This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Eliyahu]

I can't speak for anybody else but I read the Leviticus passage. I also realized that it has little to do with the events of holy communion. Why? Jesus changed the dynamic when he made the sacrifice and gave his blood to us.

The argument came up when RCC claims they drink the actual blood of Jesus at the Eucharist

In giving us his blood he is giving us his life and with it the forgiveness of sins.

Correct.

Whereas, the Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood because it was given to them to make the sacrifices and they were to give the blood back to God as payment. Because as it notes the blood is life and in the sacrificial system they were giving a life in exchange for their own.

correct.

In regards to the passage of John 6, Jesus is not referring to his own flesh for his flesh profits us everything. Otherwise, one would have to ask why did he take on flesh and make it his own. Second, as a general rule when spirit and flesh are placed in juxtaposition in the manner of John 6 they are in regards to faith and works. Faith equals spirit and works equal flesh.

Interesting.
The question is what the Lutheran think is in the cup when they accept it, the actual blood or the wine reminding the Blood.
If it is Blood itself, then it relates to Leviticus 17:11-14

 

[Chemnitz]

Interesting.
The question is what the Lutheran think is in the cup when they accept it, the actual blood or the wine reminding the Blood.
If it is Blood itself, then it relates to Leviticus 17:11-14

We know that it is wine and blood that we receive. Leviticus does not apply here for the very reasons I stated before. I find it interesting that you agreed with my statements and then contradicted yourself with the quoted reply.

 

[Eliyahu]

We know that it is wine and blood that we receive. Leviticus does not apply here for the very reasons I stated before. I find it interesting that you agreed with my statements and then contradicted yourself with the quoted reply.

That's what I was wondering.

Your statement is sometimes ambiguous like this:

"We know that it is wine and blood that we receive"

Do you mean that Wine and Blood are mixed there?

Jesus sacrificed Himself based on the Truth of Leviticus, ending the Law there, but are you saying that people may drink the Blood, even the Blood of Human Body?

 

[Chemnitz]

That's what I was wondering.

Your statement is sometimes ambiguous like this:

"We know that it is wine and blood that we receive"

Do you mean that Wine and Blood are mixed there?

Jesus sacrificed Himself based on the Truth of Leviticus, ending the Law there, but are you saying that people may drink the Blood, even the Blood of Human Body?

There is nothing ambiguous about my statement, just take it as it is. It only becomes ambiguous when you try to read into it.

I am not the one saying it, Christ is. He is the one telling us that it is His blood that He is giving to us to drink. It would appear that the blood which was originally reserved for the altar is no longer reserved for the altar but is for Christ to give to us. This is why I say the passage in Leviticus does not apply to Holy Communion.

 

[Eliyahu]

There is nothing ambiguous about my statement, just take it as it is. It only becomes ambiguous when you try to read into it.

You couldn't clarify your own contradiction:

You couldn't clarify what is Wine and Blood in your own statement.

This is absolutely a New Theology by you if you claim that you drink the mixture of Wine and Blood.
Chemnitz said : We know that it is wine and blood that we receive.

I am not the one saying it, Christ is. He is the one telling us that it is His blood that He is giving to us to drink. It would appear that the blood which was originally reserved for the altar is no longer reserved for the altar but is for Christ to give to us. This is why I say the passage in Leviticus does not apply to Holy Communion.

YOu don't know the Cross was the Altar, do you?
You are saying Christ shed the Blood to give us, not to give to God, right?
Your own statements refutes this statement of yours:

Whereas, the Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood because it was given to them to make the sacrifices and they were to give the blood back to God as payment. Because as it notes the blood is life and in the sacrificial system they were giving a life in exchange for their own.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am not the one saying it, Christ is. He is the one telling us that it is His blood that He is giving to us to drink.

No, Sir, He didn't say to drink the actual blood of his. But you are saying it against the Commandment of God.

Matt 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Chemnitz]

You couldn't clarify your own contradiction:

You couldn't clarify what is Wine and Blood in your own statement.

This is absolutely a New Theology by you:

You are barking up the wrong tree if you want somebody to define the exact mode of presence speak to a RCC'er, they are the only ones who made the mistake of trying to exactly define the physical presence in communion. I, as a Lutheran, do not pretend to be able to explain exactly how Christ works out the presence of His Body and Blood.

YOu don't know the Cross was the Altar, do you?
You are saying Christ shed the Blood to give us, not to give to God, right?
Your own statements refutes this statement of yours:

You're right I don't because never is the cross called the altar in Scripture.

Actually I would say both.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you mean that Wine and Blood are mixed there?

Jesus sacrificed Himself based on the Truth of Leviticus, ending the Law there, but are you saying that people may drink the Blood, even the Blood of Human Body?

Hint: in Acts 15 the NT Church leaders reaffirm the Word of God in Leviticus forbidding the eating of blood.

 

[BobRyan]

The REAL presence "Where two or three are GATHERED IN MY NAME - there I AM".

The REAL presence "Christ IN YOU the hope of glory" Col 1

the REAL presence "If I go away I will COME AGAIN that WHERE I am THERE you may be ALSO" John 14.

These are the ONLY "REAL presence" texts in all of scripture.

Which one do you suppose is meant by those who "use the term" so often today? -- that is correct! "none of them"!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Chemnitz]

No, Sir, He didn't say to drink the actual blood of his. But you are saying it against the Commandment of God.

Matt 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[sigh] Matthew 26:27-28 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:20 "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1 Corinthians 11:25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

He said it and I confess it. I can do nothing more.

And I am not saying he broke the Law, I am saying you are not properly applying it.

Another thought occurs. We are the temple of God in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 6:19), so would it not make sense for him to introduce the blood into the temple of our bodies.

 

[BobRyan]

The message of John 6 forms the context for the Lord's Supper in John 13-17. John 6 makes it clear "EATING literal flesh is worthless".

In Matt 16 the point is made that the symbol of bread stands for "doctrine" and "teaching" -- the disciples are warned away from taking the symbol of bread "too literally".

THESE form the background and CONTEXT for what happened later at the Lord's Supper.

Once you admit to this glaring fact - the rest is easy!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

The people who claim that they eat the flesh of Jesus and drink the Blood of Jesus should condemn Paul because he reject such idea.

1 Cor 11:
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 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. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

 

[Chemnitz]

The people who claim that they eat the flesh of Jesus and drink the Blood of Jesus should condemn Paul because he reject such idea.

Why should we condemn Paul? He does not reject the presence of Jesus' body and blood. He first affirms the words of Christ and then acknowledges that unworthy participation is profain the body and blood of Christ. Such a warning would not be given if they were not present. He also affirms the presence of body and blood when he states, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" 1 Corinthians 10:16

 

[Eliyahu]

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" 1 Corinthians 10:16

He ate the Bread and drank Wine ( Neither Mixture of Wine and Blood, nor Blood)
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


Participation By Remembrance!

 

[Chemnitz]

He ate the Bread and drank Wine ( Neither Mixture of Wine and Blood, nor Blood)
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


Participation By Remembrance!

That would only be true if it were not for everything else which testifies to his body and blood being present. Again, I state the warning would not be necessary if they were not present. Second, one does not participate in something by remembering. One participates by actually taking part in what ever it is they are participating. That would be like saying I participated in the Olympics because I remember Mary Lou winning the Gold. Third, Christ himself testifies that it is his body and his blood.

 

[Eliyahu]

That would only be true if it were not for everything else which testifies to his body and blood being present. Again, I state the warning would not be necessary if they were not present. Second, one does not participate in something by remembering. One participates by actually taking part in what ever it is they are participating. That would be like saying I participated in the Olympics because I remember Mary Lou winning the Gold. Third, Christ himself testifies that it is his body and his blood.

The Bible refutes you:
1 Cor 11:
23..... Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

He said : This ( Bread) is my Body, This do( EAT the Bread) in remembrance of me.

NO MAGIC TRANSFORMATION THERE. - brake, take, eat.
Christ said they are His Body and His Blood to be believed by faith, as He said about " True Vine"
Otherwise, he woul have been breaking the LAW.

Have the Disciples suck the Blood out of the Body of Jesus when He shed the Blood at the Cross?

 

[Chemnitz]

Now you have devolved into pointless rhetoric and I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Eliyahu]

Now you have devolved into pointless rhetoric and I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

I thought you made some evolution in your theology as you said this:

Whereas, the Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood because it was given to them to make the sacrifices and they were to give the blood back to God as payment. Because as it notes the blood is life and in the sacrificial system they were giving a life in exchange for their own.

Then you said you drink Wine and Blood ( the mixture?)

It is the theology of total chaos, but later on you strongly confessed that you are drinking the Blood, which confess that you are cut off from the people of God as the Bible says this:

Leviticus 17
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

 

[Matt Black]

Eliyahu, putting it in big red letters doesn't make you any more right...

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, putting it in big red letters doesn't make you any more right...

No, it is not for me, but for the people who cannot read and understand it, and indeed there are such people on this board that cannot read the above despite the repeated posts.