Debating a Jew : The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kaninchen;8845158]Actually, it is saying ‘don’t eat things while they’re alive’, the ‘koshering’ comes from Leviticus

.

Interesting; God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, then steads abrahams hand from killing his son. When it is revealed that God himself will provide the sacrifice.

In all of history I know of no record of cave men or anyman ever trying to eat something while it still lived? Thinking of such things enters into the comical stage, because I don’t think any beast is going to allow man to eat them while they live.

So it still holds true, don’t eat flesh things while they still live. Did Jesus gives us flesh and blood to eat according to carnal eating of flesh and blood? Or did Jesus give us his sacrificial life body and blood to consume?

When God commanded Moses to strike the Rock. Was God standing near the Rock when Moses struck the Rock a second time?

 

[Kaninchen]

In all of history I know of no record of cave men or anyman ever trying to eat something while it still lived? Thinking of such things enters into the comical stage, because I don’t think any beast is going to allow man to eat them while they live.

Wheither you think it’s comical or not hardly matters.

So it still holds true, don’t eat flesh things while they still live. Did Jesus gives us flesh and blood to eat according to carnal eating of flesh and blood? Or did Jesus give us his sacrificial life body and blood to consume?

Not my problem, somebody else’s scriptures.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wheither you think it’s comical or not hardly matters.

Not my problem, somebody else’s scriptures.

From your logic, No matter what you say or how you personally interpret to view scripture is nobody’s problem nor what matters to you, does not matter to anyone else. Very intelligent conversation thank you.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi I’m Catholic and I’m having a debate with a jew on whether Jesus is Messiah : debate.org/debates/Jesus-is-not-the-Messiah/5/

I’m beating him so far but he claims that Jesus’ teaching of us needing to drink his blood and eat His flesh is a false teaching. I believe in Transubstantiation but I’m having a hard time refuting this argument.

So here is my question :

Well I just needed to ask for an explanation of how the doctrine of Transubstantiation conforms with these two passages in scripture :

"Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood-I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien among you eat blood.” "
(Leviticus 17:10-12)

“But be sure you do not eat blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.”
(Deuteronomy 12:23)

I appreciate all your help and i need the answers like right now.

Drinking of the blood is under the old Jewish law which St. Paul says no longer binds us just as in the old Jewish law of circumcision was necessary but is no longer necessary.

Therefore in our new covenant with God under Jesus, we seal the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood on the cross, the true new lamb of God, by receiving the real body and blood of Jesus Himself.

 

[SonCatcher]

Drinking of the blood is under the old Jewish law which St. Paul says no longer binds us just as in the old Jewish law of circumcision was necessary but is no longer necessary.

Therefore in our new covenant with God under Jesus, we seal the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood on the cross, the true new lamb of God, by receiving the real body and blood of Jesus Himself.

There is a problem with this assertion. The Jerusalem Council (recounted in Acts), to which Paul was present, issued an instruction that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish law except for:

• Immorality
• Eating strangled animals
• Eating blood

The constraint against eating blood was lifted later. (I don’t know when/where but some Catholic cultures due make use of blood in cuisine today)

This also shows that the Early Church clearly did not see the consumption of Jesus blood in the Sacrament in the same category as eating animal blood.

 

[fred_conty]

There is a problem with this assertion. The Jerusalem Council (recounted in Acts), to which Paul was present, issued an instruction that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish law except for:

• Immorality
• Eating strangled animals
• Eating blood

The constraint against eating blood was lifted later. (I don’t know when/where but some Catholic cultures due make use of blood in cuisine today)

This also shows that the Early Church clearly did not see the consumption of Jesus blood in the Sacrament in the same category as eating animal blood.

Paul also mentioned a 4th item, food sacrificed to idols in Acts 15;29. But this he said in one of his other letters was ok to consume as long as it didn’t offend the conscience of others.

 

[rhiannonh]

they have an entirely different concept of Jesus to us !!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Drinking of the blood is under the old Jewish law which St. Paul says no longer binds us just as in the old Jewish law of circumcision was necessary but is no longer necessary.

Therefore in our new covenant with God under Jesus, we seal the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood on the cross, the true new lamb of God, by receiving the real body and blood of Jesus Himself.

Just for clarification here; At the wedding feast at Cana, Jesus changed the dirty water in the Jewish ceremonial Jars which lessened from the guest washing into the best tasting wine. When Mary informs Jesus “they have no more wine”, represents Mary ( the Woman of Israel) interceding for the Old Covenant “they have no more life”, thus Jesus takes their soiled (covenant) waters and changes it into new life in the new and best (covenant) wine which is saved for last.

It should be mentioned here that Jesus takes wine and (unleavened) bread and changes them into His own body and blood to be consumed by believers. Jesus did not rip off a piece of His flesh or arm and said here take and eat, then cut a vein and poured His blood into the cup as those who left Jesus understood from a carnal understanding. Those who refuse the bread from heaven, go back to their former way of life in the flesh.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

they have an entirely different concept of Jesus to us !!!

I have heard that those who have eyes cannot see and ears but do not hear, but never in my life have I ever heard that one has eyes to see and ears to hear but “REFUSE” to see and hear.

We are commissioned to proclaim Christ Crucified even to the dead.