This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Eliyahu]

Under the Old Covenant, God forbade the Jews from consuming blood because blood was considered a source of life: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen 9:4); “Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people” (Lev 7:27). On the basis of these Old Covenant prohibitions, Protestants argue that Jesus could not have literally given His blood to drink as the source of life in the New Covenant. This argument is easily refuted.

Most obviously, the laws of the Old Covenant have been superseded by the laws of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:14; Heb 7:18; 8:7; 10:9). All of the Jewish religious laws and rituals concerning festivals, diets, circumcision and consuming blood are obsolete. While the Church at the council of Jerusalem recommended that the Gentiles abstain from consuming blood and food strangled or offered to idols, this was a temporary, pastoral decision made to facilitate the Jews’ inclusion in the Church. Paul made it clear that this was not a dogmatic decision by permitting these practices if they didn’t harm the conscience of a fellow believer.

Moreover, the Old Covenant proscribed drinking literal blood from dead animals. It has nothing to do with drinking the living blood of Jesus Christ. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the blood of the Old and New Covenants. We also remember that the Old Covenant was not designed to give life, only knowledge of sin. Because blood was the source of life, it could not be drunk. In the New Covenant, the very blood that removes the Old Covenant laws now actually gives life, and must be drunk.

Because God’s people are no longer under the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law but live in the freedom of Christ, Paul can say: “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). “Therefore,” Paul says, “let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Col 2:16).

By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57) Augustine
-

Finally I have got the first answer to my question over OT commandments on the Blood.
However, sorry to tell you this, that you are quite bold or audacious to expose your ignorance.

- Was the Lord's Supper established before Cross or after Cross?
If it was before Cross, wasn't it before the Law was finished?
The Law was still valid at that time, and Jesus Christ Himself went to Calvary to sacrifice Himself according to the very commandments of the Law.
If the Law was invalid any more, then Jesus didn't have to die next day.
Think about this truth!

- There is another verse prohibiting the blood-drinking.

ACTS 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Could Paul say that if he was drinking Blood every week ?

- As for Augustine, we are not sure about the authentication of the writings, who preserved them, how many copies are maintained correctly.
In case of Bible, there are thousands of manuscripts preserved by various groups and people but they are consistant each other.
Moreover, even though the verasity and authenticity may be confirmed about their writings, it doesn't mean that Augustine were correct in all doctrines. Therefore Augustine cannot override the Bible teachings.
Moreover again, he never commented that we should eat Blood despite OT commandments ( Lev 17).

Therefore your arguments are clearly refuted.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

- Was the Lord's Supper established before Cross or after Cross?
If it was before Cross, wasn't it before the Law was finished?
The Law was still valid at that time, and Jesus Christ Himself went to Calvary to sacrifice Himself according to the very commandments of the Law.
If the Law was invalid any more, then Jesus didn't have to die next day.
Think about this truth!

Jesus Christ established all sacraments and this; the Eucharistic sacrament, was established in the Upper Room on the night of His betrayal. One basic principle of Catholic sacramental theology that you need to understand is that though we are bound by the sacraments, God is not. For instance the thief on the Cross-never received the Eucharist sacrament or Baptism, yet he received eternal life. Why? Because he sought Jesus the best way he could and, like the widow who could only give two coins, Jesus said it was enough.

- There is another verse prohibiting the blood-drinking.
ACTS 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Could Paul say that if he was drinking Blood every week ?

Look, this is not physical fornication, nor the physical eating of meats sacrificed to other gods. Look at I Cor.10:14,15 ...my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. Paul then goes on in v16 to tell us that our 'cup' is the communion of the blood of Christ. Our communion with the Lord is because of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. John chapter 6 tells us very clearly about the bread - it is Jesus Himself. We have all 'eaten of Him' and therefore all make up His Body - the Body of Christ. Now see what Paul says in v.20-23 ......I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

You are falling into the argument that the pagans used against the Early Christians - that Christians were cannabils - that they literally ate flesh and drank blood because of their teaching on the Eucharist.

You have fallen into that same error because you are looking at it carnally.

- As for Augustine, we are not sure about the authentication of the writings, who preserved them, how many copies are maintained correctly.
In case of Bible, there are thousands of manuscripts preserved by various groups and people but they are consistant each other.
Moreover, even though the verasity and authenticity may be confirmed about their writings, it doesn't mean that Augustine were correct in all doctrines. Therefore Augustine cannot override the Bible teachings.
Moreover again, he never commented that we should eat Blood despite OT commandments ( Lev 17).

LOL, you ask for ECF's and you got them, only now their wittings are not authentic in your opinion...Why does this not surprise me.

Therefore your arguments are clearly refuted.

LOL...Hardly

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Agnus_Dei
Under the Old Covenant, God forbade the Jews from consuming blood because blood was considered a source of life: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen 9:4); “Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people” (Lev 7:27). On the basis of these Old Covenant prohibitions, Protestants argue that Jesus could not have literally given His blood to drink as the source of life in the New Covenant. This argument is easily refuted.

Most obviously, the laws of the Old Covenant have been superseded by the laws of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:14; Heb 7:18; 8:7; 10:9).

You need less imagination and more Bible in your doctrinal views.

in Acts 15 the Levitical prohibition against eating blood REMAINS and is said to still apply to even to Gentile Christians.

You need to look for another plausible loophole to insert the doctrine you are trying to promote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 16 we see Christ's disciples making the PERFECT RC argument that the sybmol of bread SHOULD be taken literally --

Matt 16
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that [b]I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

But clearly Christ did not approve of such a strict wooden interpretation of the symbol of bread. The symbol for TEACHING

 

[BobRyan]

In John 6 - "again" we see the perfect RC argument being made (this time by the faithLESS disciples) who suggest that Christ is speaking of literal canibalism when He used the symbol of bread.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

AD:

"In the New Covenant, the very blood that removes the Old Covenant laws now actually gives life, and must be drunk. "

GE:

This herey begins with the total misconception of Christ's 'OFFER'.

I have several times on vearious threads explained the basic shortcoming in the view both Catholics and Protestants take. I'll repeat it here again,

Under the Old Testament the life of the sacrifice is in its blood, so that, when the BLOOD of the sacrifice is being 'OFFERED', "BEFORE THE LORD", it showed the bringer of that 'offering' symbolically through the sacrifice, paid with his own BLOOD - where in was his life - FOR, his sins. Under the OT the blood, REPRESENTED, the life.

Under the NEW Testament the blood of the Sacrifice is in its LIFE.
Under the NEW Testament the LIFE, of the Sacrifice - Jesus Christ - is being 'OFFERED', "BEFORE THE LORD" (in and through resurrection from the dead once for all). Jesus 'sacrificed' His life's-blood, and in His Resurrected LIFE, 'offered' it "before the LORD".

It no longer is like with the animals, their life in their BLOOD being offered within the sanctuary upon the mercy-seat! That is what the Catholics still adhere to. That is what makes their Mass an "abomination before the LORD".

There is the difference between what happens on the altar of sacrifice outside, and what happens before the mercy-seat, inside.
Grade one stuff.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus 'sacrificed' His life's-blood, and in His Resurrected LIFE, 'offered' it "before the LORD".

Just to "it" clear: Jesus 'sacrificed' His life's-blood, and in His Resurrected LIFE, 'offered' it - his LIFE - "before the LORD". His LIFE, representing His blood, his suffering, His dying, "for the sins of many".

 

[Eliyahu]

GE,

Mostly you explained the Sacrifice-Blood-Life well.
But I believe that Jesus offered Himself and His Blood still according to OT commandments, because He was about to end the OT Law.

Again, as you emphasized, the Blood was not offered for the people to eat or drink, but it was offered to God as the sign of offering the life to Him.

RCC misunderstand about this Great Truth and that's why they connect it with the paganism- Cannibalism, which shows that RCC is originated from Pagan Cannibalism, without knowing the Truth of Redemption.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I say it again - it doesn't seem you understand me :

Under the Old Testament the life of the sacrifice is PRESENTED/OFFERED inside the sanctuary, in or through its blood being presented / 'offered'. Its life was sacrificed, outside the sanctuary.

Under the NEW Testament (as with the Old) the Sacrifice was made outside the Sanctuary, i.e., on earth. Its -His- blood, the blood of Jesus "our Passover" Sacrifice, was once for all presented / 'offered', IN, His LIFE being presented / 'offered' - "before the LORD" inside the Sanctuary of God through and in resurrection from the dead.

The Catholics say, no, Jesus' blood is being offered, and His life with and within His blood. Which is not only ridiculous logically, but blasphemous spiritually.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jesus Christ established all sacraments and this; the Eucharistic sacrament, was established in the Upper Room on the night of His betrayal. One basic principle of Catholic sacramental theology that you need to understand is that though we are bound by the sacraments, God is not. For instance the thief on the Cross-never received the Eucharist sacrament or Baptism, yet he received eternal life. Why? Because he sought Jesus the best way he could and, like the widow who could only give two coins, Jesus said it was enough.

Therefore, when Jesus said His Words are spirit and life ( v63), He meant that we should believe in Him, not that we should eat the Blood of Jesus physically. Millions of people were saved by believing in Jesus, not by eating His Flesh, or taking the Eucharist, right?

Look, this is not physical fornication, nor the physical eating of meats sacrificed to other gods. Look at I Cor.10:14,15 ...my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. Paul then goes on in v16 to tell us that our 'cup' is the communion of the blood of Christ. Our communion with the Lord is because of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. John chapter 6 tells us very clearly about the bread - it is Jesus Himself. We have all 'eaten of Him' and therefore all make up His Body - the Body of Christ. Now see what Paul says in v.20-23 ......I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

You misunderstand greatly about ch 10 of 1 Corinthians.
It says " Koinwnia=participation" which never meant the Eating of flesh or Drinking of Blood. It's a wrong theology from Cannibalism. Isn't Participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus possible by remembering and believing by Holy Spirit

You are falling into the argument that the pagans used against the Early Christians - that Christians were cannabils - that they literally ate flesh and drank blood because of their teaching on the Eucharist.

Pagans never commemorated the Death of Jesus, but Inquisitors accused the True believers of the Heresy which you are claiming now.

You have fallen into that same error because you are looking at it carnally.

It is you that have fallen into the theory of cannibalism.

LOL, you ask for ECF's and you got them, only now their wittings are not authentic in your opinion...Why does this not surprise me.

LOL...Hardly

Always RCC brings other things than the Bible whenever they found the difficulty with their theory compared to Bible truth. When they claim the prayer to the dead, they bring Apocrypha, as for Transubstantiation, they bring ECF's.

What if ECF's are contradictory to the Bible? Will you follow ECF's and Apocrypha leaving the Bible? You may! because RCC is not based on Bible.

 

[Eliyahu]

Before this is closed, it may be wise to discuss shortly about who can administer the Lord Supper. Should it be administered only by the Priests or Pastors, or any other ordained people? or can it be performed by any believers in the church ?

In any case I believe that the person who initiate the Lord's Supper must know about the meaning of the Supper and all the teachings on the Supper itself, regardless whether he be an ordained person or not.

You can feel free to express your opinion but only focussing on this issue ( who can administer?)

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"
[/quote]
So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;[/b] the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Encyclopedia

(1) Ordinary Minister

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister. Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Priests are also ordinary ministers because [b]by their office and sacred orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments[/b], and hence the Florentine decree declares: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office." As, however, bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do so, How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii): "The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop." Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr., viii): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop." St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., ix) witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism."

The document goes on to say -

Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: "It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission of the bishop or priest." That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: "It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach." Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts, viii) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles. It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place."

The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: [b]"Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese." St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin[/B] because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any (catholic) church they choose.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Eliyahu:

"... what Jesus meant by "Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood" ... "

GE:

I know it's not what you mean, but it is what you have said, and that's not true, Jesus never said, nor ever meant, "Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood"!

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu:

"... what Jesus meant by "Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood" ... "

GE:

I know it's not what you mean, but it is what you have said, and that's not true, Jesus never said, nor ever meant, "Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood"!

Read John 6:54 " Eat my flesh and drink my blood"

BTW, I already mentioned that we finish the talk on the nature of the Lord's supper itself, but we discuss on who can administer the Supper.

Only the ordained priests or pastors? or any truly born again, mature believers who know the meanings of it and understand the commandment of the Lord can initiate the Supper?

Who is the Host of the Lord's Supper?

Isn't the Host the Lord Jesus Christ? then aren't we all the guests invited by Him, in remembrance of what Jesus did at the Cross?

Who is the Host of the Supper? This is to be discussed finally.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Alright, I'll follow the leader here, no objections -- and second every proposal of this last post.

Finally? If you say so. But Jn6:5? I'll have to go read again.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jn6:54 in context!

You cannot take it literally. Have I understood you correctly so far as to have argued for the opposite view of the RCC? They take it literally. What do you mean? I don't get you.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jn6:54 in context!

You cannot take it literally. Have I understood you correctly so far as to have argued for the opposite view of the RCC? They take it literally. What do you mean? I don't get you.

Yah!, that's what I have fought with Pro-RCC friends so far.

Where were you in the meantime? I wondered why you didn't participate in the discusssion which was hot!

 

[Eliyahu]

In fact, in reality, often I have noticed that the Clergies like Priests or Pastors look special person and they behave like the Hosts offering a great gift to the pews and to the laymen and laywomen. They behave like offering their own gifts and seem to be special persons.

However, the Bible truth is that everyone is a sinner and is forgiven by the Grace of God thru Jesus Christ and thru what Jesus has done at the Cross.

We are supposed to commemorate what Jesus did, not what the Priests or Pastors do.

Therefore we are all the honoarble guests invited by the Lord Jesus, to His own party, in remembrance of Him because we have been cleansed from our sins by His Blood and have been redeemed from our sins by His Blood and Death.


There is no distinction between Clergy and Lay people in the New Testament.

 

[Matt Black]

To answer the question at the top of this page, I would limit the authority to preside to those who are ordained for two reasons:-

1. Authorisation - the person presiding must in some way be authorised by the church to do so, otherwise you can get any old Joe off the street coming in and purporting to do it. Ordination is an effective way of achieving this, by and large

2. Ontology - if, as I believe, you believe that there is some kind of ontological change in the bread and wine (whether that be physical or spiritual) at the consecration, it follows that the consecrator must be set apart in some way and effectively have undergone some kind of ontological change himself. I believe that that change occurs when one is ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession.