another thread about body and blood

[Brother Adam]

Well...God likes to mock false gods. In the book of Exodus God would have the Israelites sacrifice rams and bulls, these animals were the gods that Egyptians worshipped, and those that the Israelites would abandon God to worship (golden calf for instance). By slaughtering them God would insult them. Many of the plagues themselves were insults to the Egyptian gods - such as blood in the Nile symbolized the death of Hapi, the god of the Nile, and the frogs made a mockery of Hekhet, the fertility god. Hail insulted nut, shu, and tefnut, the Egyptian sky gods.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 20 2005, 01:50 PM']Well...God likes to mock false gods. In the book of Exodus God would have the Israelites sacrifice rams and bulls, these animals were the gods that Egyptians worshipped, and those that the Israelites would abandon God to worship (golden calf for instance). By slaughtering them God would insult them. Many of the plagues themselves were insults to the Egyptian gods - such as blood in the Nile symbolized the death of Hapi, the god of the Nile, and the frogs made a mockery of Hekhet, the fertility god. Hail insulted nut, shu, and tefnut, the Egyptian sky gods.
[right][snapback]731084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh i see. thanks for the history lesson.

[Brother Adam]

No problem. I'm still learning a lot myself. I think we really need to understand the Eucharistic sacrifice for what it was, that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb, sacrificed for our sins, and understand it in such a way that it is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures. This idea, of the paschal mystery of Christ I believe is something that is so often lost on many fundamentalists because they don't see the same harmony and typology. Even in Revelation, the Christ is seen in all His glory as the Paschal Lamb who was slain for the sins of the world. With a better understanding of covenant language, the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God, and of typology, we begin to better understand why Justin Martyr wrote, only 70 years after the death of John, and nearly 200 years before we have a New Testament:

"not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of whichour blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus" First Apology 66,20

[Brother Adam]

...Which is another thing I wish more Christians would do, is to really figure out, in the first few hundred years of Christianity, who was considered "Christians" by Christian communities themselves, what did they teach, what heresies did they fight, and what did the secular community notice. We find that through 2000 years the teaching has been the same. Developed, certianly, we understand more about our Christian faith today thanks to the reflection of amazing Christians like Aquinas, Augustine, Ignatius, and so many others, but it has always been the same for 2000 years. What they believed in 40AD the Christian Church still believes today. As Jesus said, the Holy Spirit has lead us into all Truth and the Church stands as the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (John 16:13).

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, covenant is a fine word and it is fine if we use that word.

Infinite, You implied that the covenant or contract had to do with the actual act of remembering, but it doesn't. I think Adam made that clear in so many words.

The testament or covenant spoken of was that which Jesus was in the process of making when he said the words and completed when he shed his blood and rose again. It was the final covenant ever made between God and His elect (those whom would by faith Trust in Christ to forgive them). There is no sacrifice for Sin without the sheding of blood. Jesus was pointing out the need to remember what he was about to do because it was the most important event in history. By remembering, in communion, the "event" stays fresh in our minds. For example, some of my emotion in regards to 9/11 had faded but when I saw the coverage recently of everything that happened on 9/11, the emotion came back. It helped foscus my thoughts again on what the war on terror is all about. In the case of communion it reminds us of our debt to Christ and how we need to serve him by loving others as He commanded. Communion helps to forward the Gospel by keeping people excited about what Christ did on the cross. We have communion about once a month at my church. It is a wonderful time of relection and thanksgiving. Jesus was never making the point that the wine was actually his blood because it wasn't, as he said in the next line and his point was what I have already said.

Adam, yes, they ate the flesh of the animals, but it was cooked, not raw. The more important point is that they did not drink the blood of the sacrificed animal, it was spread on the alter, not consumed. By your thinking the wine in the cup should be sprinkled on an alter, not consumed, if it really is actual blood.

I'll let you respond. Please address my points from this post and the first and not just give your view. I made some very good points that unless addressed seem to stand as true. That was just a little challange because often I feel like my points are skimmed over and the response is a theological position and not an answer to my posts. Thanks much,

In Christ our Lord,
Brian

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 20 2005, 01:30 PM']Hi Adam, covenant is a fine word and it is fine if we use that word. 

Infinite, You implied that the covenant or contract had to do with the actual act of remembering, but it doesn't. I think Adam made that clear in so many words.

The testament or covenant spoken of was that which Jesus was in the process of making when he said the words and completed when he shed his blood and rose again.  It was the final covenant ever made between God and His elect (those whom would by faith Trust in Christ to forgive them). There is no sacrifice for Sin without the sheding of blood.  Jesus was pointing out the need to remember what he was about to do because it was the most important event in history. By remembering, in communion, the "event" stays fresh in our minds. For example, some of my emotion in regards to 9/11 had faded but when I saw the coverage recently of everything that happened on 9/11, the emotion came back. It helped foscus my thoughts again on what the war on terror is all about. In the case of communion it reminds us of our debt to Christ and how we need to serve him by loving others as He commanded. Communion helps to forward the Gospel by keeping people excited about what Christ did on the cross. We have communion about once a month at my church. It is a wonderful time of relection and thanksgiving. Jesus was never making the point that the wine was actually his blood because it wasn't, as he said in the next line and his point was what I have already said.

Adam, yes, they ate the flesh of the animals, but it was cooked, not raw. The more important point is that they did not drink the blood of the sacrificed animal, it was spread on the alter, not consumed. By your thinking the wine in the cup should be sprinkled on an alter, not consumed, if it really is actual blood.

I'll let you respond. Please address my points from this post and the first and not just give your view. I made some very good points that unless addressed seem to stand as true. That was just a little challange because often I feel like my points are skimmed over and the response is a theological position and not an answer to my posts. Thanks much,

In Christ our Lord,
Brian
[right][snapback]731170[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

May the peace of the risen Lord fill your heart, Brian.

I would like to call to mind what St. Paul tells us:

1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

If Communion simply reminds us of what Christ did, then why would it be a sin against Christ's body to eat it unworthily?

On the contrary, if this were a mere rememberance meal, it would be highly advisable to eat it while in an "unworthy" state - since to eat it would help bring the unworthy back to Christ.

However, the Eucharist isn't meant for the unworthy, as St. Paul notes. The Eucharist must also do something othere than bringing to mind the death of Christ. It, in a mysterious way, brings us into union with Christ. As He humbled Himself to share in our humanity, He brings us, at the Cross, to share in His Divinity.

One cannot share in Christ's Divinity while being unworthy.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 20 2005, 02:30 PM']Hi Adam, covenant is a fine word and it is fine if we use that word. 

Infinite, You implied that the covenant or contract had to do with the actual act of remembering, but it doesn't. I think Adam made that clear in so many words.

The testament or covenant spoken of was that which Jesus was in the process of making when he said the words and completed when he shed his blood and rose again.  It was the final covenant ever made between God and His elect (those whom would by faith Trust in Christ to forgive them). There is no sacrifice for Sin without the sheding of blood.  Jesus was pointing out the need to remember what he was about to do because it was the most important event in history. By remembering, in communion, the "event" stays fresh in our minds. For example, some of my emotion in regards to 9/11 had faded but when I saw the coverage recently of everything that happened on 9/11, the emotion came back. It helped foscus my thoughts again on what the war on terror is all about. In the case of communion it reminds us of our debt to Christ and how we need to serve him by loving others as He commanded. Communion helps to forward the Gospel by keeping people excited about what Christ did on the cross. We have communion about once a month at my church. It is a wonderful time of relection and thanksgiving. Jesus was never making the point that the wine was actually his blood because it wasn't, as he said in the next line and his point was what I have already said.

Adam, yes, they ate the flesh of the animals, but it was cooked, not raw. The more important point is that they did not drink the blood of the sacrificed animal, it was spread on the alter, not consumed. By your thinking the wine in the cup should be sprinkled on an alter, not consumed, if it really is actual blood.

I'll let you respond. Please address my points from this post and the first and not just give your view. I made some very good points that unless addressed seem to stand as true. That was just a little challange because often I feel like my points are skimmed over and the response is a theological position and not an answer to my posts. Thanks much,

In Christ our Lord,
Brian
[right][snapback]731170[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i agree that the covenant was designed to remember jesus christ and what he taught. Lets not forget that god is omniscient. To god christ didnt die 2000 years ago. He still exists to this day. Lets also not forget what the one of the points of jesus christs existence was (to serve as an intermediary between mankind and the devine).From my understanding.......the catholic church teaches that he is present in the eucharist. I think the eucharist in the eyes of the catholic church is an intermediary between mankind and the devine. I also believe that if one sees this just as a representation.....it is not only a philosophical contradiction, but one will never experience the fullness of the creator. I think that it is a philosophical contradiction since you would be consuming a peace of bread or a drink of wine that has no meaning to it. If it were only a representation you could get the same point (point being that we are supposed to remember christ) from looking at a cross. I think some of us need to really dig deep and find the meaning in these things (including me). Im going to PM phatcatholic.....he is the man. I think he would be able to address your questions much much better than me because i am a hypocrite in this case. I am preaching something that i am not even sure i believe in yet. I just tend to agree with catholics because of the way i think philosophically. So far the pieces to the puzzle seem to fit in catholicism (to me). Its very logical.
Hopefully phatcatholic can address a lot of this stuff and we all can learn from it. Please dont forget what apotheoun said too........i think he presented facts that only back up the catholic teachings.

Edited September 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[point5]

hi Matt O

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 20 2005, 09:51 AM']Hi There, I think it is important to look closely at what Jesus said. Below are the three accounts from Matthew, Mark and Luke, though I don't think they are in that order. Below that is two verses from when Jesus was in the garden and being arrested. [/quote]
its confusing to provide verses w/o the citation. here they are again, w/ the citation and in the order they appear, so we can all follow along easier. i have also added some extra context, which i will refer to later.

[b]Mat 26:26-30[/b]
[b]26 [/b]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."
[b]27 [/b]And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[b]28 [/b]for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
[b]29 [/b]I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
[b]30 [/b]And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

[b]Mark 14:22-26[/b]
[b]22 [/b]And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
[b]23 [/b]And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[b]24 [/b]And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
[b]25 [/b]Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
[b]26 [/b]And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

[b]Luke 22:15-20[/b]
[b]15 [/b]And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;
[b]16 [/b]for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
[b]17 [/b]And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves;
[b]18 [/b]for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
[b]19 [/b]And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[b]20 [/b]And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.


you also provided these verses:

[b]John 18:11 [/b]Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

[b]Luke 22:42 [/b]"Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."


whenever you refer to one of these passages, i have inserted the citation in brackets in your comments, so we know which gospel you are analyzing.


[quote]The reason I believe Jesus was using symbolism is because of what is said and what he says after the words in question. All three of the accounts have the blood being a new testament. [[b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+22%3A20§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"]Luke 22:20[/url][/b]] even says new testament before the word blood. What is Jesus saying by the word testament?  He is explaining that something is completely changing and that a new sacrifice is being offered and the old things, covenants, etc… are leaving and something new is beginning and it is because he will shed His own blood, no more need for the blood of animals, His blood will be shed and with it something new.[/quote]
Brian, if Jesus says that what he is pouring out for them at the table is the "blood of the covenant" then this must mean that what he is giving to them is also that which will be shed in order to institute the new covenant for his people. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+14%3A24§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=lu&NavGo=22&NavCurrentChapter=22"]Mark 14:24[/url][/b]). how much more plain can you get?

i agree w/ you that the new covenant abolishes the old sacrifical system. but, this is actually all the more reason to believe that He is speaking literally. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the entire process. he is both the lamb that was slain and the high priest who offered it. what is important to note about the blood is that the Jews were instructed from the time of Noah to not consume the blood of an animal ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Gen+9%3A4§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"]Gen 9:4[/url][/b]), for it was the "life force" of it ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Lev+17%3A11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=9&NavCurrentChapter=9"]Lev 17:11[/url][/b]). the animal took the place of man himself, who was due to die for breaking the covenant. so, saving the blood for the Lord meant giving one's life to Him, who is the Author of all Life. conversely, drinking the blood was a turning away from God.

However, Jesus institutes a new covenant in His Blood, freeing the people from the old sacrificial system. He is the Way, the Truth, and [i][b]the Life[/b][/i] ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+14%3A6§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"]John 14:6[/url][/b]). where before, the consumption of the life of an animal was a turning away from God, now consumption of the blood of Christ is a turning towards him. "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no [i][b]life[/b][/i] in you" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A53§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"]John 6:53[/url][/b]).

also note that if Jesus is the Lamb, then he too must be eaten, for this was obligatory of the sacrifical lamb. this is seen in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Exodus+12%3A8%2C11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Exo 12:8,11[/b][/url] where the Israelites were told to eat the lamb so that the angel would pass over them. in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Exodus+29%3A33§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ex&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12"][b]Exo 29:33[/b][/url] "they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them". in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Lev+7%3A15§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ex&NavGo=29&NavCurrentChapter=29"][b]Lev 7:15[/b][/url] the flesh of the sacrifice must be eaten. in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Chron+30%3A15-17§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=le&NavGo=7&NavCurrentChapter=7"][b]2 Chron 30:15-17[/b][/url] (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Chron+35%3A1%2C6%2C11%2C13§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ch&NavGo=30&NavCurrentChapter=30"][b]2 Chron 35:1,6,11,13[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezra+6%3A20-21§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ch&NavGo=35&NavCurrentChapter=35"][b]Ezr 6:20-21[/b][/url]) the lamb is eaten so as to achieve purification. also, in [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezekiel+2%3A8-10§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ezr&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]Ezek 2:8-10[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezekiel+3%3A1-3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=eze&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2"][b]3:1-3[/b][/url] Ezekiel is commanded by God to eat the scroll--the Word of God--which was in his mouth "as honey for sweetness." all of these verses forshadow Jesus Christ, the lamb and the Word of God, who must be eaten. of course, Jesus Christ himself affirms this when he says "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A55§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"]John 6:55[/url][/b]).

so, we see that it is not just in dying on the cross that he abolishes the old sacrifical system, but also by giving us his very self for our nourishment in the place of the flesh and blood of old.


[quote]Now remember when he made these statements he had not yet shed is blood and His body was in tact, which in any other example in the world we would view this type of thing as symbolic. If I point to a picture of my son and say "this is my son", did I lie? It is my son, but it is really just a piece of photo paper. The bread and wine were a "picture" of the body and blood.[/quote]
your forgetting how people conceptualized "symbols" in biblical times. as Apotheoun pointed out in his post ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39946&view=findpost&p=729735"][b]here[/b][/url]), "the symbol and the thing symbolized are mystically one and the same reality....[sacraments] render present the thing they signify." Jesus gave his very self to the apostles on that night.

also, note that when the Jews celebrated the Passover, it wasn't just for them a time of remembering what happened so long ago. they believed that the Passover they celebrated was a mystical re-presentation of the first Passover of their ancestors. and so, by instituting the Eucharist on the feast of the Passover, we have the old meal and the new meal literally coming together in the person of Jesus. he has infused his very self into the celebration replacing the old flesh and blood w/ his own Flesh and Blood.


[quote]Read the verse that is after the blood verse in [[b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+26%3A28-29§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"]Mat 26:28-29[/url][/b] and [b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+14%3A24-25§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=26&NavCurrentChapter=26"]Mark 14:24-25[/url][/b]]. Jesus calls the cup He is holding "the fruit of the vine". This is right after he calls it His blood, or the new testament in his blood. You see, Jesus was not trying to say something supernatural happened to the wine. It was wine before He spoke and it was wine after He spoke but it symbolized the greatest change in covenants ever.[/quote]
Jesus isn't referring to the same cup here. Scott Hahn provides some helpful context to these words (from [url="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html"][b]this article[/b][/url]):[list]There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it's the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there's the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.

[/list]the meal ends w/ the singing of the psalms (cf. [b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+26%3A30§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"]Mat 26:30[/url][/b]; [b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+14%3A26§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=26&NavCurrentChapter=26"]Mark 14:26[/url][/b]), so we know that the cup they drank was the [i][b]third[/b][/i] cup . since they drink no more after this, then the "fruit of the vine" of which he will not drink "until the kingdom of God comes" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+22%3A18§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14"]Luke 22:18[/url][/b]) is the [i][b]fourth[/b][/i] cup. also, what's interesting is that in Luke, Jesus actually tells them about not drinking of the vine [i][b]before[/b][/i] they drink the third cup (cf. [b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+22%3A18-20§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=lu&NavGo=22&NavCurrentChapter=22"]Luke 22:18-20[/url][/b]). so, this must mean that the third cup was more than just fruit from the vine.


[quote]Now, look at [[b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+18%3A11§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=lu&NavGo=22&NavCurrentChapter=22"]John 18:11[/url][/b] and [b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+22%3A42§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=18&NavCurrentChapter=18"]Luke 22:42[/url][/b]] where even the word "cup" is symbolic. The cup in both cases represents the sacrifice He must make and is willing to make. Jesus drinks of the cup for us. He had his disciples and us drink of the cup to remember His drinking of the cup (His death and shedding of blood and resurrection).[/quote]
you are on the verge of coming to the proper conclusion. afterall, you are right when you say that the cup in question here is his death on the cross. but, what you have failed to notice is that his death replaces the fourth cup that is the culmination of the Passover meal. so, this means that what starts at the Passover ends on the Cross. Calvary begins with the Eucharist. the Eucharist ends at Calvary. the bread and the wine that they shared is brough into intimate connection w/ His death on the cross. the Lamb that they eat is the Lamb that is slain. the Blood that they drink is the Blood that was shed. none of this makes sense unless the bread and the wine are his actual Body and Blood.


[quote]I heard a speaker say something that made a lot of sense. He was a science teacher actually, at a Christian boarding school, who attends our church when in the country. Anyway, he said that when we eat and drink anything, the substance goes into every part of us. It no longer can be seen as separate, it indwells us in every way. That is what we remember at communion, that when we trusted Christ and he forgave us our Sin, He indwelt us and not just a little but in every way. The line of distinction between Him and us goes away and He fully indwells us in every way.[/quote]
this is beautiful, and it actually explains quite well what we believe Jesus is doing through the Eucharist. he is indwelling in us in every way. when we consume his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, he nourishes us both physically and spiritually, by being both "real food" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A55§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=lu&NavGo=22&NavCurrentChapter=22"]John 6:55[/url][/b]) for our bodies, and "life" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A53§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"]John 6:53[/url][/b]) for our souls. this is why Jesus says that "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" ([b][url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A56§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"]John 6:56[/url][/b]). he fills us entirely w/ his very Body and Blood.

in the OT, after the sacrifice was made, eating the flesh of the animal was seen as sharing in communion w/ the Lord. they actually saw this as sharing a meal w/ the Lord. now, in the Eucharist, we have the ultimate fulfillment of this. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to [i][b]fulfill[/b][/i] it ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Matthew+5%3A17§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Mat 5:17[/b][/url]). so we consume the Flesh, and even the Blood (the life force) and in so doing enter into a mystical, intimate, and singularly profound communion with the Lord.


[quote]Just as a side note, that is why God can see us as perfect and Holy, worthy of Heaven. Anyway, that was just a quick explanation from my head. I just read the verses and looked at the context around the verses. Please ask me any questions about this as I know it is not as clear as it could be. Thanks for reading.[/quote]
hopefully that adequately addresses all the points you raised. i will respond to your next post w/ a subsequent post of my own.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 20 2005, 02:30 PM']Hi Adam, covenant is a fine word and it is fine if we use that word. 

Infinite, You implied that the covenant or contract had to do with the actual act of remembering, but it doesn't. I think Adam made that clear in so many words.

The testament or covenant spoken of was that which Jesus was in the process of making when he said the words and completed when he shed his blood and rose again.  It was the final covenant ever made between God and His elect (those whom would by faith Trust in Christ to forgive them). There is no sacrifice for Sin without the sheding of blood.  Jesus was pointing out the need to remember what he was about to do because it was the most important event in history. By remembering, in communion, the "event" stays fresh in our minds. For example, some of my emotion in regards to 9/11 had faded but when I saw the coverage recently of everything that happened on 9/11, the emotion came back. It helped foscus my thoughts again on what the war on terror is all about. In the case of communion it reminds us of our debt to Christ and how we need to serve him by loving others as He commanded. Communion helps to forward the Gospel by keeping people excited about what Christ did on the cross. [/quote]
actually, Catholics agree w/ all this. we know full well what the Eucharist symbolizes and to what we turn our hearts and minds. your task is not to prove that the Eucharist is symbolic (in the modern sense), its to prove that it is not also real.


[quote]Adam, yes, they ate the flesh of the animals, but it was cooked, not raw. The more important point is that they did not drink the blood of the sacrificed animal, it was spread on the alter, not consumed. By your thinking the wine in the cup should be sprinkled on an alter, not consumed, if it really is actual blood.[/quote]
the point is that they ate it. whether it was cooked or not is tangential. as for the blood, i think i have already explained why we now drink the Blood. if you would like to read more about how the Blood of the Eucharist relates with the prohibition of drinking blood in the OT, i highly suggest [url="http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=26"][b]this article[/b][/url]. it will aid our discussion immensely if you will read it.


pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Briguy]

Hi phatcatholic, Thank you for those posts. I do feel like now my arguments were answered. I read both posts carefully and have some questions. The problem is I have very little time right now so let me just address one thing. You said that the "fruit of the vine" was not the cup Jesus was holding. In two of the three quotes that you posted the word "this" is used. Jesus is standing there with a cup of wine in His hand and says it is the new covenant in his blood and then without pause says that he will not drink of 'THIS fruit of the vine". I think it would be a stretch to say he was not speaking of the physical wine he was holding. The 4 cup thing from passover I will look into. It seems interesting and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will say that it seems from what you wrote that you want to take from the OT what applies and change what doesn't so it does. This in regards to the drinking of blood, eating of the sacrificial lamb and that sort of thing. The passover was a foreshadow of what was to come and is symbolic in its own right. The crucial part was that the lamb had to be without spot or blemish and the blood had to be shed. The eating of flesh was secondary, for it did no good without the perfect lamb sacrificed and the blood covering the door.

Also, one flaw that jumped out at me is the fact that Jesus knew that most Christians (believers) would be Gentiles. The sacrificial system and the argument you make could only have been understood by Jews back then. "Communion" done in His memory is for Gentiles and Jews alike. Using all sorts of Jewish tradtion seems to complicate things to a level that they just don't need to be at. I think that the whole communion thing has been made way more then it was intended, in terms of it's OT and Law background. 1 Cor. makes it clear that it is a part of what believers should do and it is significant.

More to come, Thanks again!!

In Christ,
Brian

[phatcatholic]

i await the remainder of your response......

[Briguy]

Hi PC, I guess I am going to respond in stages as I think things through more and research a little, as time permits. I found this on a web site about passover.

-----During the Seder 4 glasses of wine are poured to represent the 4 stages of the exodus
1. freedom
2. deliverance
3. redemption
4. release
A fifth cup of wine is poured and placed on the Seder table. This is the Cup of Elijah, an offering for the Prophet Elijah. During the Seder the door to the home is opened to invite the prophet Elijah in
After the meal is eaten, the children search for the Afikomen. The Seder is finished when the children have found the Afikomen and everyone has eaten a piece-------

I think you have a bit of a problem here PC. If we go down the road that Jesus made the call for communion as part of the Seder celebration then we must accept that what is tradition for the seder is what Jesus meant when He spoke. We see above that 5 glasses of wine are poured. I think you said 4 but maybe then you said the fifth was symbolic later. Anyway, real simply here, the glasses/cups of wine each "represent" something. They are not the thing they represent but--- they bring to mind the event that they represent. See above the things they represent, including freedom,etc... all part of the Exodus story. The first cup is not freedom but those who eat the meal see it as freedom because they remeber the freedom achieved at the Exodus. Now, when Jesus raises the cup of wine and says "This is the new covenant in my blood" or even if He said "This is my blood" by the very nature of the Seder, He would have been speaking in representation form. If it was the third cup he rose (for argument here it wouldn't matter - I'm just making a point) and said "this is the new covenant in my blood" He would have just called 2 other cups, saying "This is Freedom" and "This is deliverance" To say that those are representations (a picture as it were) but then to say that when he spoke of His blood it was all of a sudden not a representation, would just not be logical at all. The Seder dinner is a rememberence dinner and Jesus says "do this", that is drink the cup, to remeber his sacrifice for sins and His shed blood. The seder is symbolic from start to finish and jesus used that to bring about the fact that we must remember what He did so we continue to forward His gospel. as I ponder this whole Seder idea it seems to support my stance more then yours. More to come as I look into this deeper.
Thanks for the start into a new area of scripture depth. I still think we may be complicating this more then it needs to be. My understanding, that I just said above, seems logical and less complicated then your post about the Catholic Church position.

In Christ who shed His blood for us,
Brian

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 22 2005, 07:38 AM'] More to come as I look into this deeper. [right][snapback]733666[/snapback][/right][/quote]
yes, i will need to do some research of my own. i haven't forgotten about this conversation tho, and i plan on responding as soon as possible.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

briguy..................just letting you know i haven't forgotten about this i hope to get to it soon.