Replies

No, the prohibition against eating blood *did* indeed come before the Old Covenant. It is plainly there in the Scripture passage from Genesis that metmom provided you. In that passage, God forbid Noah and his descendents from eating blood. Shouldn’t you have addressed metmom’s point that the prohibition against eating blood is given in Genesis, before the Old Covenant, and is also given again by the Apostles in the book of Acts, if you’re going to discuss God’s Word as it is, and seek to tell people how to interpret it?

I also had to wonder if you did something likewise with my reply in Post 294. I discussed John 6 and the Last Supper, but you replied only to this,

” Then consider something else, as well. At the Last Supper, Jesus did not give His Apostles either of His blood or His flesh to drink or

to which you said:

“He did them His literal Body and Blood.
This was no parable, there was no crowd, just the disciples.”

Are you familiar with John 6, or if not did you read it when I mentioned it? The crowd is there in John 6, as I discussed, and I never claimed they were there at the Last Supper, so my first thought in reaction to that reply is that it makes no sense for you to dispute the crowd’s presence in any way. But then I thought of another possibility for how you meant that, but it is equally not relevant while also failing to address what happens in John 6.

So, the thought was this: what you meant is that Jesus said something similar in both John 6 and at the Last Supper, and since the crowd wasn’t at the Last Supper, but only the disciples, then it should be concluded that He meant for his words to be taken literally, across both situations mentioned, and all other possible situations. Is that your point, then?

If it is, then it doesn’t logically follow. You’re assuming first that because the crowd, including some disciples, turned away from Jesus at the literal meaning of the words, and then Jesus later used the same words, that, logically it follows that when Jesus used essentially the same words, that they were meant to be taken literally, as the crowd (including some disciples outside the 12) took them. But, if the crowd *misunderstood* the words, due to their hardened hearts of unbelief, and that caused them to turn away, that would not make the misunderstanding into a truth that the twelve disciples believed. And considering the Gospels *say* Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables because they were unbelieving, and something similar happened when the Pharisees took Jesus literally when He spoke of the temple being destroyed, and Jesus *did not* give the disciples His actual flesh and blood to consume, then the possibility that He did not, strictly speaking, mean what He said literally, has to be addressed and eliminated as a possibility, if what you say is to be considered true.

And let me further say, in the Last Supper itself, as I said, Jesus is present there in body, but He gave His disciples bread and wine which He said were His body and blood, not His own actual body and blood, although He could have pricked Himself and cut small portions from Himself if He’d chosen to. And if instead, His resurrected body was required, then He could have given to His disciples actual blood and meat from Himself afterward, since He appeared to them and told them to touch Him, meaning He was physically there.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11, though,

” 3
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” (Catholic Bible)

To “proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes” (returns in glory). So what would be the reasons for believers to proclaim the death of the Lord? What is the meaning of His death?

And, the fact of the matter is also that, if you read through the Gospels, and the New Testament, and the entire Bible, what is the importance giving to believing on the Lord? Jesus constantly spoke on believing on Him, and unbelief, as did the Gospel writers, and the rest of the New Testament and Bible writers. And even where the Gospel is proclaimed, which is often, the Roman Catholic beliefs on Holy Communion aren’t a part of it.

I do believe, as I said, that evangelicals are wrong to say that Holy Communion is “just a symbol.” I understand where those who say that are coming from, but their own beliefs don’t fit that. 1 Corinthians 10 says of the Israelites,

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,

2 and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

3 All ate the same spiritual food,

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them,* and the rock was the Christ.

1 Corinthians 10 also speaks of believers as being of one body, which is one bread, which while in the literal sense of this world isn’t true, spiritually in an eternal sense, it is. So I believe that it is spiritually true that Jesus is having us eat His body and drink His blood, and that He is a shepherd and we sheep, that He is also a door, and a temple as well, and that we, when we believe in Him as our Savior, are part of that temple.

And to go back to what Roman Catholics need to prove, then, it has to be proved that Jesus’ words were meant literally, and He was not using a figure of speech which would be taken as a spiritual truth by those who believed in Him and understood what He meant because they did. And Jesus’ words, in themselves, prove nothing. As language goes, they could be literal, but they could also be a figure a speech, because some figures involve saying that someone or some thing is someone or some thing else, which they clearly are not. So, to prove Jesus meant His words either way, that has to be done from looking at the rest of what we know about Him (which involves conclusively answering the types of questions mentioned here), and Roman Catholics would also say, because the Roman Catholic Church says it’s true. But if make that last claim without truly and independently proving that it’s shown in Scripture, then you are relying on Roman Catholic tradition, not Scripture.