...the clear words of our Lord...
Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
He writes BOTH metaphors and literally in John Chapter 6!!
The Passover lamb had it’s blood poured out, with just enough spread on the door post and lintel. Build strawmen much? Try not to fabricate things like ‘splashed’. You have zero credibility when you seek to deceive.
...the clear words of our Lord...
I want you to please think about what happens with the third cup of four cups of wine at the Seder Passover. In the cup is wine and it is never His literal blood. The third cup of wine is to be mixed with warm water. ... When the soldier pierced the side of Jesus instead of breaking His legs, what poured forth? ... Even the little details of passover, done to Remember His Sacrifice for us is arranged to be sacred remembrance, not literal violation of God’s command to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS. The sacrilege of ‘transubstantiation’ magic is Satan’s substitution for the sacred remembrance. Christ was/IS our Passover lamb. John the Baptist even declared this when Jesus approached him for baptism. As our Passover lamb to take away our sins, was Jesus transubstantiated into little white sheep offspring?
“Do this in remembrance of Me” (The LORD Jesus Christ, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25)
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Nothing there about the bread becomes Me...
Jesus makes it clear that the act is merely symbolic...
You are correct TN.
The Passover lamb had it’s blood poured out, with just enough spread on the door post and lintel.
This only further proves my point which is: it doesn't matter the manner in which the blood is treated after the sacrifice. The only thing that matters, as far as atoning for sin is concerned, is that blood is shed. This is because there is Lev 17:11 in addition to the Pasover account you have now referred to, and they each treat the shed blood differently towards the same goal, which is the avoidance of death really (which is what atonement for sin does).
All you have done is shown that it's the shedding of blood that's important for the atonement of sin, not that the shed blood necessarily must be spread out on a doorpost and lintel or must be poured upon an altar (I read "splahed on" in another translation sorry if that offended you). An altar is not a doorpost.
Also, again, since neither of these things were done at the Cross, then you are subject to the same criticism you lay at the feet of Catholicism, to whit: unless you either spread the blood on a doorpost or splash it on an altar then you can't claim the sacrifice of Christ's blood is effectual for you either; the fact you don't claim to drink His blood is immaterial.
It's immaterial that you don't claim to drink His Blood since you (seem to be) claiming that when Catholics claim drinking His blood is effacious they are wrong since that's not how OT sacrifice and/or the Passover was originally done. The exact procedure as to how these acts were done must be immaterial to every Christian or else Christ's Sacrifice becomes ineffectual since His Blood was neither shed on a literal altar nor was it spread on a doorpost and lintel.
And what is this command you keep referring to that’s “to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS”?
I don't sense a desire to discuss these things, I detect the usual catholic haughtiness which issues forth the consensus opinion rather than following the Bible teaching in more than one verse. It is your unfamiliarity with the Bible and what God says in His Word that leads a catholic to ask 'what is this 'to all their generations' command?
The volume of the Book, from Genesis to the last word in Revelation, is about Him, Messiah, Jesus the Christ. The literal drinking of blood is forbidden for all their generations. Jesus would not have violated that command, especially before sealing the new covenant with His blood shed at Calvary. The catholic substitution of the sacrilege over His blood, rather than treating it in a sacred remembrance, is what I'm referring to. Catholicism substitues sacrilege for the sacred. Read Luke's rendering of the Passover meal scene. If you see there is something there not in the other Gospel accounts, and somehting NOT THERE that is in the other Gospel accounts, reconcile such apparent disagreement using the Word of God not traditions of men.
Fine. All you had to say was “read Lev 3:17” to answer my question.
Two points then I’m done, you can have your precious last word:
“A perpetual law for all your generations...” (Lev 3:17): 1. “All YOUR generations”, so this applies to Jews technically speaking. If we are going by “the bible only” that’s exactly what those words mean.
2. Again, even with all your words in reply to me you still did not address my point which was that if you are going to demand that a sin offering must be made in the exact form of the OT law then Christ failed to offer a successful sacrifice on Calvary, since He clearly did not do so when he hung on the cross! A cross is not a doorway and lintel! A cross is not literally an altar!
Go ahead have the precious last word if you need it. You’re just like all the other critics of the Churcb around here, unable to recognize the very “haughtiness which issues forth the consensus opinion” in yourself that you claim I and other Catholics possess.
I can look to what Jesus referred to with the lifting up of the serpent in the desert and show How Jesus Himself explains that He is prefigured in that act by Moses for the people. The Israelites bitten by the poisonous snakes were by faith healed when they looked upon the brass serpent on the pole. Later in the History of the Israelites the people had turned that faith exercise into a pagan idol worship, making brass serpents that were venerated as if the totem could bring power. Catholicicsm does the very same turning the sacred remembrance into the sacrilege of something forbidden to all the generations of Jews, into which I am certain the body of Jesus is included. As a devout Jew and absolutel follower of the commands of God, Jesus would not have violated them prior to His sacrifice upon the Cross. To assert, even speciously, that He would offer His literal blood to the disciples at Passover is a sacrilege taught by your religion, a religion only vagurely similar to Christianity, an immitator but not a grafted branch.
The wood of the Cross is not the focus just as the brass of the serpent is not the focus, the sacrifice is the focus of Faith. To speciously try and refocus attention onto the altar, the cross, or the brass serpent on a pole is to ignore the sacred remembrance and worship instead the sacrilege.
Jesus was identified by John The Baptist as 'The Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world'. That sacrifice upon the Cross poured out His blood upon the ;argest altar human's can find, the Earth. If you were familiar with the Book of Romans, you would already know the Earth was the first altar before God, and Abel's blood was shed upon that altar. His blood cried out from The Earth. But trying to get a catholic to see the prefiguring God has given us in the volume of the Book is like searhcing hens mouths for teeth.
We are not n agame of 'last wording', we are discussing issues effecting the very destiny of immortal souls. There are people who read these threads and posts who are seeking the truth. Sadly, as we are being shown daily, the truth is not being taught to catholics. Leaving us to concluded the catholic church doesn't know the truth else they would not teach sacrilege to their faithful.
'Oh you foolish Galatians' ...
bumpity
For those who’s agenda is truth not vainglory:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law
My obligation is filled as far as any lurker goes here.
Mark 7:18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"[ Jesus declared that what goes in the mouth is going in the mouth, not into the soul. But the catholic twist is made, anyway. Jesus also taught that the eye can allow 'things' into the soul, and thus what is allowed into the eyegate can defile the soul. Committing sacrilege, committing an act which is against a command from God, can also defile the soul, because it is done by faith that this defiance must be accepted by God as sacred.]
That passage from Mark is used to fabricate mumbo jumbo. The followup passage from the 'wise' catholic answers should be seen in the light of the proof text scrabbled for use above:
Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).
Now readers can see why some are declaring catholicism is a false religion, for these catholic answers show that the religion has not a clue how GOD'S LIFE GETS INTO A CHRISTIAN! The Holy SPirit at Pentecost came INTO the listeners who received the Word with repentence. They didn't eat Jesus and drink His blood to get Holy Spirit life in them!
But wait, there's more mystery religion mumbo jumbo!
This supposed wise source of catholic dogma goes down the same heresy drain hole it created:
Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).
Because the author of the tripe is so twisted in thinking, it goes after the Passover Feast which included four cups of wine drunk in remembrance, as symbolic foreshadowing of realities. Though I am in no way a Jehovah's Witness, I join with their objection to the catholic mystery religion assertion that catholics should drink the literal blood of Jesus! THAT IS sacrilege taught as sacred. That is a form of blasphemy.
Catholic answers twist the seeker into pretzels so the only hope they appear to have is to just trust the priests of the mystery religion for their welfare. God forbide! The above 'catholic answers' teaching is an example of double talk used when the author had not a clue to the coming of God's Life into the believing/faithing person. Do readers really accept the teaching from catholicism that you must drink Christ's literal blood to have God's life in you? Or do readers believe the sacred ceremony of symbolically drinking the wine and breaking and eating the bread is an fiath affirmation of the sacrifice He made for us? The symbolic affirmation is exactly what Passover is all about! In fact, it is what all the Feasts, the Times of God, are about. Symbolism focusing the soul/spirit upon the Grace of God.
LOL at my gnarly fingers. ‘God Frobide’ should read God Forbid! When I get home to my desktop unit, I’ll wade into this catholic foolishness a little deeper. Oh yes, there’s more.
It is indeed "mumbo jumbo," which can be defined as needed as Catholicism does with the words eat My flesh and drink My blood." For these words, which RCs claim to take literally, do not convey "if you eat even a speck of consecrated bread you are consuming as its essence My soul and divinity, flesh and blood, but which by appearance really is not."
This is set in contrast to cannibalism in which actual flesh and blood is consumed, yet it can include the belief (in endocannibalism) that spiritual qualities of the deceased are thereby conveyed, though these are not seen in what they eat.
And if we allow for a extraBiblical; neoPlatonic theology of transubstantiation that of necessity (lest they be seen as typical cannibals) explains how one can consume the real body and blood of Christ without actually consuming His bloody body, and with what they appear to be eating being in substance something entirely different, so can we allow pagans to develop a theology that defines cannibalism as being what Catholicism claims, though in endocannibalism it can be in essence very similar.
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and 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 are 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. ^
Thank you. brother, for shining a more intense light upon this heresy. The magic implied by the Vatican and its mystery religion priesthood needs exposure for time is short.
Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. [The twisted apologist just defined the aspects of classic cannibalism, done in such a way as to exclude the catholic practice of same in their magic rite] Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain.
Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity, to be cannibalized! I mean, the magic priest brings the Christ down to the cannibalizing 'substantially present', BUT, and this is a corker, the 'accidents' of bread and wine remain.
Mumbo jumbo rickety racks, catholic magic is on their backs. This astonishing 'magic' is what is taught to sincere people who genuinely seek The Lord. Well some, anyway. The devout catholic is unable to see the absolute pagan magic the catholic church is trying to invoke!
And we have sincere catholics on these threads insisting that the circle of reasoning the catholic church has drummed into their confused heads is able to ingest the Life of God into them! I mean, if that is not the epitome of the magic mystery cults ... Ask them where is the blood and flesh at Pentecost or in the house of Cornelius and they scurry after anything else to excuse not thinking past the magic they have been indoctrinated with.
Jesus sat at Passover with His disciples, taking the cups of wine and the unleavened bread IN REMEBRANCE of the Passover of their History.
The first cup of wine was to remember the coming out of Egypt.
The second cup of wine was to remember to get Egypt out of them.
The third cup ... well, for the catholics who remain clueless, the third cup was to be mixed with warm water ... and what came from Jesus's side when the soldier pierced Him with the spear? Blood mixed with water! Still warm from His recent death. BUT the Passover cup was never filled with actual blood, for it was forbidden because the life of the animal is in the blood.
Had Jesus served blood at the Passover remembrance He would have violated the commandment of God begun all the way back in Genesis 9, even before the giving of the law, where it was re-emphasized with Leviticus 3:17.
Jesus had not yet sealed a new covenant with His own blood, so the lie that He could do this serving of His blood to the disciples is specious at best, demonic in the main.
The claim that one must literally eat the body and blood of Christ, that even a particle of the consecrated wafer is held to wholly contain Christ, (CCC #1377) and is "able to sanctify thousands of thousands and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it,” (St. Ephrem, Hymni et sermons, IV, 4) is a result of attempting to apply Jn. 6:53 to the Lord's Supper under a literal hermenuetic.
In both cases Caths boast of going by the plain literal meaning of the text, but which would mean that eating what the Lord said is "my body which is broken for you" (1Cor. 11:24) "my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (Jn. 6:51) actualy was that bloody body, not something that somehow had its essence changed so that it looked, tasted, behaved like bread/wine but really was flesh and blood under the appearence of bread and wine, with bread alone also being flesh and blood. And so that the Lord could digest like bread and wine while yet sitting before them.
Likewise, if Caths are to be consistent with Jn. 6:53 being literal, and with the absolute unequivocal imperitive nature of other "verily, verily" statement, then they must hold that none of those who deny the Cath "real presence" are born again, and can have eternal life.
But they cannot, unless they are one of the sects that constitutes Catholicism.
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.