Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I think not. Think about the following verses.
Matthew 26:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
One of the Noahide laws, carried over into Mosaic, is the commandment to abstain from 'drinking blood'. Jesus was a devout Jew, righteous. Do you really think that Jesus would suggest something, say something like the above verses, knowing full well that it was against Torah????
More likely the drinking of blood was added later. Drinking of blood is pagan, and probably introduced by Paul, whose roots were pagan Tarsus.
To suggest 'eating his flesh', canibalism, too, I would think Jesus would have been horrified at the idea, much less say something so ungodly.
The catholic eucharist believes that the wine and wafer become the actual body and blood of Christ. Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake because they refused to accept this pagan idea??
In my opinion, Jesus would NEVER had said such a thing. So WHO inserted it?
Since Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, it seems logical that the gospels were crafted to support Paul's gospel, of gnostic paganism. jmo
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
One of the Noahide laws, carried over into Mosaic, is the commandment to abstain from 'drinking blood'. Jesus was a devout Jew, righteous. Do you really think that Jesus would suggest something, say something like the above verses, knowing full well that it was against Torah????
If it were really blood that was being drank then yes, I could see that. But it was wine that represented blood. It was symbolic of a couple of things:
Lev 16:15 Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil. And he shall do with that blood as he did with the blood of the young bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat.
Here we see that the blood of the sacrifice was spread on the mercy seat of the arc, the place where God resided. Jesus was directly relating the drinking of his "blood" to the spreading of blood on the mercy seat. When we drink the symbolic blood, we are symbolically cleansing the new mercy seat where God resides, in ourselves where the living God indwells.
More likely the drinking of blood was added later. Drinking of blood is pagan, and probably introduced by Paul, whose roots were pagan Tarsus
Sorry, I think Jesus knew exactly what he was doing by using this symbolism. I think the people may or may not have understood it. We know that some were upset by this reference:
Joh 6:60 Then when they had heard, many of His disciples said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it?
We don't know exactly why it was a hard saying, but it could have been because it sounded like cannibalism or it could have been because they couldn't accept that Jesus was comparing the drinking of his blood to the sprinking of the sacrificial blood on the ark.
To suggest 'eating his flesh', canibalism, too, I would think Jesus would have been horrified at the idea, much less say something so ungodly.
Same thing...the priests were instructed to eat the sin offering as well as the passover lamb. Jesus also compared the eating of his flesh to the eating of manna. Again, I believe Jesus understood the symbolism.
The catholic eucharist believes that the wine and wafer become the actual body and blood of Christ. Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake because they refused to accept this pagan idea??
I don't agree with the catholic view on this.
Since Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, it seems logical that the gospels were crafted to support Paul's gospel, of gnostic paganism. jmo
I put a lot of thought and prayer into this. It came down to either accepting the new covenant as put forth in scripture or not. I think, as Peter did, that Pauls writings were willfully misinterpreted to cloud and confuse Christians. I believe the same thing is still happening today. But I think scripture is consistent if carefully examined.