[Arthur McGowan]

Jesus said: “Take this and drink. This is the chalice of my blood.”

It’s right there in the gospels.

According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.

Of course, perhaps the gospel writers were lying.

So, you have left yourself exactly two choices:

A) Jesus was a sinner;

B) The gospel accounts are lies.

[CA Conservative]

So, you have left yourself exactly two choices:

A) Jesus was a sinner;

B) The gospel accounts are lies.

No, those are the choices you have left yourself. (And by the way, rewording the Scripture to make it appear to support your position doesn't work.) The commonly accepted and Scripturally sound choice is the one most here are propounding - that the cup and the bread represent the blood and flesh of Christ, just as the unleavened bread represented the haste with with they Jews departed Egypt, and the bitter herbs that were used to cook the Passover Lamb represented the bitterness of the life the Jews led in Egypt. It is only when you try to make it the literal blood and flesh that you run into problems.

Understand that I am not trying to persuade you - you are to deeply indoctrinated into this man-made dogma for me to change your mind. I am merely responding to you so that others that read the thread will see the flaws in your reasoning, and will see that every time you are challenged to support your position with Scripture, you cannot. In that way, I hope to prevent others from falling into the same error as you.

[Springfield Reformer]

According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.

Arthur, that appears to me to be a misrepresentation of CA's argument.  That is not a consequence of his position, but yours.  His position, that Jesus is using metaphor, resolves the dilemma.  Especially because a dietary restriction is what is known in the law as a "thing indifferent," versus a moral prohibition, such as adultery or lying.  With a moral prohibition, there is an evil that is occurring that is inherent to the act, the act in moral law encompassing the mind as well as the body.  

But there is no inherent moral issue in eating or not eating a particular substance.  Paul makes that clear in his discussion of meat offered to idols.  Therefore, there is no way to "symbolize" moral sin (I shudder to think of how that might look) without actually engaging in the sin itself, because the mental component would be there, and as we know from the Sermon on the Mount, that is sufficient to produce real guilt.  No such mental aspect exists in consuming blood.  The sin cannot be committed except by doing it in physical terms.  Therefore doing it by symbol is not a violation of the law.

Peace,

SR