Drinking of blood/pagan practice?

[sonseeker]

Genesis315:

You’re still saying that He is using a grave sin as a symbol for something good.

According to you drinking the wine symbolizes drinking His blood. How does this jive with your idea that drinking His blood is a grave sin?

According to you, in John 6 when He says to drink His blood, He is symbolizing something. Why is He using a grave sin as a symbol?

You are the one who brought up the connection of grave sin. And, I agree, why would He do it symbolically, or literally. He did not. Drinking wine symbolizes drinking in the truth of the Gospel concerning what He has done for sinful men.

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge, so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Thus with Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

The idiomatic meaning: just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So with v 53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves

The idiomatic meaning: except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life, you have no life in you.

See Jer 15:16; Eze 3:1 for examples of idioms of eating for knowledge.

Look at the other Gospels dealing with the same. In Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25, and Lk 22:4-22, with particular attention v18; in all three of those Gospels He calls it the “fruit of the vine.” Clearly He and the apostles understood that.

Everything dealing with eternal life has to do with grace and faith, and not with faith that you are really eating His flesh, and drinking His blood; there are clear prohibitions against both of those.

Now, I don’t care to persuade you; I’m not responsible for you believing the truth, I’m responsible for telling the truth; whether or not you believe it is up to the Spirit; it is not up to me. The evidence is before you; do with it what you will.

 

[sonseeker]

Mickey:

I doubt that all the early Christians got it wrong. According to that line of thinking, even Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St John, got it wrong.

Mickey, it is clear to me that you worship the Church Fathers. They are out of line with the teaching of Scripture. I don’t care who they are, even your pope, if they don’t line up with God’s word, they are wrong, and many of them have stated just that: if it is not in scripture, it is wrong.

 

[sonseeker]

Mickey:

It is His blood.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
****John 6:56

Matthew 26:29: “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” See also Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

I’m responsible for telling the truth; whether or not you believe it is up to the Spirit; it is not up to me. The evidence is before you;

Alas, the evidence is before us in the Holy Scriptures. We are to take Jesus at His word. We are to have faith that we are receiving His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. We must not walk away in disbelief like the disciples. This is the Truth–and the Spirit has revealed this Truth for 2000 years.

Peace to all,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

Mickey, it is clear to me that you worship the Church Fathers. They are out of line with the teaching of Scripture. I don’t care who they are, even your pope, if they don’t line up with God’s word, they are wrong, and many of them have stated just that: if it is not in scripture, it is wrong.

I worship the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers are Saints, Martyrs, and Witnesses to the Gospel that we hold so dear. They all line up with God’s word–even my Pope. Careful with the stones you are throwing Bill, I believe the moderators have already warned you.

 

[Church_Militant]

1st Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Also offer the last supper passages in Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and luke 22:17-20. focus upon the direct command of Our Lord here:

27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Here is a good post that wil give you a good presentation of the NT case for the Eucharist. I especially urge you to consider and point out the fact that if the communion is simply symbolic that that would make St. Paul crazy since he states that taking it while in grave sin makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which would be patently impossible if the early church had thought it a mere symbol. since abuse of a symbol cannot confer blood guilt of the person that it’s a symbol of.

 

[Genesis315]

Church Militant:

since abuse of a symbol cannot confer blood guilt of the person that it’s a symbol of.

C’mon CM! Where’s the animation where the smiley representing Karl Keating gets blown up??

 

[Church_Militant]

Genesis315:

C’mon CM! Where’s the animation where the smiley representing Karl Keating gets blown up??

Oh that…See the thread The Eucharist is Scriptural…
(Ya like that huh?)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

sonseeker:

…Now, I don’t care to persuade you; I’m not responsible for you believing the truth, I’m responsible for telling the truth; whether or not you believe it is up to the Spirit; it is not up to me. The evidence is before you; do with it what you will.

I think its funny that a professing christian from another faith tradition like Sonseeker is willing to accept that God became man, lived among us, performed miracles, raised the dead to life, but could not possibly have been able to transform bread and wine into his own body and blood because “that’s just too far out” to be Truth. It may be far out, but its no further out than the rest of the story of the Bible. So, if you start from the assumption that what’s not “rational” cannot be what Christ taught, then you can just throw out most of the Bible as well. After all, what’s rational about rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven. :whacky:

Christ is the Paschal Lamb.
Christ is the new passover sacrifice.
The jews ATE the passover lamb and the angel of death passed them by in the OT. So it is with Christians. We eat the paschal lamb - Christ - as He commands so that we may be filled with the grace that will allow the destroying angel to pass us by as well.
It is NOT a metaphor that saves. The truth of the Eucharist is the Truth of our salvation.

Sonseeker, the bible is clear on this. Step back and take a moment to see the forest from the trees.

God Bless.

 

[The_Augustinian]

sonseeker:

Mickey, it is clear to me that you worship the Church Fathers. They are out of line with the teaching of Scripture. I don’t care who they are, even your pope, if they don’t line up with God’s word, they are wrong, and many of them have stated just that: if it is not in scripture, it is wrong.

This is why the only Protestants I take seriously are Lutherans and Presbyterians.

The Zwinglian/Baptist belief in the Eucharist as merely a memorial supper is, on the face of it, so dead wrong in my opinion that I find it hard to believe that people still believe in it. And yet, people wrangle with the clear meaning of scripture, twisting it to fit their agenda. When faced with 2000 years of tradition, eucharistic miracles, the Church Fathers, and even Martin Luther (hoc EST enim corpus meum), they cry out like modern-day Gnostics: “No! It is WE who have the true knowledge of scripture, and all of you are fools to not see it!” These people prevent the reuniting of Christians with their heretical nonsense.

Theologically speaking, there’s nothing more revolting than Baptist theology, except for perhaps *Reformed *Baptist theology.

As for the prohibitions on eating blood at the Council of Jerusalem, it’s clear contextually that these prohibitions aren’t the same as the Jewish kosher laws, and were promulgated more to prevent scandal than to institute a moral law per se. Otherwise, would sonseeker and others always order their steaks well done? Would they see people eating blood pudding as agents of the Evil One? The mind wonders…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

Matthew 26:29: “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” See also Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18

From the King James version:

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17) [fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Romans.html](Romans [/QUOTE)

So tell me how Matthew 26:29 is consistent with Romans 14:17? If Jesus is speaking literally in Matthew, then Paul is a liar in Romans, which means Scripture contradicts itself.

---

However, if Paul is telling the truth, and all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, then Jesus cannot be speaking literally in Matthew.

---

**Why does Jesus only speak of the fruit of the vine and not the bread if He really meant His words to be symbolic? Jesus comment about not drinking the fruit of the vine is clearly symbolic since He was also about to undergo His passion and death. **

---

Also, if Jesus is only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then the Holy Spirit forgot to communicate this to Paul.

---

Paul has this to say in 1 Corinthians:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

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: 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. 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.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/1_Corinthians.html

Paul is clear in his belief that Jesus literally changed bread and wine into His body and blood. Any other belief is contrary to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

Mickey, it is clear to me that you worship the Church Fathers. They are out of line with the teaching of Scripture. I don’t care who they are, even your pope, if they don’t line up with God’s word, they are wrong, and many of them have stated just that: if it is not in scripture, it is wrong.

Transubstantiation is clearly biblical, as I pointed out in my previous post. Just because it doesn’t fit with your personal, and fallible, interpretation of Sacred Scripture doesn’t mean it “doesn’t line up” with Scripture.

---

Oh, and Scripture says that Christ is the Word of God. How can Scripture be the Word of God if Christ is the Word of God? After all, Protestants believe Peter can’t be the rock because Christ is the rock. You should be consistent in your personal interpretation.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

You are the one who brought up the connection of grave sin. And, I agree, why would He do it symbolically, or literally. He did not. Drinking wine symbolizes drinking in the truth of the Gospel concerning what He has done for sinful men.

According to your fallible interpretation.

sonseeker:

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge, so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Thus with Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

The idiomatic meaning: just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So with v 53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves

The idiomatic meaning: except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life, you have no life in you.

See Jer 15:16; Eze 3:1 for examples of idioms of eating for knowledge.

You would do well to check Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20 and 49:26 for the idomatic meaning of eating flesh. It has nothing to do with eating for knowledge. The Jews understood it to be synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder.

---

Micah 3:3 - Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

---

Psalm 27:2 - When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

---

Isaiah 9:20 - And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.

---

Isaiah 49:26 - And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

sonseeker:

Look at the other Gospels dealing with the same. In Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25, and Lk 22:4-22, with particular attention v18; in all three of those Gospels He calls it the “fruit of the vine.” Clearly He and the apostles understood that.

I already pointed out that Christ didn’t mean fruit of the vine literally, unless you believe Paul to be a liar when he says the kingdom of heaven is not about meat and drink in Romans 14:17. Nobody in the first 1500 years of Christianity understood this passage the way you present it. Your personal interpretation is clearly flawed.

sonseeker:

Everything dealing with eternal life has to do with grace and faith, and not with faith that you are really eating His flesh, and drinking His blood; there are clear prohibitions against both of those.

There are also clear prohibitions against working on the Sabbath and not washing hands before eating, but Christ went against these prohibitions.

sonseeker:

Now, I don’t care to persuade you; I’m not responsible for you believing the truth, I’m responsible for telling the truth; whether or not you believe it is up to the Spirit; it is not up to me. The evidence is before you; do with it what you will.

The evidence is before me. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your flawed personal interpretation of Scripture. I believe the Truth because I believe Jesus Christ. I pray someday you will also believe everything Jesus Christ taught His Apostles and not just what you want to believe.

 

[mercygate]

sonseeker:

I do not see it as either or. I see it as symbol. Why would He use a grave sin literally to give everlasting life? Why do the other three Gospel writers refer to it as “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18)?

Who is the vine?

 

[Fiat]

sonseeker:

Look at the other Gospels dealing with the same. In Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25, and Lk 22:4-22, with particular attention v18; in all three of those Gospels He calls it the “fruit of the vine.” Clearly He and the apostles understood that.

Other non-Catholics attempt to use these verses to deny the Real Presence. I have heard them argue that because Jesus at the Last Supper refers to the “fruit of the vine,” He Himself does not recognize it as His precious blood.

This line of reasoning falls apart. In Exodus 7:8-13, Moses and Aaron are commanded to go before pharoah, and if pharoah asks for a miracle, Aaron is to throw his rod in front of Pharoah and it will become a snake. Aaron does precisely that and the rod is no longer a rod, but a serpent. Pharoah calls in the magicians, and they too cast down their rods and their rods become serpents as well. Then, Aaron’s serpent devours all the other serpents, yet verse 12 specifically says that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” We know at this point that the rod is not a rod, but it is a snake, yet scripture still refers to it as a rod. Likewise, even though Jesus may figuratively describe His precious blood as fruit of the vine, He and WE still know what it truly is.

Peace
Fiat

 

[Mickey]

The Augustinian:

Theologically speaking, there’s nothing more revolting than Baptist theology, except for perhaps *Reformed *Baptist theology.

Sadly, through my own interaction with various protestant denominations, I have found this to be true also. (although I would use the word “misguided” rather than “revolting” for the sake of charity). I pray for these groups often. Does anyone know when the reformed baptists came into existence? I believe they are relatively new.