Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
According to The Christian Resource Institute:
This blend of tradition and innovation conforms to the purpose of the celebration: to tell the story of God’s actions in history in a way that brings it out of the past and makes it a present reality for everyone in the community, young and old, as if they personally are part of the story.Paul makes the reality of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper clear:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: 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 then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [i.e., died].
Excellent point. It is good to remember that all of the apostles were Jews, and the symbolism of physical things representing the things of God are well established (the laver of water, the incense, the pascal lamb, the scapegoat, the mercy seat, etc.). So having something physical (bread, wine) to represent something spiritual would have been very common to them.
However, the idea that they would eat actual human flesh and drink actual human blood would have horrified the apostles, as cannibalism was portrayed as a the result of a curse from God in the Old Testament.
That you MUST have? I.e., that you will certainly go to hell without?
Perhaps nothing. That is, it is not a CERTAINTY that you will be damned if you do not become a Catholic. (I am hoping that Jesus might be more expansive than his own words, since HE said that you MUST eat his body and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.)
But even if you might be saved, Jesus wants you to have Himself in the way he commanded, eating and drinking his body and blood, as he says in John, Chapter Six.
Such hyperbole! No, if you are living a life where the actions you list above are a part of your normal behavior, obviously you are not saved ("by their fruits you will know them".) But Christians can and do fall into sin. The apostle John addresses the issue of Christians and sin very directly in 1 John:
"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. "(1 John 1:8,9) Notice no mention of the need to confess to a priest?
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1) Since Jesus is our Advocate, He is the only one we need to whom we need to confess.
No, consuming the blood of the Passover lamb would have been a violation of the law of God. So why would Jesus ask His apostles to violate the law of God?
Your statement is in direct contradiction to Scripture. The prohibition against consuming blood was part of the Law of Moses. For Jesus to have demanded others to consume blood would have broken the law of Moses, i.e., been sin.
Now you might argue that since Jesus is God, He could change the law. But Jesus said He did not come to overturn the law, but came to fulfill the law in every respect:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…" Matt. 5:17-18
By your statement, you are saying He did not fulfill the Law, which would have made Him a sinner, and unable to be our Savior.
Jesus could not have demanded that people violate the Law and sin.
HE was the one who established the Law. He could not violate it and remain sinless.
That's right. His words not mine.
Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
*shrugs* It's a gift. ; )
So, do you eat the Passover? Do you eat pork? Do you offer sacrifices at the Temple?
The MORAL law is unchangeable. The Jewish RITUAL law could and did change.
The prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim existed for a certain reason—that the victim’s life belonged to God. That reason ceased to exist when the victim was no longer an animal, but Jesus himself. The life of Jesus belongs to US. He gave it to us.
He TELLS us that he has given us his life precisely by commanding that we drink his blood.
You must distinguish between the moral law and ritual law. One cannot change, the other did change when Jesus fulfilled what the old rituals prefigured.
Jesus is NOT the Passover lamb. Jesus is prefigured by the Passover lamb.
The prohibition on drinking the blood of the lamb signified that the life of the lamb came from God and belonged to God.
The command to drink the blood of Jesus signifies that Jesus’ life does NOT belong to God any longer. It belongs to US because Jesus gave his life for us. Thus, his blood—the symbol of his life—also belongs to us. He TELLS us this precisely by commanding us to drink his blood.
To refuse to drink the blood of Jesus is to refuse the gift of his life that he wills to give to us.
To cling to the law of the Old Covenant is to refuse the gift given to us under the New Covenant.
And your evidence from scripture after the statement of the apostles in Acts 15 is what??
If any of this had any actual Scriptural basis, you might have a case. But since your only support for your statement is church tradition, it doesn't have much validity.
You still haven't addressed how or why Jesus would command His disciples to sin according to the Law of Moses, yet still be able to be sinless and able to be our Savior. Remember, Jesus Himself said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. How could He fulfill the Law if He is breaking the Law???
(1.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ was liable to mistake and misconstruction, that men might see, and not perceive. [1.] It was misconstrued by the carnal Jews, to whom it was first delivered (John 6:52): They strove among themselves; they whispered in each other’s ears their dissatisfaction: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Christ spoke (John 6:51) of giving his flesh for us, to suffer and die; but they, without due consideration, understood it of his giving it to us, to be eaten, which gave occasion to Christ to tell them that, however what he said was otherwise intended, yet even that also of eating of his flesh was no such absurd thing (if rightly understood) as prima facie—in the first instance, they took it to be. [2.] It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ’s body, like Nicodemus, John 3:4. The Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore,
(2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood.
[1.] What is meant by the flesh and blood of Christ. It is called (John 6:53), The flesh of the Son of man, and his blood, his as Messiah and Mediator: the flesh and blood which he assumed in his incarnation (Heb. 2:14), and which he gave up in his death and suffering: my flesh which I will give to be crucified and slain. It is said to be given for the life of the world, that is, First, Instead of the life of the world, which was forfeited by sin, Christ gives his own flesh as a ransom or counterprice. Christ was our bail, bound body for body (as we say), and therefore his life must go for ours, that ours may be spared. Here am I, let these go their way. Secondly, In order to the life of the world, to purchase a general offer of eternal life to all the world, and the special assurances of it to all believers. So that the flesh and blood of the Son of man denote the Redeemer incarnate and dying; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption: pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the adoption of sons, access to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life; these are called the flesh and blood of Christ, 1. Because they are purchased by his flesh and blood, by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood. Well may the purchased privileges be denominated from the price that was paid for them, for it puts a value upon them; write upon them pretium sanguinis—the price of blood. 2. Because they are meat and drink to our souls. Flesh with the blood was prohibited (Gen. 9:4), but the privileges of the gospel are as flesh and blood to us, prepared for the nourishment of our souls. He had before compared himself to bread, which is necessary food; here to flesh, which is delicious. It is a feast of fat things, Isa. 25:6. The soul is satisfied with Christ as with marrow and fatness, Ps. 63:5. It is meat indeed, and drink indeed; truly so, that is spiritually; so Dr. Whitby; as Christ is called the true vine; or truly meat, in opposition to the shows and shadows with which the world shams off those that feed upon it. In Christ and his gospel there is real supply, solid satisfaction; that is meat indeed, and drink indeed, which satiates and replenishes, Jer. 31:25, 26.
[2.] What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do:—First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Matt. 5:6), earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: “Give me Christ or else I die.” Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, John 20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment
Simple. The Church was in the midst of a great debate about the Jewish Law. How much of it was it necessary to observe? Notice that the Council of Jerusalem reduces observance of the Law to a bare minimum. Later, Paul led the movement to put aside ALL of the Jewish ritual law—even circumcision.
So, what was determined by the Council of Jerusalem was a compromise. It was not for all time.
Also: the reference to not drinking blood concerns ANIMAL sacrifices, not the blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. In fact, at this time, Christians sometimes ate meat sacrificed by Jews, and sometimes by pagans.
St. Paul writes about receiving the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. He says that one who receives unworthily is “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
Do you eat the Passover lamb? Do you eat pork? Do you sacrifice animals to God?
Why not? You just said that Jesus himself could not change the Mosaic Law.
So, do you eat the Passover? Do you eat pork? Do you offer sacrifices at the Temple?
The MORAL law is unchangeable. The Jewish RITUAL law could and did change.
The prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim existed for a certain reason—that the victim’s life belonged to God. That reason ceased to exist when the victim was no longer an animal, but Jesus himself. The life of Jesus belongs to US. He gave it to us.
He TELLS us that he has given us his life precisely by commanding that we drink his blood.
The prohibition against drinking blood PREDATES the Law and was reiterated AFTER Jesus died, rose again, and the Holy Spirit empowered the church on the day of Pentecost.
Doesn’t make a bit of difference whether one considers it part of the ritual law that was no longer needed or not.
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.