Monday, October 29, 2012

Does the Real Presence Violate the Old Testament Law?

One of the arguments raised against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is that it violates Genesis 9:4, which forbids eating anything with the blood still in it.  So, for example, Roger Oakland makes the argument this way, in trying to explain away Christ’s Eucharistic discourse from John 6:
Master of Sigena,
Jesus Amongst the Doctors of the Law (1519)
Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness—He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, where Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (vs. 47). Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have—present tense—eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon accepting Him by faith. 
When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum, and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism, or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat” (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, “[T]he scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically.
In other words, taking Christ’s words literally here would apparently violate the letter of the Law. Does this prove that Christ was speaking metaphorically, as Oakland suggests? Not remotely.

Christ comes to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17), but He doesn’t do this by following it in a legalistic manner. That’s because that’s not how the Law was meant to be followed. This is the central heresy of the Pharisees: they obsess over the letter of the Law so much that they miss the spirit of the Law. St. Paul shows, in Romans 2:29, that the Jewish Law is fulfilled in the heart, by obeying the spirit of the Law, rather than in Pharisaic legalism. This is exactly what we see Christ doing: fulfilling the Law by obeying (and revealing) the spirit of the Law, the purpose for why the Law exists.   Three examples will illustrate how this is so.

I. The Son of Man and the Sabbath

This is made explicit in Mark 2:23-28:
One sabbath he [Jesus] was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
Note: although Christ is declaring Himself Lord of the Sabbath, He’s still not violating the Law (or else, He failed His mission, as described in Matthew 5:17).  Rather, He goes against the letter of the Law, in order to fulfill the spirit of the Law. The spirit of the Law was a call to rest, and in idly plucking heads of grains, the Apostles are doing a better job of resting on the Sabbath than the Pharisees.  The Pharisees become so concerned about accidental violations of the Sabbath Law that they are unable to actually rest: ironically, resulting in them violating the spirit of the very Sabbath that they were trying to protect.  So to fulfill the Law, Christ violates the letter of the Law.

II. The Disciples and the Washing of Hands

A second clear example is from Matthew 15:1-3, in which the Pharisees criticize the Disciples for not washing their hands before eating:
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”
Jesus has a two-part answer:  He first shows that the Pharisees violate both the letter and spirit of the Law (Mt. 15:3-9).  But then, in v. 10-11, Jesus gathers the crowd to explain what this was all for:
And he called the people to him and said to them, Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
In other words, the ritual washing laws existed for a particular reason: to remind the people of the need to be spiritually clean.  But it is the Pharisees, and not the Disciples, who have missed this.  While fulfilling the letter of the Law, the Pharisees have emptied it of any meaning.  By transgressing the letter of the Law, Jesus and His Disciples are shocking the people into understanding why the Law existed to begin with.

III. The Eucharist and the Drinking of Blood

Having established the pattern from the last two examples, look to the institution of the Eucharist (Matthew 26:26-28):
Pascal Adolphe Dagnan-Bouveret, The Last Supper (1896)
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Once again, Christ is transgressing the letter of the Law in order to preserve and fulfill the spirit of that same Law.  How so?  Go back to the passage that forbids the drinking of the blood.  Why is the drinking of blood forbidden?  Genesis 9:3-5:
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.
The blood represented a creature’s life.  That’s because even ancient cultures could recognize the vitality of blood in preserving life: bleed out too much, and you die.  So to consume an animal’s blood would be to go beyond simply eating its flesh. It would be partaking of its very life.   And this, of course, is why Jesus calls us to drink His Blood. Because we’re supposed to partake of His very life, so that we can share in eternal life with Him (John 6:51, 54).

There’s a very neat parallel here with Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which (on the surface) would seem to make even the Crucifixion a violation of the Law, by placing a curse on anyone who is hung upon a tree.  St. Paul directly addresses this in Galatians 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.’”  In other words, the very reason that the Law forbade being hung from a tree is the very reason Christ consented to it: He voluntarily took the penalties upon Himself.  The same thing happens in the Eucharist: the very reason that the Law forbade drinking an animal’s blood is the reason that we are supposed to drink Christ’s.

For more on why Genesis 9:4 points towards (rather than away from) the Eucharist, I’d suggest Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers’ The Mass in Sacred Scripture.

IV. How the Law’s Prohibition Disproves the Protestant View of the Eucharist

Maurycy Gottlieb,
Christ Preaching at Capernaum (1879)
As a bonus, this very feature of the Law is one of several ways that we can know that the Protestant 
interpretation of the Eucharist is wrong.  Why?  Because Protestants take this bit about drinking Christ’s blood as a figure of speech.  Given serious thought, that interpretation is already a stretch: while certain Scriptural phrases have obvious analogical meanings, this one doesn’t. We can easily understand what the imagery of Jesus being “the Gate” means, or His being “the Good Shepherd, but what’s the metaphorical meaning Jesus means to convey by telling us to drink His Blood?

It’s even more of a stretch when compared to the Last Supper. Here in John 6, the claim is that the Flesh and Blood is literal, while the eating and drinking is figurative. At the Last Supper, where Jesus repeats His message, the claim is that the eating and drinking is literal, while the Flesh and Blood is figurative. But if “eat my Flesh” is tied to the merely-symbolic bread and wine, it’s striking that (as Oakland acknowledges, above) there’s no bread or wine around when Jesus says this.  We know this because Jesus was in the synagogue, a point that the Apostle John makes sure to include after describing Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse (John 6:59).

So even before we get to the Law, the metaphoric theory is already weak.  But the already-strained metaphorical interpretation becomes unsustainable in the Jewish context. There’s a reason, within Judaism, that you don’t encounter positive pork-related figures of speech like “bringing home the bacon,” or why phrases like “pearls before swine” (Mt. 7:6) has distinctively negative connotations: handling or consuming pork was a serious violation of the Jewish Law.  But this is true of drinking Blood, too.  Look at how Scripture uses the imagery of drinking blood:
  • For I lift up my hand to heaven, and swear, As I live for ever, if I whet my glittering sword, and my hand takes hold on judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries, and will requite those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh--with the blood of the slain and the captives, from the long-haired heads of the enemy.'” (Deut. 32:40-42)

  • William Blake, Whore of Babylon (1809)
    God brings them out of Egypt; they have as it were the horns of the wild ox.  For there is no enchantment against Jacob, no divination against Israel; now it shall be said of Jacob and Israel, 'What has God wrought!' Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up and as a lion it lifts itself; it does not lie down till it devours the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain.” (Num. 23:22-24)

  • That day is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge himself on his foes. The sword shall devour and be sated, and drink its fill of their blood. For the Lord GOD of hosts holds a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.” (Jer. 46:10)

  • As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: Speak to the birds of every sort and to all beasts of the field, 'Assemble and come, gather from all sides to the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast upon the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth--of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bulls, all of them fatlings of Bashan. And you shall eat fat till you are filled, and drink blood till you are drunk, at the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you.” (Ezekiel 39:17-19)

  • And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations.’ And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly.” (Revelation 17:3-6).
All of these passages share a common connotation: to drink of another’s blood is an expression meaning to kill them.  When God threatens to make His arrows drunk on the blood of His adversaries in Deut. 32:40-42, He’s not threatening to make His arrows believe in His adversaries. He’s threatening to lay them low.  Same with the three passages following.  And in the final passage, Babylon drinks the blood of the Saints and the martyrs of Jesus. That doesn’t mean she believes in them. It means the opposite: that she murders them. Needless to say, this interpretation of the words of institution makes no sense.  Why would Christ be ordering His Apostles to murder Him, in remembrance of Him?

Conclusion

In the end, then, there are two basic ways of interpreting Christ’s words at the Last Supper. You can take them literally, as His earliest followers did, in which case He’s fulfilling the spirit of the Law (even while transgressing the Letter), literally fulfilling the Law in His own Person, and inviting us into Communion with His very life. Or you can take Him metaphorically, in which case He’s apparently inviting us to repeatedly murder Him, every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

23 comments:

  1. To follow Mr. Oakland's logic, Jesus directly contradicted the Father's law in Acts 10:11-16, when he commanded Peter to eat foods which were prohibited under the old law (Leviticus 11:7). One accepting Mr. Oakland's argument would be forced to conclude that Jesus was merely speaking figuratively and than Christians are, to this day, bound by the old dietary laws, but this runs afoul of Acts 15. Simply put, the dietary law of the Old Covenant does not carry over into the New Covenant (including the prohibition of drinking blood), which renders Mr. Oakland's argument null.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Oakland has presented us with a Dilemma (Either Christ commands cannibalism or he is speaking figuratively. Christ isn't commanding cannibalism. Therefore Christ is speaking figuratively).

    But, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist shows the two options presented by Mr. Oakland are not the only two possible (i.e. we can "escape through the horns" of this dilemma). In other words, Christ can be speaking literally while not commanding cannibalism because the Eucharist differs from cannibalism in at least three significant ways.

    1)Christ is consumed in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine, cannibalism involves eating human flesh, both in substance and accidents.

    2)ALL of Christ (all of his body, all of his blood, all of his soul, all of his divinity) is consumed in every piece of the Eucharist, cannibalism involves eating pieces of a human being's body and none of the soul.

    3) Most importantly, Christ is ALIVE. Cannibalism is eating DEAD human flesh.

    Therefore, the dilemma presented by Mr. Oakland is a FALSE Dilemma and his argument crumbles.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One thing that struck me as odd when I was a Prostestant was this...

    "Whosoever EATS my flesh and DRINKS my blood will have everlasting life..."

    "Take and EAT, this is my Body (flesh)"

    "DRINK this, this is my Blood"


    At best, even IF it was symbolic, you could establish that it was NECESSARY to take the "symbolic" bread and wine for salvation. That's a far cry from evangelicalism who rarely take communion and don't think it really means anything a part from remembering Jesus.

    To me, I went one step further, I took the Bible for what it said and believed that Jesus meant what he said! :)


    ReplyDelete
  4. Amen Daniel.

    This is what is so frustrating with Protestantism. You can show them that 1+1 = 2 and they'll tell you that it must mean 3! I used to be Protestant and trapped in this intellectually prideful world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is nobody in christian history for 1,500+ years who interpreted scripture to mean the Eucharist was symbolic. Some Calvinists will try to claim a spiritual feast but they do NOT believe there is anything metaphysical or literal about the Eucharist on this earth. The heart of Pism is pride that man is above Christ's Church. Just ask a P which church has authority over their interpretations of scripture. I never had one when I was a P. It was liberating knowing that I could make up Christianity on my own and just think away my sins.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hate to say it, but there are satanists out there who believe in the Real Presence of the Consecrated Hosts more so than some Catholics, let alone other Christians.



    I'm also of the opinion that until you've considered unleashing any anger and/or rage you may have towards God on your local Tabernacle in your Church and the Consecrated Hosts within, you don't truly believe in the Real Presence.

    That was a turning point for me personally, I stopped myself, let go of my anger, and realized that I've either gone "Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs" because I'm thinking of attacking some bland inanimate crackers because, or there's really something to those Consecrated Hosts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Rob - Of course those are not "bland inanimate crackers." Inanimate means "not alive", so if you think they are inanimate you are ipso facto denying the Real Presence. They might appear to be inanimate crackers, but are more alive than you or I for (under the guise of bread) in the Tabernacle is the living, breathing, divine Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To eat someone's body and to drink someone's blood were metaphors/symbolic language for assault and persecute (in both old and new testament) so were the prots right about Jesus speaking symbolically, then He was saying the way to eternal life was to assault and persecute Him.

    Of course this is contrary to Tradition, Bible, and Church, not to mention right reason but the prots engage in eisegesis in their continuing revolution against the Church Jesus established

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eating blood is forbidden as a universal concept - before the law (Gen9:4) under the law (Lev 17:14) and in the NEW TESTAMENT:

    "...abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Acts 15:20 "...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood..." Acts 15:29

    You blaspheme Jesus Christ - he NEVER violated the law, in spirit or letter. 1 Pt 2:22; Hebrews 7:26; John 8:45. Washing hands before you eat is not a law, nor taking grain by hand on the sabbath.

    Hung on a tree was not prohibited - the body was simply to be taken down and buried that day: Dt 21:23 (see, John 19:31 ff).

    Unsaved Romanists read John 6 and think of a priest mumbling over a cup of red alcohol. A saved man reads John 6 and sees Christ's blood shed on the cross at Calvary.

    Eternal life is obtained spiritually by believing in Christ, not by physically eating and drinking: "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 6:63. "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink" Rom 14:17.

    Christ died once and sat down at God's right hand: "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb 10:12-13.

    So Jesus doesn't leave God's right hand until the second advent (Rev. 19:11).

    Since Christ's sacrifice is finished ("he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30).

    So what is the significance of the Roman Catholic's eucharistic sacrifice:
    "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 1 Cor 10:20.

    "...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:6.

    You don't take Christ literally anyhow - you say he was making a metaphor that his blood just stands for wafers and "unbloody" wine slurped by Roman Catholic priests.

    The literal meaning is that Christ literally poured out his blood on the cross for the sins of mankind. That is the literal meaning. And it wasn't painless little ceremony at high noon on a lace covered table. It entailed monumental shame and agony and was endured by Christ just once, and it now over and done with:
    "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2.

    But Catholics say, "you didn't die quite enough, more shame, more agony please. Don't sit down in heaven, come down to our altars and suffer again. We will shame again as a perpetual victim. We want to sacrifice you anew and drink your blood." What a blasphemous mockery!

    Shame on you cannibalistic, bible-rejecting, vampires. You mock what Jesus Christ really did in 33 AD to elevate the importance and idolatry of your own weekly ceremony in sacrifice to devils.

    "Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips." Ps. 16:4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'd like engaging responses, I'd suggest interacting with Joe's article and showing where you think he's wrong, rather than simply copying and pasting a standard diatribe.

      (I do love being called "cannibalistic" and a "vampire" by someone who's convinced I'm just just eating some bread and drinking a bit of wine...)

      Delete
    2. "Unsaved Romanists read John 6 and think of a priest mumbling over a cup of red alcohol. A saved man reads John 6 and sees Christ's blood shed on the cross at Calvary."

      Wrong on two counts.
      1) It's not just "Romanists". It's Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Syrian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (not part of the Church you seem to be slandering), Anglicans (both in and not in communion with Rome), and High Church Lutherans, to name but a few.
      2) Actually, we do not see John 6 as a dilemma but we see it in both ways.

      As Restless Pilgram said, please engage Joe's argument. Otherwise you are not doing anything to save anyone or convert souls.

      Delete
    3. RestlessPilgrim & Taylor: What ridiculous replies!

      The only thing I 'cut and pasted' was Bible verses. And if there was any part of Joe's argument left that I failed to 'engage' why didn't you identify it??

      I covered the blood issue - it is a New Testament prohibition given AFTER the crucifixion to the early church by the entire Apostolic leadership and the Holy Ghost (Acts 15:28). That trumps any so-called "ecumenical church council" that ever followed.

      I covered the accusation that Christ broke the letter of the law, which he didn't. I corrected the erroneous assertion that hanging on a tree violated the Mosaic law.

      I gave a reality check to the bizarre 'metaphor versus literal' accusations - pointing out that Roman Catholics do NOT take Christ literally, the presume that his words were a figure of speech that apply to their own rituals.

      And, of course, I got the heart of the issue: by claiming a monopoly over the "blood of Christ" the religious compound at the Vatican claims control over the salvation of mankind. It's a religious gimmick by unsaved people who are merely continuing their ancient pagan traditions under the guise of Christianity.

      If that isn't "engaging" enough then you simply are too prejudiced to give even respect to the Bible truth that I have "cut and paste" for you to read.

      Call what I wrote a "diatribe" and give me curt and dismissive replies, I really don't care. But you will have to answer what the Bible says with more respect.

      Delete
    4. Yes, you cut and pasted Bible verses. But in what context? With what interpretation? With what _proper_ interpretation? How do you know you interpret it properly when the Apostles themselves and their disciples interpret it the way the Catholics do?

      You yourself actually commit mockery when you create positions that Catholics _do not hold_, such as "you didn't quite die enough...", etc, only to strike them down. They're strawmen.

      Your simple citation of Bible verses is not enough because Joe equally quoted Scripture. So what do you do with those, dismiss them?

      Delete
    5. Hi mackquigley

      Eating blood is forbidden as a universal concept - before the law (Gen9:4) under the law (Lev 17:14) and in the NEW TESTAMENT:

      "...abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Acts 15:20 "...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood..." Acts 15:29


      Read in context, those two prohibitions have to do with the eating of anything which was killed and offered in a pagan ritual. It is written in the typically redundant manner of a Hebrew. Abstaining from the pollution of idols includes the abstaining from fornication which frequently accompanied the pagan rituals and from eating strangled and dismembered in the same rituals.

      The people making these prohibitions are the same ones who eat the bread which is the body of Christ and drink the wine which is the blood of Christ: 1 Corinthians 10:16


      You blaspheme Jesus Christ - he NEVER violated the law, in spirit or letter. 1 Pt 2:22; Hebrews 7:26; John 8:45.

      Apparently, the Jews thought that He did. That is why they judged Him guilty of sacrilege and had Him killed. Let us see what the Scripture says on that matter:

      Deuteronomy 13:1-6
      1 If there arise among you a prophet,.... Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; ....5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; ....

      The Jews did not believe that Jesus was God. Therefore they said to Him:
      Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

      Washing hands before you eat is not a law, nor taking grain by hand on the sabbath.

      Taking grain by hand on the Sabbath was against the Mosaic law as is clearly evidence in the attempted gathering of the manna on the Sabbath: Ex 16:26-30

      Hung on a tree was not prohibited - the body was simply to be taken down and buried that day: Dt 21:23 (see, John 19:31 ff).

      You've missed the point.

      Deuteronomy 21:23...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;)

      Anyone who is hanged is accursed of God. Therefore, according to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, such as a Protestant would make, Jesus is accursed of God.

      cont'd

      Delete
    6. cont'd

      Unsaved Romanists

      With the Apostle I say God is my Judge: 1 Cor 4:2-4

      Whether I am saved or not is for God to judge. Not you. And you, no matter how often you call yourself saved, will also stand before the judgement seat: Rom 14:10

      You think you can save yourself by claiming salvation, but you are simply usurping God's right to judge all mankind. You can have your judgement. I will await God's.

      read John 6 and think of a priest mumbling over a cup of red alcohol. A saved man reads John 6 and sees Christ's blood shed on the cross at Calvary.

      That is where you are wrong. A Catholic reads John 6 and understands how Christ said He would save us with His Blood. Whereas it is still a mystery how Protestants claim to be washed in the Blood of Christ when they don't believe that Christ gives them that Blood in the Eucharist.

      Apparently, they go out and slaughter Christ again in order to so bathe.

      Eternal life is obtained spiritually by believing in Christ,

      Believing in Christ does not mean denying His words.

      not by physically eating and drinking: "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 6:63.

      Scripture is spiritually discerned: 1 Cor 2:14

      Have you not heard of the THE flesh?

      Romans 7:25...but with the flesh the law of sin.

      But does Christ say to eat THE flesh or HIS flesh?

      John 6:54
      Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

      There's a big difference between HIS flesh and THE flesh:
      Hebrews 4:15
      For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

      "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink" Rom 14:17.

      But in order to enter the Kingdom of God you had better eat of the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood:

      53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

      Christ died once and sat down at God's right hand: "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb 10:12-13.

      Amen! But did you forget that He remains the Lamb slain in eternity?
      Revelation 5:6
      And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

      cont'd

      Delete
    7. cont'd

      So Jesus doesn't leave God's right hand until the second advent (Rev. 19:11).

      1. It says He sat down. It doesn't say He never stands back up again. Nor does it say that He doesn't come back again and frequently.

      2. However, everything is possible for God, therefore, He can be in millions of places at the same time.

      Deny it. Go ahead, deny that God can be in many places at once.

      Since Christ's sacrifice is finished ("he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30).

      Again, you say this because you don't understand the Scriptures. He said that His portion of the sacrifice was finished. We still have our part.

      1. Christ is our Passover:
      1 Corinthians 5:7

      2. The Passover must be eaten:
      Exodus 12:8-12

      So what is the significance of the Roman Catholic's eucharistic sacrifice:
      "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 1 Cor 10:20.


      That describes pagan sacrifice. We offer the pure oblation which God commands: Malachi 1:11

      "...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:6.

      This is a reference to those who have received all the Sacraments of God and then turned away from Christ. Note that they crucify Him again. Because He died for their sins and then they embrace those same sins again.

      You don't take Christ literally anyhow - you say he was making a metaphor that his blood just stands for wafers and "unbloody" wine slurped by Roman Catholic priests.

      I have no idea what you're talking about. We believe Christ. We believe everything He says. It is only by faith that one can receive these spiritual truths.

      The literal meaning is that Christ literally poured out his blood on the cross for the sins of mankind. That is the literal meaning. And it wasn't painless little ceremony at high noon on a lace covered table. It entailed monumental shame and agony and was endured by Christ just once, and it now over and done with:
      "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2.


      Yes, it was painful and a tremendous sacrifice. And Christ commanded that you do this painless little ceremony in remembrance of His painful sacrifice. But you reject and disobey His Command. Here is what the Word of God says about those who refuse to remember Christ's sacrifice:
      Hebrews 10:25-31
      King James Version (KJV)
      25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


      cont'd

      Delete
    8. cont'd

      But Catholics say, "you didn't die quite enough, more shame, more agony please. Don't sit down in heaven, come down to our altars and suffer again. We will shame again as a perpetual victim. We want to sacrifice you anew and drink your blood." What a blasphemous mockery!

      It is Protestants who blaspheme and make a mockery out of Christ's sacrifice by refusing to remember what He did for us. Yes, its a painless little ritual which takes less than an hour. BUT YOU REFUSE TO DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST as He commanded. Remember the Scripture:
      Hebrews 5:9
      And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

      Therefore obey.

      Shame on you cannibalistic, bible-rejecting, vampires

      Shame on you bible rejecting murderers who sacrifice Christ again and tread upon the sacrifice which He shed His blood for you. It is you who reject the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition. It is you.

      . You mock what Jesus Christ really did in 33 AD to elevate the importance and idolatry of your own weekly ceremony in sacrifice to devils.

      No, we remember His Sacrifice. Whereas, you belittle it and tread upon it.

      "Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips." Ps. 16:4.

      This is speaking of the Old Testament. Whereas in the New, Jesus says:
      1 Corinthians 11:23-25
      King James Version (KJV)
      23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

      And you refuse.

      Sincerely,

      De Maria

      Delete
    9. de Maria -

      Your polemic is so fatuous and blasphemous that I trust any reasonable fence-sitter who compares it with the scriptures will be repulsed.

      If you think your soul got eternal life when you ate Christ's "blood" (i.e., sacramental wine according to the allegorical interpretation of your non-literal religious traditions) then don't be a hypocrite and claim you don't know if you are saved or not until the day of judgment - either Christ says you have eternal life, or Christ lied. So make up your mind what you believe, you fickle religious nut.

      I stand by what I wrote,

      MackQuigley

      Delete
    10. MackQuigley,

      Did Christ ever say to you, "MackQuigley, you have eternal life. You are saved. You will be in Heaven when you die."?

      If He ever specifically told you that you did, it would be problematic as neither MackQuigley nor your actual name is recorded in Holy Scripture.

      Delete
    11. Hi mackquigley

      You said
      de Maria -

      Your polemic is so fatuous and blasphemous that I trust any reasonable fence-sitter who compares it with the scriptures will be repulsed.


      Big words. No meaning. Let us compare our respective arguments to the Scriptures. I guarantee, yours are found wanting.

      If you think your soul got eternal life when you ate Christ's "blood" (i.e., sacramental wine according to the allegorical interpretation of your non-literal religious traditions) then don't be a hypocrite and claim you don't know if you are saved or not until the day of judgment - either Christ says you have eternal life, or Christ lied. So make up your mind what you believe, you fickle religious nut.

      I'll let the reader decide who is the religious nut between you and I. As for having eternal life, learn the meaning of the these words:
      Matthew 24:13
      King James Version (KJV)
      13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

      I stand by what I wrote,

      MackQuigley


      And God is your judge just as He is ours. You will be judged by every word you speak and every deed you have done, just as we will. You claim to save yourself by your faith alone. You have your reward. We, rely upon God to save us.

      Revelation 22:14
      King James Version (KJV)
      14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

      Sincerely,

      De Maria

      Delete
  10. mackquigley -

    How about your point us to a Protestant Church in christian history for 1,500 years that didn't believe in the real presence? Of course, you won't find a P Church in history so at least have the intellectual decency to admit that Christ failed with his Church which throuhgout history for 1,500 was Catholic. How couldn't he if Rome was so wrong about the Eucharist???

    What you fail to understand is that the liturgy came BEFORE the New Testament and not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If it's just a symbol, to hell with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. If it less both in symbolism and efficacy than the first Passover (where you were not passed over unless you ate the lamb; blood on the doorposts wasn't enough) or the manna from Heaven, then the fulfillment of Israel was given something less than the Old Covenant and God has commanded us to do a silly thing every Sunday (or quarter, if you're like most Protestants).

      Delete