Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | May 23, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

[Elsie]

BECAUSE WE SAY SO does not impress Protestants at all.

Neither does...

Because we wuz FIRST!
Because we wuz founded on Peter!
Because we are the OLDEST!
Because we are RIGHT in ALL our teachings!
Because we compiled YOUR bible!
Because we believe in visions and apparations!
Because Mary loves us so!
Because we Francis will turn out to be one of our better Popes!

[Elsie]

Uh...

...you might want to scratch that last one.

[Elsie]

John WHAT; exactly?

[RnMomof7]

LOL...I sure do..maybe time to restart it huh??

[Arthur McGowan]

Several posters asserted that:

1) Drinking the blood of the victim in a sacrifice was a sin under the Old Law.

2) Therefore: If Jesus actually gave his blood to drink, it would be a sin.

3) Therefore: Jesus did NOT actually give his blood to drink.

I raised this question: If Jesus merely gave wine to drink, symbolizing the drinking of his blood, then he was commanding a ritual action that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.

That seems just as unlikely as Jesus’ commanding the actual commission of a sin. Why in blazes would Jesus command us to PRETEND to be committing a sin, any more than he would command us to sin?

So far, NOBODY has responded to my question.

[Elsie]

In the book of Revelation, we find liturgical action, centered on an altar. Among the features of the liturgical action and the community carrying it out, we see the following:

Is this REALLY a valid way to IGNORE what comes LATER in John's writing?

It is ROME's seven churches that are teaching ERROR!

You guys want it from day one?

Yumpin' Yiminy you GOTS it!

[RnMomof7]

>>We don’t know whether or not Mary died.<<<
But they know she was "assumed" into heaven

[RnMomof7]

yep

[Springfield Reformer]

I think the following addresses and rebuffs this "If we drink the actual blood of Jesus then we sin according to the OT" claim. Some of the points there Father already made but there are some others there that haven't been considered in your discussion/debate so far.
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

If you don't have time or energy to post the arguments from the link, I don't have time or energy to respond to them.  On to what you have posted.

Also two points made there haven't been addressed in your debate even though Father made the original point to whit:

When Jesus declared all foods clean, it took effect immediately, not "after the Cross". There is nothing in the text that necessarily says otherwise.

Jesus didn't change the law.  The passage in question is this, I believe:

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(Mark 7:18-20)

Here He is explaining where the real contamination comes from, the heart.  The food just goes in one way and comes out another.  It's not the issue, spiritually. Put another way, He's arguing (and thank you for pointing this out!) that the banned foods are not intrinsically evil, as your author in the above link incorrectly presupposes.  But even if the food is perfectly wholesome, the prohibition stands until the fulfillment of the law has been accomplished, and to the best of my knowledge, no one on these pages, as much as we disagree about other things, is arguing that the law could possibly have been fulfilled before Jesus died for our sins, because that was the big event everything in in the Mosaic sacrificial system was pointing forward to.

Secondly, even a symbolic act that symbolizes something evil is itself evil, so even if the Eucharist is meant to be just a symbol, it would still be blasphemous to engage in an act that would break an OT law, even if it's just symbolic.

To say otherwise is akin to saying, "it's not really sinful to dip a Crucifix in urine, after all that's not really Jesus on the Cross its just a symbol".

If you took the trouble to read my earlier post, you will note I already dealt with this.  But just to be clear, in the long history of law, in Western civilization built upon the principles of the Judeo-Christian systems of religious law, it has been long recognized that some things are not intrinsically evil and some things are. Lying and adultery are mental, spiritual acts that have an outward manifestation.  Eating one food or another involves no intrinsically evil mental act.  It is what Blackstone would call a "thing indifferent."  

And as you so helpfully pointed out, even Jesus Himself confirms to us your author is wrong, because Jesus asserts that consuming a particular food is not intrinsically evil.  Therefore, your author's premise, that symbolizing such an act would violate any law of God is simply wrong.  Unlike the moral sins, there is no required evil mental act in eating a particular food.  It is the actual act of eating that is prohibited, and if one steers clear of that, all is well.

The usual analogy given in law school is speed limits versus murder, or some such pair.  In murder, we don't find guilt without the mental act, the Mens Rea, the intent to kill or do great bodily harm.  If you have a seizure while driving through no fault of your own, and your out of control car kills a pedestrian, there will be no finding of murder.  But if you do a burglary where your partner kills the homeowner, you're going down on felony murder, even though you didn't personally do the deed, because you had the right mental state.

But if you draw a picture of yourself driving 100 mph in a 30 mph zone, one might ask why you did that, but there'd be no crime in it.  It might even be a good thing, say, if you were teaching your granddaughter what NOT to do. :) There is no inherent moral difference between 30 and 100 miles an hour, all things else being equal.  It's just a number.  From a moral point of view, it is a thing indifferent. The only moral question is, how do you respond to divinely appointed authority?  Are you willing to obey a law that tells you to actually drive at 30 mph?  If that is all the faster you go in that speed zone, you will not get a ticket. Period.

The above two points may be contended further but speaking for myself I don't see a reason to respond to any post unless all points (in the linked article) are addressed (and even then maybe no response is necessary if the only "rebuttal" is something to the effect of "I don't agree with that interpretation of Scripture").

Your disinterest in following up duly noted. No harm no foul. :)

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

What is the explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church has or practices all these things contained in Scripture, while Protestant or “Reformed” Christians do not have or practice so many of these things contained in Scripture?

I think you may have missed something in your list of things being DONE IN HEAVEN.

Where is the WAFER and WINE?

Your referenece; the EUCHARISTIC HOST: 2:17; doesn't seem to apply...

Revelation 2:17 New International Version (NIV)
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

[Elsie]

I remember Paul making that statement, but where did Jesus say that?

Acts 10:9-16

⁹ About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. ¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

¹⁴ “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

[RnMomof7]

2) Therefore: If Jesus actually gave his blood to drink, it would be a sin

Arthur YOU REALLY need a GOOD BIBLE STUDY

The Gospels are actually Old Testament ..because they are looking back at the life of Christ WHICH WAS UNDER THE Old Testament LAW

Jesus remained under the law at the last supper because He had not yet been sacrificed, risen and ascended ..

So yes drinking blood was still forbidden ... and if Jesus drank that blood..HE was no longer a sinless lamb

[Elsie]

I remember Paul making that statement, but where did Jesus say that?

The text is NOT specific as to whom the 'voice' belonged.

Peter is recorded as saying 'Lord', while the 'voice' referred to GOD, although not claiming to be GOD.

[Elsie]

HMMMmmm...

I don't think that THIS has quite that meaning.

Mark 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)

“Are you so dull?” he asked.
“Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

[Elsie]

Mary, being sinless, very possibly did not die.

POSSIBLY?

Do I see some DOUBT creeping it???

[Elsie]

Do I see some DOUBT creeping it???

Mary, possibly being sinless, very possibly did not die.

May as well apostatize ALL the way!!!

[Elsie]

When it comes to the Eucharist, we are NOT told that Jesus explained to the disciples privately that he was speaking in metaphor only

Don't you know that not everything Jesus ever said has been recorded???

(See how that works?)

[af_vet_1981]

So let's make sure we make your position clear for the readers at home.

Jesus has His Last Supper with His disciples, during which He establishes the practice of Communion (or the Eucharist, if you prefer). In this, He says "this is my Body, this is my Blood", etc.

RIGHT AFTER the meal and BEFORE leaving the room, Jesus is speaking to His disciples and tells them "I have spoken to you in proverbs..."

And YOUR argument is that Jesus was talking about things He had said to them at other times, but specifically NOT about what He had been telling them just before making that statement, even though a literal interpretation of those statements would have indicated a command from Jesus to violate a Law of God that had been in effect for thousands of years.

The immediate context of your quote about proverbs clearly shows the referential context of the proverbs. It is about the returning to the Father, and Messiah's relationship with the Father. Previously there were references to "the door" of the sheep, which he explained. The previous context of this passage, which you partially quoted and then erroneously tried to apply to the Synoptic Gospels, is amidst his sayings about "my Father's house," his unity with the Father, being "the true vine" with the Father as the husbandman. They then became confused when He said He was going away for a little while and they would see Him afterward. He said he would not use the proverb and explain more clearly that He came from the Father, entered the world, would leave the world, and return to the Father. They then agreed He had explained it clearly.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. 17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. 19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me? 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. 21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. 22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
-John, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses sixteen through twenty nine, as authorized by King James

[Elsie]

Jesus spoke in proverbs and analogies very often...

Are you still so dull?

Proverb?
Analogy??
Plain fact???

[Springfield Reformer]

See my posts 265 and 309. You can say you don’t like my answer. That wont hurt my feelings. :) But you are incorrect to say there has been no response.

Peace,

SR