Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquinas4585
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the greek it is the same word διαθήκη used in Hebrews as it is in the gospels when he says “is the new covenant” in the gospels. So I don’t care what version you use, in the original it is the **same **word, which can be translated covenant, testament, will. In the Douay that I read it is translated testament, which again is the same word in the original when when Jesus said “is the new covenant”, in the greek it is “is the new διαθήκη”. In Hebrews the verse says, “16 For where there is a testament”, in the greek “16 For where there is a διαθήκη” So Tim there is no confusion on my part. But you missed the point entirely. This verse cannot be transalted literally since it says,
Luke 22:20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
  1. “This is” is present tense and taken literally would meant the new testament is at that tme. Bbut we know from scripture the new testament does not happen until Christ dies, which is an undisputable fact, there is no argument or dicussion to be made on that! Just read the entire context of Hebrews 9. End of dicsussion on that point!
  2. You cannot take the Luke 22:20 passage literally, unless you accept that the “chalice” is the new testament. The literal Greek word for word is “This cup[is] the new covenant in the blood of me”. He even says the blood is not yet shed, “it shall be shed”.
In this verse he mentions THE Chalice, NOT what is in the Chalice.

So I really don’t think there is anyone who takes this verse literally. Everyone goes on to say, it means this or that. If you go on to explain by saying, “oh, he means what is in the cup” and that is an expression to mean such and such, then we agree, this is not to be taken literally!! Any explanation to say that he really did not mean literally that the “cup” is the new testament is then taking this verse figuratively!!! Along with the fact the new testament was not in force yet, since he had not yet died! So tell me Tim do you take this verse literally to mean the “chalice” is the new testament? Or will you join the ranks of everyone else and acknowledge this is figurative speech?

Now just stick with this one verse and don’t run off on a tangent, I am only asking about the one verse. I am trying to get a sense how you approach normal everyday english grammar? We can discuss more later, you don’t have to defend a doctrine here, just asking about the one verse? Does “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,” mean the chalice is the new testament?
 
In the greek it is the same word διαθήκη used in Hebrews as it is in the gospels when he says “is the new covenant” in the gospels. So I don’t care what version you use, in the original it is the **same **word, which can be translated covenant, testament, will. In the Douay that I read it is translated testament, which again is the same word in the original when when Jesus said “is the new covenant”, in the greek it is “is the new διαθήκη”. In Hebrews the verse says, “16 For where there is a testament”, in the greek “16 For where there is a διαθήκη” So Tim there is no confusion on my part. But you missed the point entirely. This verse cannot be transalted literally since it says,
Luke 22:20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
  1. “This is” is present tense and taken literally would mean the new testament is at that tme. But we know from scripture the new testament does not happen until Christ dies, which is an undisputable fact, there is no argument or dicussion to be made on that! Just read the entire context of Hebrews 9. End of dicsussion on that point!
  2. You cannot take the Luke 22:20 passage literally, unless you accept that the “chalice” is the new testament. The literal Greek, word for word is “This cup[is] the new covenant in the blood of me”. Then if you look a the verse, He even says the blood is not yet shed, “it shall be shed”.
In this verse he mentions THE Chalice, NOT what is in the Chalice.

So I really don’t think there is anyone who takes this verse literally. Everyone goes on to say, it means this or that. If you go on to explain by saying, “oh, he means what is in the cup” and that is an expression to mean such and such, then we agree, this is not to be taken literally!! Any explanation to say that he really did not mean literally that the “cup” is the new testament is then taking this verse figuratively!!! Along with the fact the new testament was not in force yet, since he had not yet died! So tell me Tim do you take this verse literally to mean the “chalice” is the new testament? Or will you join the ranks of everyone else and acknowledge this is figurative speech?

Now just stick with this one verse and don’t run off on a tangent, I am only asking about the one verse. I am trying to get a sense how you approach normal everyday english grammar? We can discuss more later, you don’t have to defend a doctrine here, just asking about the one verse? Does “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,” mean the chalice is the new testament?
 
in_servitude said:
There was a time when the Church had people in it that were also questioning the real presence. But, in the 8th century, a significant miracle happened (or started really) and continues to this day. It’s the miracle of Lanciano. I’d like to know what informed Protestants say about this kind of “flesh and blood” confirmation.

(To be clear, these kinds of miracles are viewed as “private revelation” from the Church and are not a part of the “deposit of faith”. Catholics are free to believe these or not. But, I’d just like to know if it is generally decided by Protestants that these Eucharastic miracles are held as fakes, just a strange coincident, or possibly indicating something else entirely.)
Click to expand...
Actually this miracle by a monk in the 700 or 800’s can’t be proved, and like you said many people questioned the real present and voila here we get some proff. Then of course Odvardo and Linoli disected it in 1995 or something and found parts of the myocardium and nerve tissue, so well where was the rest of the body since Jesus it suppose to be fully present in even a crumb. also try googling Odvardo and lInoli and nothing comes up except about the miracle. I don’t believe it , if anything it makes it even more unreal.
 
rjcash said:
In the greek it is the same word διαθήκη used in Hebrews as it is in the gospels when he says “is the new covenant” in the gospels. So I don’t care what version you use, in the original it is the **same **word, which can be translated covenant, testament, will. In the Douay that I read it is translated testament, which again is the same word in the original when when Jesus said “is the new covenant”, in the greek it is “is the new διαθήκη”. In Hebrews the verse says, “16 For where there is a testament”, in the greek “16 For where there is a διαθήκη” So Tim there is no confusion on my part. But you missed the point entirely. This verse cannot be transalted literally since it says,
Luke 22:20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
  1. “This is” is present tense and taken literally would mean the new testament is at that tme. But we know from scripture the new testament does not happen until Christ dies, which is an undisputable fact, there is no argument or dicussion to be made on that! Just read the entire context of Hebrews 9. End of dicsussion on that point!
  2. You cannot take the Luke 22:20 passage literally, unless you accept that the “chalice” is the new testament. The literal Greek, word for word is “This cup[is] the new covenant in the blood of me”. Then if you look a the verse, He even says the blood is not yet shed, “it shall be shed”.
In this verse he mentions THE Chalice, NOT what is in the Chalice.

So I really don’t think there is anyone who takes this verse literally. Everyone goes on to say, it means this or that. If you go on to explain by saying, “oh, he means what is in the cup” and that is an expression to mean such and such, then we agree, this is not to be taken literally!! Any explanation to say that he really did not mean literally that the “cup” is the new testament is then taking this verse figuratively!!! Along with the fact the new testament was not in force yet, since he had not yet died! So tell me Tim do you take this verse literally to mean the “chalice” is the new testament? Or will you join the ranks of everyone else and acknowledge this is figurative speech?

Now just stick with this one verse and don’t run off on a tangent, I am only asking about the one verse. I am trying to get a sense how you approach normal everyday english grammar? We can discuss more later, you don’t have to defend a doctrine here, just asking about the one verse? Does “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,” mean the chalice is the new testament?
Click to expand...
I get the point you are trying to make. The new covenant was not ratified until Christ shed blood on the cross so therefor the contents of the cup could not be blood. I get it.

I’ll reply with John 6:53-56, you will reply with something else, and so forth. It is really no use to argue with each other if we know we will not convince each other. I love people too much to argue with them. I love you too much to argue with you. All it is going to do is work us both up to a frenzy.

I would like to offer you a book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre, if you will read it. Check your PM’s.

-Tim-

-Tim-
 
rjcash said:
It would make it rather difficult for anyone to believe Jesus’ words in the 6th Chapter of John’s Gospel if we were only speaking about wine exclusively.

Just curious where in John 6 it mentions anything about wine? Or the Lord’s supper. In the “eat my flesh” passage, he was speaking to a group of Jews, not the church. The church was not mentioned, a priest was not mentioned and there was no future tense, i.e. nothing was mentioned about this being a future event. He was talking about eating his flesh right then and there. Jesus also never said anything about physical bread being present, nor was there physical wine present. The word wine never appears in the chapter, nor is there any reference to “fruit of the vine” or grape juice, just blood. Nor did Jesus ever say in Jn 6 anything about it “becoming” flesh later on. He said “eat my flesh” now!! These are all observations about the text, if I have missed something, let me know!
Click to expand...
Correct … and confirming one of of my points actually. However, you failed to pick up on the correlation my post was making from the *discourse on the Holy Eucharist * in John, Chapter 6 , (in particular [John 6:54-56] ) to the OP’s post . I thought it was plain enough. I even quoted the OP in my reply 🤷 . Does it help you follow it better if I explain that the aforementioned was in reply to this part of the OP’s query ? … :
40.png
aquinas4585:
If Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the last supper, and in particular transformed the wine into his blood, why does he refer to the newly transubstantiated wine as “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29? It seems to indicate that the wine is, in fact, merely wine.
Click to expand...
 
“It is really no use to argue with each other if we know we will not convince each other.”, you said.

Except Tim, I just quoted it and asked if you interpret the one verse literally or as a figure of speech. I also asked that you NOT go off on other things! You could at least have the courtesy out of “love” to answer my question, or anyone? It seems no one wants to answer this directly. Does “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,” mean the chalice is the new testament?

As far as John 6, if you read it again sometime, can you point out to me where it mentions:
  1. The Lords Supper?
  2. Also where it mentions wine?
  3. Where it mentions the church?
  4. Where it mentions this as being addressed to believers?
  5. Where it mentions a priest being present to do some transub.?
  6. They were Jews he was addressing, so how does that apply to us?
  7. He tells these unbelieving Jews in the present tense to eat his flesh, how is this a future event which has not yet been instituted, i.e. the Lord’s Supper?
As far as Jewish culture and how it uses words and expressions. How about, in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines. But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17). Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

The Jewish culture is full of vivid figurative speech! Please do answer my one question directly!?

Does “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,” mean the chalice is the new testament?

Also, the “fruit of the vine” Jesus so clearly identified as to what was in the cup, he said he would drink with us in the Kingdom. If this passage is all about drinking real blood, Does anyone really believe Jesus will be drinking his own blood with us, when he is physically present with us, from his own body? Where else would he get it?
 
“discourse on the Holy Eucharist in John, Chapter 6”

If you are going to reference this Chap. 6 in John. Please answer my questions about it. Look at the text without reading anything into it. There is NO “Holy Eucahrist” mentioned!

The first point of Bible study is to observe the text FIRST before making any conclusions!!

As far as John 6, if you read it again sometime, can you point out to me where it mentions:
  1. The Lords Supper?
  2. Also where it mentions wine?
  3. Where it mentions the church?
  4. Where it mentions this as being addressed to believers?
  5. Where it mentions a priest being present to do some transub.?
  6. They were Jews he was addressing, so how does that apply to us?
  7. He tells these unbelieving Jews in the present tense to eat his flesh, how is this a future event which has not yet been instituted, i.e. the Lord’s Supper?
These are all questions/observations, not interpretations. Deal with the text, not what you think it says!

In verse 41, he begins talking to unbelieving Jews, not the church. The Lords supper is NOT for unbelievers!! “The Jews therefore murmured at him,” these are the ones he is telling to eat his flesh, not the church! No Lords Supper here. The Lords supper was NOT instituted yet!! Please if you do nothing else, read the context of the chapter, instead of just throwing verses around and trying to make them fit your predetermined meaning!!!

Please answer the questions above first, then I will know you are interacting with the text and not reading into the text?

Secondly,
As far as Jewish culture and how it uses words and expressions. How about, in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines. But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17). Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

The Jewish culture is full of vivid figurative speech.

I await your answers!
 
The body blood discourse in John 6:41-59 is to unbelieving Jews, NOT the church. No Lord’s supper here, NO “Holy Eucharist” in the synagogue!!

John 6:41 "“The Jews therefore murmured at him,” It is to these Jews who murmured at him that he directly addresses the body blood discourse!

In verse 60 “These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.” NO Lord’s supper in the synagogue.

Does anyone read the context?
 
And just so you know it is unbelievers he was talking about the body and blood to, verse 65 “But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.”

He makes two references.
  1. “who they were that did not believe” - these are the ones he was already talking to. Just ask, in the context did any of that group follow him? NO.
  2. “and who he was, that would betray him.” This of course is Judas.
 
rjcash said:
In the verse, “28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sin”. We know that this cannot be taken literally, because in Hebrews 9:16
“For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.”

First and the most obvious, is there was no blood shed yet.

But in Hebrews it makes it clear that there was no New Covenant, since there was no death yet. Since Christ is saying “THIS IS (PRESENT TENSE) the blood of the covenant” was he mistaken, since there was no new covenant yet. Or was he speaking figuratively? If you say he really meant that for the future, you cannot in turn say he was saying that it is turning to blood then, you would also have to say that it future, therefore it was still “fruit of the vine”, just like Jesus said it was. The blood of the New Covenant and the New Covenant is when he dies!!
Click to expand...
Or He was instituting the Eucharist, which transcends the limits of both time and matter in order that we can consume the Paschal sacrifice as was required in the Old Covenant and continues to be in the New Covenant. . . .

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day . . .” And when some of His followers, who were in fact good Jews and knew that not only was cannibalism disgusting but the consumption of blood was absolutely prohibited, left Him, he did not call after them “wait, don’t you get it, it’s symbolic.” No, he “doubled-down,” using more graphic words (switching from “eat” to “chew”) and said “do you take offense at this? The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” and challenged the Apostles “will you also go away?”
 
RJcash, I know that you refuse to see the Eucharist in John 6, but my friend, the Church has clearly seen the Eucharist in John 6, from the very 1st century. Bishops, who were disciples of the Apostle John (Ignatius), who spent extended periods of time with the Apostle John, saw the Eucharist very clearly in John 6. This teaching of the Church is the most consistent of any our teachings. To me, its a non-negotiable.

So, I’m really not concerned with what you see or don’t see mentioned. But I tell you what… break your comments on John 6 out and start a new thread. I don’t have much time right now to rebut you, but I will over the weekend.
 
Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don’t believe it either.
 
Luvtosew said:
Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don’t believe it either.
Click to expand...
Refusing to believe in something doesn’t mean it’s not true. Corrections have been pointed out in this thread, and are apparently being ignored. There’s a lot of that that happens in the Bible, too. Again, doesn’t mean the doubters are in the right just because many doubt.
 
Lochias said:
Refusing to believe in something doesn’t mean it’s not true. Corrections have been pointed out in this thread, and are apparently being ignored. There’s a lot of that that happens in the Bible, too. Again, doesn’t mean the doubters are in the right just because many doubt.
Click to expand...
Believing it doesn’t make it true either. We are free to believe what we want.

theres a lot of that that happends in the Bible has no meaning here, as Christians we are not doubters of Christ so that doesn’t apply to us Chrisitans.
 
Luvtosew said:
Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don’t believe it either.
Click to expand...
This statement canot be refuted nor can it be proved. I doubt that the “majority” don’t believe. If they don’t believe, than they are liars everytime they say AMEN when they receive since that is an affirmation that they do believe.
 
Luvtosew said:
Believing it doesn’t make it true either. We are free to believe what we want.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what anyone says, we are subject to the Truth. Our statements do not change the Truth any more than two fleas arguing about the true nature of the animal they are on. I think there’s a statement in the bible about how “teachers” are judged harshly. Those that lead people astray may have a difficult time with their judgement.

What does Luvtosew say about Lanciano? It was (and continues to be) a miracle that showed up right when the questions about the true nature of the Eucharist started to gain traction. I figure that a person that is trying to lead people away from the Eucharist would want to investigate the signs provided to us.
 
Okay , 🤷 , I’ve just given you the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason, you still seem to be bent on arguing, rjcash .It doesn’t even appear you are always able to tell when people are agreeing with you – as demonstrated by your continuing to insist someone point out
rjcash said:
“discourse on the Holy Eucharist in John, Chapter 6”

… 2. Also where it mentions wine?
Click to expand...
You were given clarification by me , yet you’re even trying to get Tim to bite on it - even though I’m the one who didn’t write it … “"Didn’t”, because you decided to make an inference - which appears to contradict the um ( kind counsel ??) you’ve given here:
rjcash said:
… Deal with the text, not what you think it says!
Click to expand...
I should think you might at least show everyone who you want to argue with , the respect of learning how to use the CAF forums "quote function as the rest of us do. Not only is it easy to use , it makes it less complicated for others you are quoting to determine when you are quoting them ; identifying the quote with their user name - as opposed to simply using quotation marks .

Perhaps if you don’t get it this time , you might want to consider not taking up so much of our time , by keeping your replies relevant to the actual comments you’re quoting rather than applying an inordinate amount of effort into “shifting” the “argument” to an area where you’re convinced you’re able to (um, what’s the word I’m looking for here ? …:hmmm:…) “win” ?? 🤷
Code: 
                        Dear rjcash : :okpeople:
The reason I cited the sixth Chapter of John in my reply** to the OP’s post **(read in this "not to your post rjcash - [because the OP is listed as a Catholic ] ") in post # 5 and clarified in post # 24 , was precisely because it did not mention “wine” at all, but only the “Blood” of Christ . So you can stop asking people to show you wording that doesn’t exist - in any literal sense, at least.
 
adrift said:
This statement canot be refuted nor can it be proved. I doubt that the “majority” don’t believe. If they don’t believe, than they are liars everytime they say AMEN when they receive since that is an affirmation that they do believe.
Click to expand...
😃 No I understood what you said.

Speak to some Catholics , not here, I have and many did not know they were suppose to believe that, and many like me believed we partook in the spiritual sense, as I have read some members on this board also believed as I, so while I feel communion is very imp. in a spiritual way and should be taken humbly of course with great repect for what we are doing, we are reaffirming the glorious thing that Jesus did for mankind at Calvery, and we owe him everything, so anyone partaking in communion should do so, with great humility.
since I have learned the real meaning of communion in the Catholic church I won’t partake, as that would be very hypocritical of me to do so. I have done much reading about this for the last two years, and my mind has not changed. So anyone who knows this about the Catholic communion and still partakes should not be if they don’t believe what the teachings of the Church has about this.🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
😃 No I understood what you said.

Speak to some Catholics , not here, I have and many did not know they were suppose to believe that, and many like me believed we partook in the spiritual sense, as I have read some members on this board also believed as I, so while I feel communion is very imp. in a spiritual way and should be taken humbly of course with great repect for what we are doing, we are reaffirming the glorious thing that Jesus did for mankind at Calvery, and we owe him everything, so anyone partaking in communion should do so, with great humility.
since I have learned the real meaning of communion in the Catholic church I won’t partake, as that would be very hypocritical of me to do so. I have done much reading about this for the last two years, and my mind has not changed. So anyone who knows this about the Catholic communion and still partakes should not be if they don’t believe what the teachings of the Church has about this.🙂
Click to expand...
I agree with you that they should not be receiving if they don’ believe. Your speaking to some Catholics should not then mushroom into a “great majority”. If you had said some, I would not have responded. I have never met a practising Catholic who did not believe in the real Presense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top