh, here we go. So, you invent something I never said and claim it proves what you always said? ROFLOL! Neat trick. And we’re back, once again, to it always being about your interpretation and your conflating of things.
“Every chr*stmas eve the priest chants out the chronology of creation until the birth of J*sus—but no one actually believes it.”
I believe it and so does my priest.
“It’s a pantomime! Ditto for the prayers in the mass that invoke the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedeq. If Genesis doesn’t matter—if it is just as likely to be myth or parable as actual history—then all these prayers are reduced to a pantomime recited by a play actor, somewhat on the level of the “Hiram Abiff” legend during a Masonic initiation. What kind of church is this? What kind of church says that these events invoked in its holiest prayer may have happened, but they didn’t necessarily actually happen? I’ve got news for you: the prayers in the `Amidah and Birkat HaMazon that invoke the events of Purim and Chanukkah could not be uttered if the events they thank G-d for didn’t actually happen; that would be a sin!”
Uh, when you’re done with your rant, let me know.
“You’re right about Raymond Brown. He couldn’t possibly have been Catholic. He was too consistent and too honest.”
Actually he was neither, but why let a fact get in the way of your post, right?
“Only someone who holds—or who defends the right of others to hold—that the Jewish part of the Bible is didactic mythology while the chr*stian part of it is “real history” is not only a hypocrite but a theological anti-Semite.”
Oh, please. So, someone who doesn’t believe in the most literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is not an anti-Semite? Like I’ve told you before: you are obsessive on this issue. Obsessive to the point that you’ve lost touch with reason if you’re going to hurl around bogus charges of anti-semitism.
You wrote:
“Oh, and don’t even get me started on Catholics who go into spasms of ecstasy at the thought of Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917 who smirk at the Bible’s narrative of the sun standing still for Joshua!”
Oh, and don’t even get me started about how low class it is to call people anti-semites just because they disagree with you and defeat you in debates.
He invoked Augustine after observing that Genesis "reads like Gilgamesh." Thus it isn't Augustine's authority alone he was invoking but nineteenth century comparative mythology.
No. Everything in the Bible has a literal meaning, but that doesn’t mean they are to be taken ONLY literally.
In just over ten years on this forum I have never said that the Bible is to be taken "only" literally. Now who is conflating? Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two completely separate things, though some Catholics apparently can't help confusing the two--hence the hostility to any insistence on the literal historical truth of Genesis. Just because every verse in the Torah has four (or even seventy, or even more) interpretations doesn't mean that it didn't also happen literally as written!
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I’m not wasting my time to check because
Because it's not important in Catholicism. After all, we don't want to sound like "those people." Let's bend over backwards for the "gays" but if someone has trouble accepting modern Biblical criticism, well then, he isn't intellectual enough for the Catholic Church. I wonder how Catholic theologians would react if science ever discovered a "literalist gene?"
So there you are conflating two DIFFERENT things again as if they were the same. Transsubstantiation is not the same thing as LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
Both are totally contrary to "natural law" but are asserted by the Catholic bible. Yet only one actually happened--or it's only really important whether one of them actually happened.
No. Again you’re saying one thing is the same as another.
If they're both part of the authentic Bible they are the same thing. If one of them isn't, then its part is not the Word of G-d. I can admit this with my rejection of the nt, but liturgical chr*stians can't let the "old testament" go. They've based their entire religion on it, even if they've since branded it mythology!
And I reiterate again--you (and others) have in the past (not in your last post) accused me of making stuff up. Believe me, you can't make stuff like this up!
I believe it and so does my priest.
And yet here you are, arguing with me, because even though you believe it to be true, it's not that important whether all Catholics believe it! So there are priests who recite prayers citing events they believe happened, and other priests who recite prayers that cite what they believe is mythology, but apparently it doesn't matter. All Catholics must agree on the literal interpretation of John 6, but when it comes to Genesis and the events that allegedly made chr*stianity necessary . . . well, that's up to you!
Also, Genesis offers no time specific chronology of creation. It offers a sequence of events. If there was a time specific chronology then there would be specific time references and yet we only get “In the beginning...”
Here, my friend, you are very, very wrong! The ancient Sages constructed the chronology of Genesis long ago and it may be found as an appendix in almost any printed Rabbinic Bible. They did this from the birth and death dates of the first 26 generations (ten from Adam to Noach, ten from Noach to Abraham, and six from Abraham to Moses)--the equivalent of the numerical value of G-d's Name. And from this we have the current year number 5769 which the Lubavitcher Rebbe claimed is not merely a claim of truth but a Halakhah. For that matter, I could direct you to a traditional Jewish chronology online if you were interested.
And you're arranging for a Creation seminar with the Kolbe Center? Why, if it's not that important? Why don't you tell Hugh Owen that while you interpret Genesis literally you don't think it's really that important? Maybe if it's not that important you should just forget about the whole thing. In fact, if it's not that important, why are you trying to arrange a seminar with the Kolbe Center at all? You seem somewhat conflicted.
Face it--the Catholic/Orthodox antipathy to the historicity of the Hebrew Bible is a form of theological anti-Semitism, exactly on a par with the alleged supersession of the Biblical rituals with chr*stian ones and of the Holy Temple by the church. What other explanation is there?
You wrote:
“He invoked Augustine after observing that Genesis “reads like Gilgamesh.” Thus it isn’t Augustine’s authority alone he was invoking but nineteenth century comparative mythology.”
You said he did so because of transsubstantiation. You were wrong. Period.
“In just over ten years on this forum I have never said that the Bible is to be taken “only” literally. Now who is conflating? Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two completely separate things, though some Catholics apparently can’t help confusing the two—hence the hostility to any insistence on the literal historical truth of Genesis.”
(sigh) I never once mentioned sola scriptura anywhere in this thread. Not once. Not once anywhere. Now you’re implying I did. I’ve told you not to do this before. Why do you keep doing it?
And here you do it again:
“And you’re arranging for a Creation seminar with the Kolbe Center? Why, if it’s not that important?”
That is the second time you have falsely accused me of not believing it is important. I never said that. Why do you keep saying I said things I never, EVER said? I have told you about this on more than one occasion. I don’t mind you arguing with me, but can’t you actually deal with what I said, rather than invent things I never said?
“Why don’t you tell Hugh Owen that while you interpret Genesis literally you don’t think it’s really that important?”
And here we go again: When did I ever say it was no important? I never said that. Why are you making things up?
“Maybe if it’s not that important you should just forget about the whole thing.”
And there we are again. That has to be at least the fourth time now you have falsely accused me of saying it isn’t important. I corrected you the first time you did it and yet you’ve now done it three more times in just one post. Why do you keep making up things?
“In fact, if it’s not that important, why are you trying to arrange a seminar with the Kolbe Center at all? You seem somewhat conflicted.”
No, see a confused person would falsely accuse someone of saying something that he has never said. Oh, wait, you’ve done that now five times. FIVE TIMES.
ZC, if you’re going to keep inventing things out of thin air and calling Catholics anti-semites because they dare to disagree with you, then what’s the point of posting to you?
Get away with this stuff?
I have simply quoted scripture and nothing else. If I recall there were some pretty smart guys who never quoted or consulted Calvin or Zwingli such as, oh, say Paul the Apostle, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Jude, Peter, or John the Apostle. I don’t have to worry about what Calvin would have let met get away with because I have the Word of God. Calvin is not my final authority in all matters of faith and practice...The Word of God is.
“Oh, and don’t even get me started about how low class it is to call people anti-semites just because they disagree with you and defeat you in debates.”
I find that a lot. When they’re backed into a corner suddened one gets - pediphile priests, or the Inquision, Crusades etc., thrown at them. Here it’s anti-Semitism. Sigh.
By the way, you are correct. If I lived in Calvin or Zwingli’s time I might have have suffered the same fate as Servetus due merely to the fact that I am a Baptist.
“It is well established in the OT as well as the NT that human flesh and blood are not to be consumed...Certainly not a modern idea...”
The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord’s blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ’s sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.
1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.
1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.
1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.
1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.
1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.
“I’ve never experienced a communion where the bread and wine became The Real Body and Blood of Jesus. Does it taste like beef?
Jesus - the Other White Meat?
If not, then the significance is spiritual, which aligns with the Protestant position.”
Jesus’ Passion links to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).
John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.
Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.
Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.
Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.
Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.
Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.
Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.
John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.
John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.
Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.
John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.
John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.
Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”
Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.
bdeaner and other posters have already discussed this but here you go again. Now you can never say you didn’t know.
"1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. 1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God."
What scripture actually says: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8`Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
That hardly suggests the communion wafer becomes the actual flesh of Jesus.
In a spiritual sense, we are certainly supposed to take Communion very serious. Those who take it lightly are profaning holy ground. But none of the verses you quote indicate that the wafer is the flesh of Jesus, sacrificed again.
An earlier post has more to think about, and I'll attempt a reply tomorrow.
AWESOME POSTS!!! You laid it all down and put it all right out there for anyone to see, plain as day. How can anyone seriously dispute the Real Presence?!?!? Totally, thoroughly, undeniably SCRIPTURAL through and through, if only one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear the Truth readily available to us in the Scriptures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.