Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Fljotsdale · 07-25-2001, 08:55 AM

Sorry to be so long with this, Yorick! I have been/still am, very busy. Lots of writing and editing, theatre accounts, and now rehearsing/learning lines for the Pantomime. Can’t imagine how I ever found time to go to work!
Briefly, then:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[B]
1) Fljotsdale, then why did Jesus at the last supper when he drank wine say "This is my blood do this in rememberance of me"? A differance between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is that Protestants believe drinking wine (blood) and eating bread (body) at communion is a metaphor and serves a reminder of Jesus death. Rom.Caths. believe the Priest changes the wine and bread into the actual blood and body during Mass I believe, and that it is necessary to regularly do this for salvation (one of the unecessary "rituals" I was referring to). I may be wrong.
In any case why would Jesus even symbolically perform a consumption of something that was meant to be totally abstained from?

Yes, the difference between Catholic & Protestant teachings regarding the same event is interesting. And is one of those things that can be argued equally well from both sides. After all, Jesus DID at one point say that his followers would have to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' in order to be saved, didn't he? Which shocked most of them so much that they left him (not the 12, though). John 6:53-56. Jesus also said his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’
At the Last Supper, two of the Gospels say ‘this is that blood of mine’ ‘this is my blood’ (Mark 14:23,24; Matthew 20:27,28. [It is not mentioned in John.]) after he told them to drink the wine he had blessed.
It is not difficult to see the Catholic view that the wine was ACTUALLY the blood, even though the scriptures do not clearly state that. Context is all! So, a few contextual points:
a) First off, the Last Supper was a Passover meal. At that meal, Jesus said to 'do this in remembrance of me' after giving them the bread and wine. It seems evident that just as the Passover was an annual event, so the celebration of the Last Supper should be an annual event, not a several-times-a-day event.
b) Luke 22:19,20 in my Greek interlinear says, in part, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, that in your behalf being poured out."
Remember the Old Covenant via Moses? Animal blood was poured out to seal it. In the same way, Jesus blood was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant. The scripture at Luke has to mean that the wine represented Jesus’ blood that was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant.
Luke shows that Jesus was telling them that they were drinking wine that REPRESENTED the blood of the New Covenant (sealed by his blood) rather than ACTUALLY drinking his blood.
So what did Jesus mean when he said> ‘unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood’,? And that his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’?
It looks like it comes out pretty conclusively on the Catholic side, doesn’t it, despite the scripture in Luke?

OK. Now, take the ban on blood that ALL Jews were obliged to obey, including Jesus who was also ‘under law’ (Galatians 4:4). He was not free to break that Law, since he came to ‘fulfil’ it (Matthew 5:17-19 and context). So, even though he was the Son of God, he was not free to break God’s laws to the Jews. This included the ban on blood. So, Jesus could not, in that context, have meant the LITERAL eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.
So, do the scriptures give us any explanation? Yes, I think so.
A person needs to eat and drink to stay alive. Now, what was Jesus doing with his flesh and blood for mankind? He was giving it up – handing it over to us - so that we could live and have ‘everlasting life’ (John 3:16). His flesh and blood were to give us life – but not by our LITERALLY eating and drinking. (Hebrews 9:11-14, 22; 1 John 2:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 6:23).
Hope that makes some sort of sense to you!

2) Also Jesus broke the laws of nature itself when he healed. Reversing Leprosy? Raising Lazarus from death? Giving a blind man sight and a lame man the ability to walk? If he can break laws of nature for healing, that is a tad more than breaking the law of the sabbath or blood abstainance for the sake of healing. Jesus established a firm principle that he came to save, not condemn and heal not destroy. Preventing a child from receiving healing is a gross miscarriage of the spirit and intent of Jesus ministry.
Yes it is unnatural, but then so is flying in an airoplane, travelling at 120kms per hour over land, talking to a person on the other side of the world and using pain killers (asprin) to reduce the thickness and clotting ability of blood.

Who is to say that Jesus was ‘breaking the laws of nature by healing’?. We have still not sussed out all the ‘natural’ healing processes of the body, have we? But God would know! No problem for him to pass on that power to his son. Jesus was not the only one God used to perform ‘miraculous’ healing in the bible, after all! And in any case, there was NO BAN on healing in the LAW CODE. No – the Jews were quibbling about him doing ‘work’ on the Sabbath – but, as he pointed out to them, they would save a trapped livestock animal on the Sabbath – and that was not banned in the law, either, only in their nit-picking additions to the Law. So far as I am aware, Jesus never broke a single one of the laws in the LAW CODE, though he certainly DID break the petty additions which were not God’s Law, but their own.

JW’s do NOT prevent a child – or anyone else – from receiving healing. Do you think they do not love their children as much as anyone else? Of course they do!! But they also care about obeying God – and the ban on blood was carried through to the New Testament, just as was the ban on fornication, things sacrificed to idols, and things strangled. (And how many ‘Christians’ even bother to keep the law on fornication, for instance?)
JW’s go to great lengths to get the best treatment for their children. But did you know that some hospitals/surgeons have REFUSED to treat JW children/adults with alternative therapies, even though they are available? JW’s have had to take their children/sick adults to other hospitals that WILL use the alternative therapies. The only reason for the refusal has often been sheer prejudice, not lack of alternatives. And then they say the JW’s are at fault!
And the stand the JW’s have made in order to keep God’s law on blood has paid off in ways that now benefit the whole of the USA, Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places besides.
A HUGE media issue is made of the deaths of the ‘amazingly’ few JW adults/children – but how much do the media make of all the problems/deaths CAUSED by transfused blood?
----------------
3)Did we ever discuss why Jesus was called "Immanuel" BTW? "Immanuel" means God with us. Why would the ancient prophets and early Christians (Matt 1:23 for starters) have referred to him as such if he were not God? Don't mean to reopen the gunfire, I just couldn't remember if we'd covered it.

Briefly we did. But we didn’t go into it much. Would you like to?

------------------

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]

07-25-2001, 08:55 AM	#165
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 88 Posts: 2,859	Sorry to be so long with this, Yorick! I have been/still am, very busy. Lots of writing and editing, theatre accounts, and now rehearsing/learning lines for the Pantomime. Can’t imagine how I ever found time to go to work! Briefly, then: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick: [B] 1) Fljotsdale, then why did Jesus at the last supper when he drank wine say "This is my blood do this in rememberance of me"? A differance between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is that Protestants believe drinking wine (blood) and eating bread (body) at communion is a metaphor and serves a reminder of Jesus death. Rom.Caths. believe the Priest changes the wine and bread into the actual blood and body during Mass I believe, and that it is necessary to regularly do this for salvation (one of the unecessary "rituals" I was referring to). I may be wrong. In any case why would Jesus even symbolically perform a consumption of something that was meant to be totally abstained from? Yes, the difference between Catholic & Protestant teachings regarding the same event is interesting. And is one of those things that can be argued equally well from both sides. After all, Jesus DID at one point say that his followers would have to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' in order to be saved, didn't he? Which shocked most of them so much that they left him (not the 12, though). John 6:53-56. Jesus also said his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’ At the Last Supper, two of the Gospels say ‘this is that blood of mine’ ‘this is my blood’ (Mark 14:23,24; Matthew 20:27,28. [It is not mentioned in John.]) after he told them to drink the wine he had blessed. It is not difficult to see the Catholic view that the wine was ACTUALLY the blood, even though the scriptures do not clearly state that. Context is all! So, a few contextual points: a) First off, the Last Supper was a Passover meal. At that meal, Jesus said to 'do this in remembrance of me' after giving them the bread and wine. It seems evident that just as the Passover was an annual event, so the celebration of the Last Supper should be an annual event, not a several-times-a-day event. b) Luke 22:19,20 in my Greek interlinear says, in part, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, that in your behalf being poured out." Remember the Old Covenant via Moses? Animal blood was poured out to seal it. In the same way, Jesus blood was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant. The scripture at Luke has to mean that the wine represented Jesus’ blood that was to be poured out to seal the New Covenant. Luke shows that Jesus was telling them that they were drinking wine that REPRESENTED the blood of the New Covenant (sealed by his blood) rather than ACTUALLY drinking his blood. So what did Jesus mean when he said> ‘unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood’,? And that his ‘flesh was true food’ and his ‘blood was true drink’? It looks like it comes out pretty conclusively on the Catholic side, doesn’t it, despite the scripture in Luke? OK. Now, take the ban on blood that ALL Jews were obliged to obey, including Jesus who was also ‘under law’ (Galatians 4:4). He was not free to break that Law, since he came to ‘fulfil’ it (Matthew 5:17-19 and context). So, even though he was the Son of God, he was not free to break God’s laws to the Jews. This included the ban on blood. So, Jesus could not, in that context, have meant the LITERAL eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. So, do the scriptures give us any explanation? Yes, I think so. A person needs to eat and drink to stay alive. Now, what was Jesus doing with his flesh and blood for mankind? He was giving it up – handing it over to us - so that we could live and have ‘everlasting life’ (John 3:16). His flesh and blood were to give us life – but not by our LITERALLY eating and drinking. (Hebrews 9:11-14, 22; 1 John 2:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 6:23). Hope that makes some sort of sense to you! 2) Also Jesus broke the laws of nature itself when he healed. Reversing Leprosy? Raising Lazarus from death? Giving a blind man sight and a lame man the ability to walk? If he can break laws of nature for healing, that is a tad more than breaking the law of the sabbath or blood abstainance for the sake of healing. Jesus established a firm principle that he came to save, not condemn and heal not destroy. Preventing a child from receiving healing is a gross miscarriage of the spirit and intent of Jesus ministry. Yes it is unnatural, but then so is flying in an airoplane, travelling at 120kms per hour over land, talking to a person on the other side of the world and using pain killers (asprin) to reduce the thickness and clotting ability of blood. Who is to say that Jesus was ‘breaking the laws of nature by healing’?. We have still not sussed out all the ‘natural’ healing processes of the body, have we? But God would know! No problem for him to pass on that power to his son. Jesus was not the only one God used to perform ‘miraculous’ healing in the bible, after all! And in any case, there was NO BAN on healing in the LAW CODE. No – the Jews were quibbling about him doing ‘work’ on the Sabbath – but, as he pointed out to them, they would save a trapped livestock animal on the Sabbath – and that was not banned in the law, either, only in their nit-picking additions to the Law. So far as I am aware, Jesus never broke a single one of the laws in the LAW CODE, though he certainly DID break the petty additions which were not God’s Law, but their own. JW’s do NOT prevent a child – or anyone else – from receiving healing. Do you think they do not love their children as much as anyone else? Of course they do!! But they also care about obeying God – and the ban on blood was carried through to the New Testament, just as was the ban on fornication, things sacrificed to idols, and things strangled. (And how many ‘Christians’ even bother to keep the law on fornication, for instance?) JW’s go to great lengths to get the best treatment for their children. But did you know that some hospitals/surgeons have REFUSED to treat JW children/adults with alternative therapies, even though they are available? JW’s have had to take their children/sick adults to other hospitals that WILL use the alternative therapies. The only reason for the refusal has often been sheer prejudice, not lack of alternatives. And then they say the JW’s are at fault! And the stand the JW’s have made in order to keep God’s law on blood has paid off in ways that now benefit the whole of the USA, Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places besides. A HUGE media issue is made of the deaths of the ‘amazingly’ few JW adults/children – but how much do the media make of all the problems/deaths CAUSED by transfused blood? ---------------- 3)Did we ever discuss why Jesus was called "Immanuel" BTW? "Immanuel" means God with us. Why would the ancient prophets and early Christians (Matt 1:23 for starters) have referred to him as such if he were not God? Don't mean to reopen the gunfire, I just couldn't remember if we'd covered it. Briefly we did. But we didn’t go into it much. Would you like to? ------------------ [This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).] [This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-25-2001).]