another thread about body and blood

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 22 2005, 07:38 AM']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
[right][snapback]733666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
im just curious as to how you are making a correlation between the jewish seder meal and jesus christ. I dont think that jesus was a jew. He came to set forth a new covenant by god. He was the new covenant. At this point i cant really determine for myself whether or not the bread is actually the body and the wine is actually his blood. I can only go by what jesus says.........this is my body........this is my blood..........which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.........do this in memory of me........i dont think that because he says "in memory of me" that this means it is a representation of his body and blood. Here is another thing to think about...............why would he repeatedly call something his body and blood and be using metaphors? Jesus would have known (since he is god and god is omnipotent) that using metaphors would only cause a division amongst people in their beliefs. i think that the only way to get down to the root of this problem would be to prove that peter and the apostles recognized this ritual as a metaphor or if they took what jesus said literally. I think a point was made earlier on this thread that christians (before catholicism reached rome) were known as cannibals by the romans because they (in their minds) were eating the actual flesh and blood of christ). I have a question for you briguy..........can you give another example of jesus making a direct statement using metaphors? Im not really talking about parables because that was a way that jesus made points easier for people to understand. I think that if there is no direct statement by jesus using metaphors (other than your belief of the transcending of the body and blood being a metaphor) that nobody would have reason to believe that jesus ever used metaphors in a direct statement. I just really dont believe that jesus would ever put mankind in a position to where they wouldnt know if he was talking in metaphors or if he literally meant what he said. i personally believe that one would be better off taking what he said literally. "this is my body"........he is defining the bread as his body. "this is my blood" he is defining the wine as his blood. If jesus is truelly present in the eucharist.......then it would make sense why catholics have a different concept of salvation.......jesus says that salvation is through him.

Edited September 26, 2005 by infinitelord1

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 25 2005, 08:56 PM']im just curious as to how you are making a correlation between the jewish seder meal and jesus christ. I dont think that jesus was a jew. He came to set forth a new covenant by god. He was the new covenant.  At this point i cant really determine for myself whether or not the bread is actually the body and the wine is actually his blood. I can only go by what jesus says.........this is my body........this is my blood..........which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.........do this in memory of me........i dont think that because he says "in memory of me" that this means it is a representation of his body and blood. Here is another thing to think about...............why would he repeatedly call something his body and blood and be using metaphors? Jesus would have known (since he is god and god is omnipotent) that using metaphors would only cause a division amongst people in their beliefs. i think that the only way to get down to the root of this problem would be to prove that peter and the apostles recognized this ritual as a metaphor or if they took what jesus said literally. I think a point was made earlier on this thread that christians (before catholicism reached rome) were known as cannibals by the romans because they (in their minds) were eating the actual flesh and blood of christ). I have a question for you briguy..........can you give another example of jesus making a direct statement using metaphors? Im not really talking about parables because that was a way that jesus made points easier for people to understand. I think that if there is no direct statement by jesus using metaphors (other than your belief of the transcending of the body and blood being a metaphor) that nobody would have reason to believe that jesus ever used metaphors in a direct statement. I just really dont believe that jesus would ever put mankind in a position to where they wouldnt know if he was talking in metaphors or if he literally meant what he said. i personally believe that one would be better off taking what he said literally. "this is my body"........he is defining the bread as his body. "this is my blood" he is defining the wine as his blood. If jesus is truelly present in the eucharist.......then it would make sense why catholics have a different concept of salvation.......jesus says that salvation is through him.
[right][snapback]737421[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Jesus was a Jew, and he celebrated the passover. The last supper was the Seder meal.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Sep 25 2005, 09:16 PM']Jesus was a Jew, and he celebrated the passover. The last supper was the Seder meal.
[right][snapback]737450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
jesus couldnt have been a jew...........if jew is a race then i guess he could be if you are talking about jesus' beliefs being jewish........then i dont think he wa a jew. He was the new covenant. The last supper represented the new covenant..........the seder meal was something that jews did to remember the exodus.......how could these be the same? I dont think they were.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Sep 25 2005, 09:16 PM']Jesus was a Jew, and he celebrated the passover. The last supper was the Seder meal.
[right][snapback]737450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so god is a jew that coverted to christianity?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 26 2005, 01:33 PM']so god is a jew that coverted to christianity?
[right][snapback]737939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

God did not conver to anything. God offers us a relationship with Him throughout salvation history by means of covenants. The Old Covenant could not save man because it bound men to the law. No man can be saved by Mosaic Law, for it condemns man because he is sinful. The New Covenant binds man to God by a familial relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ instead of by the old law. So man needs faith to be saved, but faith that fosters obedience (man has free will).

Because the New Covenant includes all nations (Gentiles) and not merely Israel, salvific grace is found by adhering to Christianity instead of Judaism. The Jewish faith is only for those of the Jewish nation. Hope this helps.

added.... Jesus was indeed of Jewish descent, born into a Jewish family, he adhered to all Jewish law, prophetically and perfectly, enabling Him to become the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He was indeed a Jewish carpentar.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 26 2005, 02:08 PM']God did not conver to anything. God offers us a relationship with Him throughout salvation history by means of covenants. The Old Covenant could not save man because it bound men to the law. No man can be saved by Mosaic Law, for it condemns man because he is sinful. The New Covenant binds man to God by a familial relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ instead of by the old law. So man needs faith to be saved, but faith that fosters obedience (man has free will).

Because the New Covenant includes all nations (Gentiles) and not merely Israel, salvific grace is found by adhering to Christianity instead of Judaism. The Jewish faith is only for those of the Jewish nation. Hope this helps.

added.... Jesus was indeed of Jewish descent, born into a Jewish family, he adhered to all Jewish law, prophetically and perfectly, enabling Him to become the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He was indeed a Jewish carpentar.
[right][snapback]738043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What he said.

We know for sure that the last supper was the seder meal, since it fell on the passover and such.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 26 2005, 02:08 PM']God did not conver to anything. God offers us a relationship with Him throughout salvation history by means of covenants. The Old Covenant could not save man because it bound men to the law. No man can be saved by Mosaic Law, for it condemns man because he is sinful. The New Covenant binds man to God by a familial relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ instead of by the old law. So man needs faith to be saved, but faith that fosters obedience (man has free will).

Because the New Covenant includes all nations (Gentiles) and not merely Israel, salvific grace is found by adhering to Christianity instead of Judaism. The Jewish faith is only for those of the Jewish nation. Hope this helps.

added.... Jesus was indeed of Jewish descent, born into a Jewish family, he adhered to all Jewish law, prophetically and perfectly, enabling Him to become the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He was indeed a Jewish carpentar.
[right][snapback]738043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So what you are saying is..........jesus promoted all the old testament laws and included the new law (covenant). I can see that. I was just thinking that jesus cant be considered a jew since he began a new revolution (christianity).

[Briguy]

[26] Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
[27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
[30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
[31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
[32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
[34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
[35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
[36] But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
[39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
[42] And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
[43] Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
[47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
[48] I am that bread of life.
[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[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.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
[59] These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
[62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Hi Guys, just a quick thing here on John 6. As with any scripture, context is everything. When I copied these verses I started with verse 26 because that is where the main context of the "eating his flesh" idea starts. Verse 26 says that the people hungered for the wrong kind of bread. People were filled in their stomachs by the actual bread and Jesus now symbolically refers to himself as having a different bread and in fact he later says He is the bread. The bread, which is Jesus gives eternal life, actual bread sustains human life. If you eat bread you will hunger again. If you consume the bread, that again is Jesus, you never hunger again. Jesus goes on to talk about the manna from Heaven and that He now is the true bread from Heaven. Did the disciples see Jesus as a walking loaf of wonder bread, with hands and feet sticking out?? No, it was symbolic. There are two ways to be filled in this world. One way is physical, through consuming food. The other way is spiritual by consuming Christ. As mentioned with communion, when we eat food it becomes part of our body. When we receive Christ He becomes one with us. It is the same concept as the food idea, except on a spiritual level. The whole idea of drinking the blood and eating the flesh is a physical representation of what happens spiritually, within the spiritual realm. We all understand there is a physical and a spiritual. The first birth we have is physical and the second is physical. There are many many examples of Jesus using earthly examples to explain the spiritual. For example, when Jesus spoke to Nic. About being born again he used the wind blowing to describe the Holy Spirit's moving. Jesus was making a point to the people and his followers that to receive Him is to receive all of Him and that there will be a cost, especially in the early church. Eating His flesh and drinking His blood would be wrong on a physical level by all moral accounts but consuming Jesus in full, is beautiful on the spiritual level and it IS what happens when we believe. Verse 63 then sums this up as Jesus responds to His disciples who were not quite getting the full concept of what He was saying. Read verse 63 it is clear as day that Jesus was discussing the spiritual world in the verses before but he was using physical representation. Jesus even says the "flesh" has no profit, meaning physical eating can do nothing for the soul, but spiritual eating of Him will bring life. This set of verses is a wonderful picture of coming to Christ by faith and the way He indwells us in a real, full way. Again, in V. 63 Jesus says The words He spoke were spirit. I see no other way you can take that. Sorry about all the verses but they need to be read together.

In Christ,
Brian