Passover vs Eucharist

[HARK!]

I'm hoping that someone that reads Greek would know and could tell me. It should be the same then for the Lord's Supper, but some churches use unleavened crackers, and others actually have a community loaf of bread.

It's artos. That's ordinary table bread. If you go to Leviticus 23 you'll see that the feast of unleavened bread begins at the sundown of the 14th, the day that the passover lamb is to be slaughtered. The passover lamb is eaten with the unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. at the beginning of the 15th day.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Had Jesus eaten leavened bread with his passover, he would've broken the
laws of the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God.

However, according to John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22;
Christ was 100% sinless, i.e. he committed no sins of his own.

The fact of the matter is: whereas azumos is specific, artos is flexible.

And besides; Jesus and his men were hard-core orthodox Jews. There's no
way they would've eaten leavened bread during an important ethnic feast
that strictly forbids it. The person who prepared their passover would've
known better too.
_

 

[HARK!]

Had Jesus eaten leavened bread with his passover, he would've broken the
laws of the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God.

As I stated in my post. The Passover isn't eaten until after Passover. It is eaten on the first day of Hag Matzot (Feast of unleavened bread).

Yahshua didn't eat the Passover that year. He was in the grave.


(CLV) Lk 22:15
And He said to them, "With yearning I yearn to be eating this passover with you before My suffering.

(CLV) Lk 22:16
For I am saying to you that under no circumstances may I be eating of it till it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

 

[Philip James]

So to have a miracle of transformation to enable eating Christ's body is absurd.

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"


Well, the apostles accepted it (except the one who did not believe).
And for 2000 years the Church has professed and believed this 'absurdity'.
You will not find a 2000 year old apostolic community that does not believe this.

So then the question remains:

will you listen to your flesh; 'this is absurd'

or will you listen to the Lord;
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[marksman]

Hmmm God definitely does honour the Eucharist.

Anyone heard of Eucharist miracles? There have been cases where the host (bread) has been miraculously transformed into blood and flesh.

I have actually even seen a report of this on TV a few years ago, quite amazing.

Eucharistic miracle - Wikipedia

But as we know all too well Satan is capable of producing miracles.

 

[marksman]

As I stated in my post. The Passover isn't eaten until after Passover. It is eaten on the first day of Hag Matzot (Feast of unleavened bread).

Yahshua didn't eat the Passover that year. He was in the grave.


(CLV) Lk 22:15
And He said to them, "With yearning, I yearn to be eating this Passover with you before My suffering.

(CLV) Lk 22:16
For I am saying to you that under no circumstances may I be eating of it till it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

You have quoted scripture that denies your claim. Lk 22:15 And He said to them, "With yearning, I yearn to be eating this Passover with you before My suffering.

 

[marksman]

What I wonder is why people think when someone disagrees with them they are "bashing" them.

Maybe if we would just open up. and stop being offended every time someone believes something we do not. We could actually have some decent conversations we all could learn from.

Iron sharpens iron.

 

[marksman]

Christ presence is in the Holy Eucharist much more powerful than a lamb's blood. Let's make a deal, I won't hate on you evangelicals and you stop hating on us who choose to go by Scripture.

Rather sarcastic don't you think, implying that we do not go by scripture. That is your take on things which is no more valid than our take on thinks.

 

[marksman]

Why doesn't anyone care what Christ said it was? People nit pick so many small and obscure scriptures. But one that takes up a full page and was so important that the Apostles only choice was to take it or take a walk, this is the one that seems to be over their heads.

Christ performed the bread and wine ritual. It was not a religious metaphor or just an idea. And when He did, He did not say, "This symbolizes my blood...my body. He said, This is my blood. Do you think He was lying? Do think it was all a joke? Our salvation is all about the blood of Yeshua. Does blood gross you out? You might want to find a more politically correct religion.

The bread and wine ritual does not save you from hell. But what state are you in if you have no life in you and he does not raise you? Do you think He lied? Do you think he was joking? Do you think it was beyond His power to make it so? It is not only what Christ said, but anyone can see the reaction of the people so it is no mystery. It has little to do with the Catholic Church and has a lot to do with what Christ said and explained in detail and told you what would happen if you did not believe. Self fulfilling punishment.

Do you think He did not know that it would be controversial? The ritual smacks of Paganism! Do you think He did not know that it would offend the Jews....His own Apostles? He risked losing his own Apostles....right there! He gave them no choice! But regardless it was so important that it had to be done. Why? He explained why, and it was not in the form of a parable or an analogy. Do you know what it meant when Christ said "Verily"? You might want to look that up. He might as well of said in those times that He said it...."This is for real or this is for certain" Just for kicks, don't do it, don't believe in it. Time will tell.

Jesus would have not told them to do something that was contrary to Jewish law bearing in mind that this happened before the new covenant had been enacted.

 

[marksman]

Hi Marksman,

For the record: The Catholic Church does not only claim that; we practice it. For you see, Christ claimed it. The Church believes what Jesus and Paul and the Early Church taught/practiced/preached and died for.

Jesus made the claim at the Last Supper when he said, “This IS my body/blood...Do this in memory of me..”. We believe his claim and we do what he told us to do.

He said you must drink my blood. We believe Him and we do it in the way that He showed us how to do it via wine at communion. He told us to do it and he showed us how to do it. He gave us very simple instructions and we follow them.

Paul made the same “claim” later when he re-affirmed what Jesus said. (1 Corinthians 10:16). Paul said this after Jesus died and The Church had already been practicing this “claim” for years BEFORE Paul made that “claim”.

Historically we know The Early Church (1st and 2nd century) made the same “claim”. That is why they were accused of cannibalism.

The “claim” that it was not His body/blood started to gain traction after the Reformation since the main core of the Reformers believed what He said.

So I ask you Marksman: If it is forbidden to drink blood then why did Jesus tell us we must drink blood? The early Christians were accused of drinking blood/cannibalism. How did they, the men who lived closest to the teachings of the Apostles, get it wrong 2,000 years ago but you got it right today?

Please show me the earliest teaching that supports your belief!

If Jesus only meant it symbolically then why would He ask us to ‘pretend’ we are drinking blood?

If He meant it symbolically then how did the 1st century Christians get it wrong and the 16th century Christians get it right?

For you to accuse the Catholic Church of being wrong on this I take it as a badge of honor since it shows that we believe and practice what He said, Paul said and the Early Christians said/practiced.

I proudly accept this 2,000 year old badge of honor. I am just thankful that I don’t have to die for it like my 1st century christian brothers/sisters did.

Mary

NO he didn't as Jesus would not have told them to do something that was contrary to Jewish Law.

 

[HARK!]

You have quoted scripture that denies your claim. Lk 22:15 And He said to them, "With yearning, I yearn to be eating this Passover with you before My suffering.

Yearning and doing are two different things.

I provided the very next verse. I suppose that you missed it.

(CLV) Lk 22:16
For I am saying to you that under no circumstances may I be eating of it till it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

 

[marksman]

.
● 1Cor 5:7 . . Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed.

Christ's communion service-- per Luke 22:19-20 and 1Cor 11:23
26 --commemorates his passover just as the Old Testament service
commemorates the Jews' passover.

The word "passover" means, in a nutshell, to exempt; defined by Webster's
as: to free or release from a liability or a requirement to which others are
subject.

Well; the blood of the second passover lamb serves to exempt Christ's
followers from death depicted at Rev 20:11-15 in a manner similar to how
the blood of the first passover lamb served to exempt the Jews' eldest sons
from death depicted at Ex 12:1-29.

● 1Pet 1:18-19 . . For you know that it was not with perishable things such
as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed
down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a
lamb without blemish or defect.

The Greek word translated "precious" means, among other things, valuable.

Many of the Christians that I encounter on internet forums somehow fail to
appreciate just how valuable their passover lamb's blood really is. The
protection offered by the Jews' passover lamb was very limited-- just one
night, and one night only --whereas the protection offered by the blood of
Christianity's passover lamb is endless.

● Rev 12:10-11 . . And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now the
salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his
Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down,
who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered
him by the blood of the Lamb
_

The New Covenant came about because of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. There was no blood available for this until he died. Prior to that the only so-called blood available was in the form of wine which was given at the last supper in the fourth cup for the disciples to drink.

I have asked numerous Catholics what does blood taste like and they all said wine. You will find if you know anything about the body, that real blood does not taste like wine.

 

[marksman]

Yearning and doing are two different things.

I provided the very next verse. I suppose that you missed it.

(CLV) Lk 22:16
For I am saying to you that under no circumstances may I be eating of it till it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Eating it AGAIN.....

 

[marksman]

You quote Scripture but you actually hate Scripture because you don't go by all of it, just your pet theories so you don't have to really follow Christ but you follow your idea of Christ.

Again, another sarcastic and pontifical comment.

 

[marksman]

It would be quite easy if the OP who is completely ignorant would stop attacking and ask if they don't really understand something.

Another sarcastic and pontifical comment.

 

[marksman]

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"


Well, the apostles accepted it (except the one who did not believe).
And for 2000 years the Church has professed and believed this 'absurdity'.
You will not find a 2000 year old apostolic community that does not believe this.

So then the question remains:

will you listen to your flesh; 'this is absurd'

or will you listen to the Lord;
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

I have yet to work out how Jesus could take a loaf of bread and give a piece to each disciple at the table and in so doing could have turned it into his flesh without them knowing and taking a cup with wine in it and turned it into blood (against Jewish law) without them knowing and as it was against Jewish law, they would have spat it out once they knew it was blood.

 

[HARK!]

Eating it AGAIN.....

Except the scripture doesn't say "AGAIN."

 

[marksman]

Except the scripture doesn't say "AGAIN."

It does in the bibles that I have (10)

 

[Grailhunter]

Jesus would have not told them to do something that was contrary to Jewish law bearing in mind that this happened before the new covenant had been enacted.

And yet He did. Ergo the reaction of all present and the fact that his disciples left and no longer walked with Him.

You could not be more wrong...there are other examples of this...remember, this discussion is with Jews about the Mosaic Law, and Christ says a few things that are a tad confusing at best. He states that Moses…Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. This essentially sets the 613 Laws of Moses on its ear, because between this and the “eye for an eye” correction it makes you wonder if Moses wrote this on his own accord, not in accordance with God’s wishes, how many more Laws did he write on his own?

 

[marksman]

And yet He did. Ergo the reaction of all present and the fact that his disciples left and no longer walked with Him.

You could not be more wrong...remember, this discussion is with Jews about the Mosaic Law, and Christ says a few things that are a tad confusing at best. He states that Moses…Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. This essentially sets the 613 Laws of Moses on its ear, because between this and the “eye for an eye” correction it makes you wonder if Moses wrote this on his own accord, not in accordance with God’s wishes, how many more Laws did he write on his own?

And yet He did. Ergo the reaction of all present and the fact that his disciples left and no longer walked with Him.

You could not be more wrong...remember, this discussion is with Jews about the Mosaic Law, and Christ says a few things that are a tad confusing at best. He states that Moses…Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. This essentially sets the 613 Laws of Moses on its ear, because between this and the “eye for an eye” correction it makes you wonder if Moses wrote this on his own accord, not in accordance with God’s wishes, how many more Laws did he write on his own?

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I prefer to stick with the facts.