Posted on 09/13/2014 10:57:00 AM PDT by Salvation
It is known they did this at least during the second millennium AD, but do you have documentation for this (not that i deny it)?
No I don't at the moment sorry. I think it's pretty common knowledge though that this is even common Pagan belief today though so I'll rest wth that. I'm not too concerned about it in other words.
Wrong. While the the injunction against eating blood was based uoon the premise that blood is sacred, thus promoting the sacredness of life, yet the blood they were forbidden to consume was the blood of animals they had already killed, thus it certainly did not prevent death. Nor was it a sin to kill animals for food or sacrifice, and in which the blood was poured out.
Rather the the injunction against eating blood was against consuming it, as it was only to be sacrificed as an atonement: [cf Lev 17]
You're right in what you say above of course. However please note I never said the Jews consumed the blood of their sacrifices. Also, yes you are correct that the animals sacrificed by the Jews were dead (obviously)
The point remains the same though: that the life from the blood of the animal sacrifices was shed and also offered to God for atonement. (Along with the animal itself). This is because this is all the Jews had to sacrifice (as the Law forbade human sacrifice obviously).
Here we can see (as I imagine you may agree here) a prefigurement or foreshadowing of Christ's One Sacrifice that indeed did atone for all sin.
The Church teaching (where you and others disagree obviously) is that we are able to partake of this one Safrifice at Mass because He continues to offer this one Sacrifice to the Father for continued propitiation of our sin today. The priest, acting "in the person of Christ" joins with this One Sacrifice, representing it in reality today in the present. In this way it's not a reinactment or "re-sacrifice", but a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice. But I digress.
The main points are these:
Jesus isn't an animal.
His blood therefore is not animal blood.
Thus the prohibition of drinking animal blood in the Law is not violated.
Indeed, the very purpose of the animal sacrifice (which again foreshadowed Christ's) is fulfilled in His same self-sacrifice. The fact that the priests of old did not drink the blood of the sacrifice is irrelevant here because they had a prohibition at the time to not drink the blood of the sacrifice (because again it was an animal, and an animal's blood cannot give life). But Christ's blood does bring and give life.
Life that is not taken but received.
Life that is given by God for us, and, being God, He has every right and ability to give life as He chooses.
Thus, while a scandal to those who think with the carnal mind, as can be seen from the reactions of the Jews in John 6, this is actually a source of God's grace, to those who see and hear not with their carnal mind but with the mind of Christ. For the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives truth and life. This means exactly as stated. For those who think of Jesus' words in John 6 as "symbolic" or otherwise scandalous, there is no profit. Only when the Spirit is one's teacher do His literal words ring true.
Moreover, your other reason, that the law was because the pagans did it, is one liberals use for moral laws. Do you even have official teaching that argues as you do, or is this just another example of the variety of interpretations RCs can use in seeking to defend Rome?
A point of clarification here if I may: you will please note I did not say "the law was because the Pagans did it", rather I said " Not just because Pagans did it [was it against the Law], but [also] because Pagans did it to take life for their own, which is an affront to God." There is a difference there I think you missed.
Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things the same way Pagans have (or do) as long as such things are inherrently good (or at least not objectively evil). Otherwise, we really shouldn't use the names for the days of the week we do commonly, for example, since they are derived from Pagan gods. It's only when something is objectively evil (in other words something that offends God) should we not do it. Taking a life even an animal life, in order to consume its blood is an offense to God because again, only He is the Author of Life, and thus it is not our place to take a life to save our own (except for self defense of course but that's tangential to this point).
As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.
Oh??
Acts 15:22-35
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
I am as historical claims need substantiation. That pagans did eat of their deceased loved ones who gain life properties of them during at least the last millennium is substantiated.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission Moreover, "the custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
The main points are these: Jesus isn't an animal. His blood therefore is not animal blood. Thus the prohibition of drinking animal blood in the Law is not violated.
That is absurd: the prohibition of eating blood was not restricted to animals but humans as well, as cannibalism itself was, based upon Gn. 9:6. And even if that was allowed, consuming human blood would not be any more sanctioned than the blood of a lesser creature would be!
The fact that the priests of old did not drink the blood of the sacrifice is irrelevant here because they had a prohibition at the time to not drink the blood of the sacrifice (because again it was an animal, and an animal's blood cannot give life).
it is by no means irrelevant, and again you are reading into the text a meaning that is not there in order to somehow negate the obvious injunction. There is nothing said about not drinking an animal's blood bcz it was not able to give life, but because it was most sacred then it was only to be used for atonement.
The point was that spiritual life was realized because the shed blood was sacred and used for the atonement, not by eating.
It's only when something is objectively evil (in other words something that offends God) should we not do it. Taking a life even an animal life, in order to consume its blood is an offense to God because again, only He is the Author of Life, and thus it is not our place to take a life to save our own (except for self defense of course but that's tangential to this point).
That is frankly absurd, but which is a consequence of your incorrect premise. Again, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not, thus death was not prevented, but as the blood is the most precious substance in the body so as to represent life itself, thus its use was restricted and only used for sacrifice.
Thus, while a scandal to those who think with the carnal mind, as can be seen from the reactions of the Jews in John 6,
As it should be and was designed to be, that of speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..
And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, in which Nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. And as such it must exclude all who deny the physical interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.
For as in John and elsewhere, souls obtain spiritual and eternal life by believing on the Lord Jesus as the Divine Son of God, being born of the Spirit in conversion in believing the gospel message, not by consuming the Lord's Supper. Which is nowhere preached in Acts or elsewhere is the means of regeneration.
And then they live by Christ by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God as means of grace, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them., (Col. 3:16) Which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as again, Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)
In contrast, nowhere is the Lord's supper described as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves.
Rather, the Lord's supper in its only manifest description in the life of the church with any detail, is that in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. As shown and explained more here. .
Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc
For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.
That is the problem of relying on CA, whose specious polemics have been refuted time and time again, while if these erroneous interpretation of Scripture are not official ones, then they could be contradicted by other Catholic teaching, as some are. And is contrary to the goal of apologetics, which is to try to convince evangelicals by Scripture to trust in the assured veracity of Rome for determination and assurance of Truth.
Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?
Wow! Thanks for the ping. I was stunned when I went upthread to see the post you were responding to. The extent to which Catholics will twist scripture in an attempt to justify paganism is simply stunning.
I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here but I never said the death of anyone was prevented by the Temple sacrifice. Rather my only point all along has been that the drinking of Christ's blood does not violate any Law.
...the prohibition of eating blood was not restricted to animals but humans as well, as cannibalism itself was, based upon Gn. 9:6. And even if that was allowed, consuming human blood would not be any more sanctioned than the blood of a lesser creature would be!
I also never said the prohibition against drinking blood was only against killing animals. As you point out in Gen 9:6 (and of course the command against killing) forbids the shedding of human blood. I even said in my posts repeatedly that "obviously" the Jews couldn't perform a human sacrifice as it was against the Law. But as you and I know (as Christians) a sacrifice of a human (a perfect one at that) was indeed the only way a sacrifice could truly atone for sin.
So we are left with a quandary as Christians: do we believe in a God that is a liar, or do we believe in a God who is not bound by the same Law he gives? Because if He is bound by this same Law, then the very Sacrifice of Christ is a transgression against God himself.
Since that's impossible, it's impossible for God to transgress against Himself, it must be true that God is not bound by the same Law that binds us. So again, as I've stated repeatedly, He being the Author of Life is free to give life as He chooses. So there is nothing that violates any Law if indeed God commands us to drink His Son's blood. And indeed even on top of this (that you dismiss this reasoning as specious is irrelevant) Jesus is not an animal, so there is nothing broken in the Law anyway.
Cannibalism (or even the drinkng of human blood) is forbidden because it necessitates murder (or at least the taking of a life the Donner Party being a rare exception). Therefore since it necessitates murder to take place it is wrong. That is, it's wrong because it's murder, not because of the act itself. It's wrong because it's taking a life to sustain another just as I said before.
Certainly it's true that the reason (as stated in Scripture) that the drinking of animal blood was forbidden was because it was "sacred". Here though one must use the brain God has given and reason, "Why is the blood of an animal sacred?" "Just because?"
No, it's sacred because it is just as the Pagans believe. It's sacred because as science tells us today: it brings life. It contains life. It doesn't just "represent life". Thus, it's consumption is a sin because it takes something that is not ours for our own.
The Author of Life is free to give life however as He chooses. We are not "killing Jesus" by drinking His blood. We aren't even taking it from Him. We are receiving a gift freely given by the only One who can give such a gift. It's not murder. It's not cannibalism. It's obedience to His Word.
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
I'm glad you brought these verses up as they actually demonstrate the uniqueness the discourse of John 6.
You will note in all these instances we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, specifically members of a given audience asking questions like, "How can this man say he is a lamb?" Or "How can he be a bronze statue?" This is because his audience at the time well understood he was speaking metaphorically. If He was speaking the same way in John 6, there would be no such confusion that would result in questions like "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
As for the woman at the well, and Nicodemus, we can see how our Lord did not let them wallow in fleshy confusion. Indeed, the woman did believe He was speaking of a literal water. But He actually did not let her remain in such ignorance. This is precisely unlike John 6, as after understanding Him to mean "eating his body", Jesus did not correct them as He did the woman at the well.
Similarly for Nicodemus, when he mistook Our Lord to mean we must re-enter our mother's womb. He corrected him in his error. Clearly. And without ambiguity.
So these passages only serve to highlight the unique nature of the discourse in John 6 which is that John 6 is indeed literal. No other passage where symbology or typology is used, do we witness confusion reigning among His audience, at least not for long (and certainly not as a reason for some of His disciples to depart). So, you read Scripture one way, I read it another, who's to say who's hermeneutic is correct? That's a rhetorical question mind you as we have been down this road before and I have no desire to repeat such a journey.
Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?
The answer to this is related to what I said before. Anyone who knows the Catholic teaching on those outside the Church, knows that such people still can be saved by God, according to His good pleasure, because while the Sacraments are indeed the normative means God has chosen to dispense his Grace, He Himself is not bound to these same Sacraments.
Then the sacraments are not needed.
And there's nothing in Scripture that indicates that grace is dispensed at all, much less through *sacraments, which term is not found at ALL in Scripture.
Also, God LAVISHES His grace on believers. He doesn't stingily dispense it through so-called sacraments performed by only one church.
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here but I never said the death of anyone was prevented by the Temple sacrifice. Rather my only point all along has been that the drinking of Christ's blood does not violate any Law.
Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you asserted that this was against the Law because it was wrong "to take another life for oneself," and only God has the power to give and take life from one to another." But as i pointed out, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not. Thus reasoning that a text such as Lv. 17:10 was to prevent death is absurd.
Moreover, the prohibition against drinking blood transcends slain animals, but it can hardly be held that it would not also apply to any eating of blood. It was reserved for sacrifice in death as the singly most precious aspect of body atones for the most destructive.
I also never said the prohibition against drinking blood was only against killing animals.
Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you reasoned that to drink Christ blood is "not violating the Law. For it’s not the blood of bulls or goats we drink but His blood."
Thus according to this logic, if God commanded us to drink the blood of an animal then it would be violating the Law, but not if He commanded us to drink the blood of a human!
But as you and I know (as Christians) a sacrifice of a human (a perfect one at that) was indeed the only way a sacrifice could truly atone for sin. So we are left with a quandary as Christians: do we believe in a God that is a liar, or do we believe in a God who is not bound by the same Law he gives? Because if He is bound by this same Law, then the very Sacrifice of Christ is a transgression against God himself...So there is nothing that violates any Law if indeed God commands us to drink His Son's blood.
As your premise is false so is your conclusion. There is no law against laying down your life for others, which is what Christ chose to do. (Jn. 10:!8) He did not kill Himself either, thus there is no violation of the Law.
But He did clearly forbid eating blood, and which the kosher disciples certainly would have kept, and Peter especially would not even silently submit to eating unclean animals or having his feet washed by the Lord, let alone eat His flesh and drink His blood!
It's sacred because as science tells us today: it brings life. It contains life. It doesn't just "represent life". Thus, it's consumption is a sin because it takes something that is not ours for our own.
It is not the whole person or life, but because it is the single most precious substance for life, it represents the whole life. But not eating it does not prevent death, but the blood was poured out as a sacrifice to the Lord, and not be consumed.
We are not "killing Jesus" by drinking His blood. We aren't even taking it from Him.
But it remains that the blood you imagine yourself eating was shed in death. And again, you will have a hard time arguing prohibition against drinking blood does not also apply to eating of the blood of living things, outside of dire need, which can be your only argument.
You will note in all these instances we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, specifically members of a given audience asking questions like, "How can this man say he is a lamb?" Or "How can he be a bronze statue?" This is because his audience at the time well understood he was speaking metaphorically. If He was speaking the same way in John 6, there would be no such confusion that would result in questions like "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
You are wrong. People obviously did think He was speaking literally, as seen by their statements or questions. As said, Jews thought the Lord was speaking of destroying the physical temple, thus this misunderstanding was invoked in His trial and crucifixion, as shown. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) And which meaning was not explained to them.
Likewise as said and shown, Nicodemus thought the Lord referred to physical birth, and thus asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4) And the meaning of the response, "born of water and of the Spirit" was not made clear unless one reads more of Scripture.
Likewise in Jn. 4, the women thought the Lord referred to physical water, and thus said, "The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (John 4:15) And the Lord simply pointed out her sin that needed repentance, and revealed Himself as being the Messiah. This infers the water that gives eternal life is by believing on Him, but left with this unclear explanation, a Catholic could see it was meaning the Lord would give her some sort of transubstantiated water! For indeed, gaining spiritual life is connected to believing the words of Christ in Jn. 6, with both meanings being made clear as we read more of the Lord's words. Which only affirm faith comes by hearing, and by believing the gospel one obtains spiritual and eternal life. But RCs insist on reading an utterly foreign idea of how one obtains spiritual and eternal life.
Later on, the disciples also did not understand what the Lord was referring to by "I have meat to eat that ye know not of," thinking maybe someone brought him something to eat. But which was explained as doing the Father's will, as man is to live by every word of God, (Jn. 4:31-34) which metaphor prepares us for "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
Jn. 6 is a more extended discourse using the same method of allusion to physical things to refer to the spiritual, that which earthly vs. the heavenly, which is John's recurring method. Thus you are wrong that "we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, but you simply cling to the physical example and reject the spiritual explanation.
As for the woman at the well, and Nicodemus, we can see how our Lord did not let them wallow in fleshy confusion. Indeed, the woman did believe He was speaking of a literal water. But He actually did not let her remain in such ignorance.
Wrong. As said, the women was not told anything about the nature of this water, except by taking her to the spiritual level and that Christ was the Messiah who knew her life and sins, which became her message. And which infers that believing is how one obtains everlasting life, which is contrary to having to physically eat or drink Christ to do so.
Similarly for Nicodemus, when he mistook Our Lord to mean we must re-enter our mother's womb. He corrected him in his error. Clearly. And without ambiguity.
Only that it was not physical birth, not the meaning of being born of water and the Spirit, but which explanation by itself is hardly less clear than that the Lord was not speaking of a form of cannibalism in Jn. 6, eating human flesh and blood to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which is a radical pagan understanding that is nowhere taught. Even the Lord's supper account, which came later and was not known to the hearers in Jn. 6, does not teach at all that eating human flesh and blood obtains spiritual and eternal life. Both Jn. 2,3, and 4 require reading in the context of more of Scripture.
So these passages only serve to highlight the unique nature of the discourse in John 6 which is that John 6 is indeed literal. No other passage where symbology or typology is used, do we witness confusion reigning among His audience, at least not for long (and certainly not as a reason for some of His disciples to depart).
Wrong again, as shown. Souls remained thinking the Lord would destroy the physical temple, while what this living water was and how one is born gain is no less or more clear than that gaining spiritual life is by believing Christ who has the words of eternal life. Which further revelation confirms is by believing the gospel, (Acts 15:7-9) and then living according to God's words, (Mt. 4:4) making doing His will their "meat."
So, you read Scripture one way, I read it another, who's to say who's hermeneutic is correct? That's a rhetorical question mind you as we have been down this road before and I have no desire to repeat such a journey.
Indeed you should not, as that is the fundamental issue , for while you attempt to substantially engage in what is private and not official interpretation, a faithful RC is bound to make Scripture serve Rome, to support RC teaching, under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome as being the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation.
But which is contrary to how the church began, with common people seeing what the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation would not, and thus in dissent from them following itinerant preachers whom they rejected. But who reproved them by Scripture as being the supreme standard, and by Scriptural substantiation established their Truth claims. And thus the church began and thus it continues. Thanks be to God.
Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?
The answer to this is related to what I said before. Anyone who knows the Catholic teaching on those outside the Church, knows that such people still can be saved by God, according to His good pleasure, because while the Sacraments are indeed the normative means God has chosen to dispense his Grace, He Himself is not bound to these same Sacraments.
Such equivocation is so much special pleading! This "verily verily" statement is not equivocal, anymore than others such as "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47)
Nor do Caths treat is as such, but love to invoke it as the absolute unequivocal imperative that it is, while the fact remains that you cannot find any place in which souls consumed the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, but instead they believed the gospel of the One whose words are spirit and life!
Yes, asserting a form of endocannibalism existed before Christ and then trying to defend a "Christianized" form of it takes some doing.
Only to clarify one final time: (as these points still have something left to be said, the others are now just reduced to “I say vs you say”).
Jesus never said “my blood is water” or “I am water” or “my body is water” or anything like that in John 4, so your comparisons fail there. The misunderstanding of the woman was that there was another kind of water Jesus was offering her, not that He was claiming to be water. So He did correct her in that false belief by showing her sin to her, he convinced her He is the Messiah.
Similarly with the Temple, Jesus never said “My body is the Temple which will be destroyed in 3 days”. Indeed the Temple itself was destroyed in AD 70 so there was nothing to correct there. (When He was on trial).
Similarly with Nicodemus, he thought Jesus meant to return to the womb. This was a mistake on Nicodemus’ part that Jesus then corrected.
So for those three passages where mistake/confusion was, the audience was either corrected or there was no actual mistake made on anyone’s part.
To conclude, the rest of the passages you cited again do not show the type of confusion that reigned in John 6, specifically, no one said “How can this man claim to be a bronze statue” or “how can this man claim to be a lamb?” So there was no confusion in those types of passages because there Our Lord was speaking metaphorically and everyone knew it. So those fail too.
Again, you read Scripture one way, I read it another way. Both of us ultimately should not be concerned about what the other personally claims about Scripture. I’m certainly not too concerned about your personal opinion of Scripture (because whether you claim it’s “just Scripture” you’re offering, you’re still wrong. It’s really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says).
This is just a confused response to what Daniel wrote, and you don't even seem to be familiar with the texts he was citing. The woman did not think Christ was living water. She thought that there existed such a water that would give eternal life when drunk, and this Christ did not even attempt to correct. This, and the other points made, more than prove Daniel's argument.
I will also add the following notice: That Christ both calls the cup, after supposedly having been transubstantiated, still "wine," and also proclaims that He will continue to drink and eat it even into eternity. Which would mean, if interpreted your way, that Christ will continue to eat and drink himself for all eternity:
1) He gives thanks, breaks the bread, declares it is His body: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.(1Co 11:24)
2) After “he had supped,” He offers the cup, which He calls His blood: “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Co 11:25)
3) After calling it the blood of the covenant, with the cup still in hand, He calls it “this fruit of the vine” which He would not drink AGAIN until reunited with the Apostles in heaven, either indicating He was about to drink it, or had just drank it: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Mat 26:28-29)
Oh! If you say so it must be true!
I'll leave it to any objective reader to decide for themselves who is confused in the exchange between Daniel and me. As I said to Daniel, I'm not interested in your opinion of what Scripture says. (Or for that matter what your opinion of St Augustine says)
I'm done playing that game with any anti-Catholic here.
Anti-Catholic? I might be against certain Catholic teachings such as their views on salvation (which I believe is all of grace, and not grace plus other stuff) or transubstantiation, but I have no intention of going after a Catholic on a personal level.
I have been here on this forum for months bashing the Russkie invaders of Ukraine, who are genuinely anti-Catholic (and anti-Protestant too), and have made posts highlighting kidnappings of Priests and other such things.
Please do not lump me in as an "anti-Catholic" just because I disagree on doctrine, which are quite serious, of course, the difference between life and death, but this is an issue between me and your church, not me and this or that Catholic individual.
Let me be clear to be as charitable as I can to you: I do not believe you have any intention of “going after a Catholic on a personal level”. I really don’t. I’ll even say that I do believe (again out of charity) that you genuinely want to help people.
What I mean by “anti-Catholic” is that you oppose (not just disagree with but actively oppose) the Catholic Church’s teachings on virtually all her dogmas except I guess the Trinity.
So I don’t think you are intending to “go after a Catholic on a personal level”. I absolutely do not believe that is your intent.
But Jesus did offer a corrective in John 6. No doubt you already have a polemic means of deflecting it, but Jesus did say His controversial words were to be understood spiritually and not carnally in verse 66.
The problem here is I’ve never seen a deflection from the obvious meaning of that which would make any sense in a less controversial setting. Jesus actually used a nearly identical pattern with Nicodemas, stating a spiritual truth (which some today still confuse with physical baptism) in physical analogy, and when the confusion occurs, offers a direct statement that the meaning is spiritual.
As for the use of the verb “estin” (”is”), that is simply the pattern of a standard direct metaphor. There is nothing in the Greek word order which would suggest anything but a metaphor to the spiritually minded listener. A metaphor operates at a more basic level. In any uncontroversial setting, you only need to link two domains which have some similarities and some differences. The mind is wired to sniff this out as an instructive comparison, so you can learn about A through properties of B.
And that’s exactly what Jesus was doing in both cases. With Nicodemas, the lesson was that no accident of physical birth would get him into the kingdom, but something had to happen in his spirit, a birth of a new kind of spiritual Nicodemas, or he would never see the kingdom, and such amazing births could only initiate with God.
Similarly, Jesus is teaching in John 6 about our utter dependence on Him. He is the bread of heaven, the one whose redeeming life and sanctifying teaching we must consume as though our lives depended on it. And he does this with the analogy of eating both His body and His blood. But the same confusion occurs as with Nicodemas, only worse, because the imagery is, as you say, scandalous. But here’s where it gets interesting. Nicodemas struggled to understand, even asking Jesus for clarification. But here in John 6, they just grumbled among themselves. No one asked Him what he meant. Apparently they were so fixated on the physical, so unenlightened in their spirit, they never had the natural “aha” that leads one to recognizing metaphor.
And it is at precisely this moment when Jesus spells it out, that this is about spiritual matters, not physical. But so great was the darkness of their minds, they could not learn about B by comparing it with A, because they could not grasp that there even was a B, a spiritual relationship of total dependency on Jesus Christ through faith.
But Peter does have that “aha” moment, and expresses it so eloquently, “Lord, to whom else can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Bingo. He can see B, so he gets what A is teaching about B. Star pupil.
There us a great deal else in John 6 that often gets lost for all the wrangling over a few verses, and it all relates to and reinforces the basic message, that our eternal life totally depends on our being totally dependent on Jesus to sustain us with the richness of His own life, his body broken for us, his blood shed for us, his resurrection power flowing through us. He is our food. I promise you this. Once you have tasted the sweetness of His boundless grace and love, no mortal wafer will ever satisfy again.
Peace,
SR
What?! He used water as representing what He would give (eternal life), as blood was used in Jn. 6, while this is only one of my comparisons. In addition to which Christ said He was a door, (Jn. 10:7) and said rivers of living water would flow from the belly of believers who drank of Him. (Jn. 7:36,37) .
This use of figurative language, using the material for the spiritual is clear and consistent with John, while making the obtainment of spiritual life by literally eating something physical is not, or with all of Scripture. Thus who must are desperately try to disallow it in Jn. 6 by demanding the exact same language
Even in the OT, to be consistent with your plain meaning literalism you should hold that David engaged in transubstantiation, as he plainly stated that precious water was the blood of the men who obtained it at the risk of their lives was their blood. Therefore he would not drink it. but poured it out to the Lord as an offering, as was done with blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17; cf. Lv. 9:9)
The misunderstanding of the woman was that there was another kind of water Jesus was offering her, not that He was claiming to be water. So He did correct her in that false belief by showing her sin to her, he convinced her He is the Messiah.
That was far certainly implied (though read in isolation Catholics could contend He would give transubstantiated water), and but which He did in Jn. 6, quite obviously if one reads it in context of Scripture, but this you refuse to see, and resort to argumentation that not even official teaching uses.
Similarly with the Temple, Jesus never said “My body is the Temple which will be destroyed in 3 days”. Indeed the Temple itself was destroyed in AD 70 so there was nothing to correct there. (When He was on trial).
This also is non-sense, as He clearly referred to a physical temple an an allegory to His death and resurrection, and left the Jews to figure it out, while He corrected the absurd idea in Jn. 6:62-64 that flesh itself gave spiritual life, and which is NOWHERE taught. It is believing on Christ as the Divine Son of God that one passes from death to life, (Jn. 5:24), believing the gospel by which one receives the Spirit, as seen and taught elsewhere!
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."
The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.
...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...
And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”
...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.
Similarly with Nicodemus, he thought Jesus meant to return to the womb. This was a mistake on Nicodemus’ part that Jesus then corrected.
Imprecisely, saying the birth was of the Spirit, by believing, not eating, and likewise Christ did explain Himself in Jn. 6, by teaching we live by Him as He did in believing and thus obeying the Father, and that He would soon no longer be with them, but It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. (John 6:63,64)
So for those three passages where mistake/confusion was, the audience was either corrected or there was no actual mistake made on anyone’s part.
Indeed, as in Jn. 6, and as seen in the rest of Scripture, in which nowhere is spiritual life obtained by consuming the Lord's Supper, which is what you literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54 has to mean, versus being born of the Spirit by believing the gospel. The actual mistake is on your part, following Rome!
To conclude, the rest of the passages you cited again do not show the type of confusion that reigned in John 6, specifically, no one said “How can this man claim to be a bronze statue” or “how can this man claim to be a lamb?”
Actually, souls were yet assuming the Lord was referring to the physical temple in His trial and crucifixion, and the confusion seen in Jn. 6 is akin to that of Nicodemus supposing Christ was speaking literally, and the women at the well, while the spiritual explanation in such is also given in Jn. 6, and is the only one that is consistent with them !
Your refusal to see it is not God's fault, and the only one your vain argumentation is convincing to is yourself and those of like obstinacy, or the ignorant.
I’m certainly not too concerned about your personal opinion of Scripture (because whether you claim it’s “just Scripture” you’re offering, you’re still wrong. It’s really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says).
As is some of your argumentation in support of Rome, but whose presumption determines what you must argue for and against, and thus dismiss reproof as just being an opinion, rather than going wherever the Truth leads.
But as you resort to this "only your *opinion*" solution, then you must again defend the premise behind it, which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
If you cannot establish this as the indisputable Truth then all you are doing in giving your opinion of the opinion of one church among others. So go ahead or try to disagree with other RCs.
And which is an attempt to reject the abundant use of figurative language in John which Jn. 6 is consistent with, and in Jewish and Greek culture, in order to justify an interpretation that is utterly foreign to Scripture, literally consuming physical human flesh and blood in order to obtain spiritual life, and which is only consistent with pagan belief!
That is simply more ignorance, and fallacy, unless the truths of the apostles creed and much more that evangelicals have historical contended for against liberals and revisionism are rejected by Rome.
But it is true that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the sole supreme authority as the wholly inspired word of God, oppose RC traditions that are not that of the NT church , as well as the majority of the fruit of Rome which she counts and treats as members in life and in death (which testifies to its real faith)
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.