Replies

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.

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?

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.

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 Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• 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.

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.

Have some MEAT!