Does blood really mean blood?

[marco]

Jesus took the chalice and, according to Mark:
" he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

This echoes Moses: "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Some take Christ's words as meaning Jesus was literally changing the wine into his own blood.

Is this a reasonable interpretation?

Why did Christ link wine with his blood? Are his words of major significance?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

The obvious reading is a figurative one

Why? I think the very opposite. The obvious reading of the text is a literal one. The only reason one would be quick to give His words a symbolic meaning would be because the literal is a little crazy and very difficult to both and handle and believe, which again is precisely why it is described as “a hard saying�

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 31 by RightReason]

The literal reading is never as a deep Word as the symbolic reading. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing. The honor of Kings to search out a matter.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Benoni]

The literal reading is never as a deep Word as the symbolic reading.

Except when it is. What makes you think something is “deeper� simply because it is symbolic? It has been said that truth can be stranger than fiction. The literal and the real can certainly be considered deeper than mere poetic words. Or vice versa, I suppose depending on the subject or what is being said, so the most important thing is to understand what is actually being said and that is what contains the deepest/significant meaning.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing.

Yes, like Jesus concealing Himself in bread and wine.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 18 by Benoni]

You don't know what you are talking about, and I'm not interested in debating with someone who is clueless.

Have you read the scriptures I cited? They show just who TRUE "Israel" is now.


.

Yes I did. And I refuted it totally with scripture. Yes and I used scripture to show you what God's Word tells us who Israel is.

You did NOT refute what I presented about the real and true "Israel." You brought up the scriptures of how Jehovah was dealing with natural Israel in centuries past, but you failed to notice that Jehovah had told them explicitly that if they stopped being faithful to Him they would be cast off. You obviously haven't read most of the Bible! Take a peek at Jeremiah and Ezekiel, just for starters. Israel was always in trouble because they ignored their God's direction and even went after other gods, the gods of the nations.

Now you totally ignore Scriptures like Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3:26-29 and I Peter 2:9,10--- and even Matthew 21:43 and Matthew 23:37,38. Jesus' , Peter's and Paul's words apparently mean nothing to you.

You don't take these scriptural references seriously, but I hope others looking on will look them up and become more familiar with what is actually going on.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

The obvious reading is a figurative one

Why? I think the very opposite. The obvious reading of the text is a literal one. The only reason one would be quick to give His words a symbolic meaning would be because the literal is a little crazy and very difficult to both and handle and believe, which again is precisely why it is described as “a hard saying�

It's amazing how you keep slipping right by the true meaning even when it's standing in front of you. It IS obvious that Jesus' words were figurative. I have said that God would not suddenly say that it's OK to literally drink someone's blood, after centuries of prohibiting it. He ALWAYS said that the blood was sacred and it belonged to Him and no one must take it into his body. What would suddenly change? No....literal blood was still sacred to God and not to actually be ingested. Jesus' words were metaphorical, as in "this means my blood," or, "this stands for my blood." It's simple for the spiritually mature. When Jesus said "it is a hard saying," he was taking into consideration his Apostles' spiritual immaturity. They didn't even understand, yet, what his Kingdom was or that he had to give up his life for mankind. This all came later.

Spiritual babes will not get the correct understanding. We can pray for such ones.



Hebrew Scriptures

"Flesh with its soul---its blood---you must not eat." (Genesis 9:4)


"Only the blood you must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water." (Deut.12:16)


"You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14)


Christian Greek Scriptures

James wrote to all congregations: "My decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20; also verse 29)


So the command to not consume blood was never lifted.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

I have said that God would not suddenly say that it's OK to literally drink someone's blood, after centuries of prohibiting it. He ALWAYS said that the blood was sacred and it belonged to Him and no one must take it into his body. What would suddenly change?

If you know your Scripture, you would know God did not suddenly say “it’s ok�. Clearly you misunderstood the original command and apparently much else as well. The following clears up beautifully just how wrong you are getting it all . . .


First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).


If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).


Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).


Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).


https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-jesus-co ... f-gods-law

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

Another great explanation . . .

I have a choice: I can listen to the Evangelicals who confuse the blood of animals, with the blood of Christ and choose not to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ, or, I can listen to Jesus who said; “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day� (Jn 6:54). Who will you listen too?


Phil Wipperman cites the Old Testament, out of context, not mentioning that the blood they didn’t drink was the blood of animals. However, the drinking of blood of animals is a moot point because no one is recommending drinking the blood of animals in the New Testament.
Jesus commands us in the New Testament to drink of His blood and there is no prohibition against this. In fact, it was Jesus who said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink� (Jn 6:55)


When Phil and other Evangelicals oppose drinking blood, they are confusing the prohibition against drinking the blood of animals in the Deuteronomy 12:27, with drinking the blood of Christ, which was commanded by Jesus. It was Jesus who said, “I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you� (Jn 6:53).


Many claim that the drinking of the Blood of Christ is not Biblical, even Pagan; however, that is not the way Jesus saw it.
IT WAS JESUS WHO SAID, “Drink from it all of you, for this is my Blood, of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins� (Mt 26:28)

IT WAS JESUS WHO SAID, after drinking from it, “this is my blood, of the covenant, which will be shed for many (Mk 14:24).

IT WAS JESUS WHO SAID, “I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you� (Jn 6:53).

IT WAS JESUS WHO SAID,“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day� (Jn 6:54).

IT WAS JESUS WHO SAID, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink� (Jn 6:55).


http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/201 ... ing-blood/

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

I have said that God would not suddenly say that it's OK to literally drink someone's blood, after centuries of prohibiting it. He ALWAYS said that the blood was sacred and it belonged to Him and no one must take it into his body. What would suddenly change?

If you know your Scripture, you would know God did not suddenly say “it’s ok�. Clearly you misunderstood the original command and apparently much else as well. The following clears up beautifully just how wrong you are getting it all . . .


First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).


If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).


Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).


Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).


https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-jesus-co ... f-gods-law

Sorry, you are circumventing God's clear commands on consuming blood. It is not ever considered a food, and it is and always has been prohibited for ingestion.

The prohibition was NOT temporary. It is no more temporary than the prohibition of fornication, or do you have a reason that that is permitted by God today?

.

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

I have said that God would not suddenly say that it's OK to literally drink someone's blood, after centuries of prohibiting it. He ALWAYS said that the blood was sacred and it belonged to Him and no one must take it into his body. What would suddenly change?

If you know your Scripture, you would know God did not suddenly say “it’s ok�. Clearly you misunderstood the original command and apparently much else as well. The following clears up beautifully just how wrong you are getting it all . . .


First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).


If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).


Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).


Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).


https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-jesus-co ... f-gods-law

Sorry, you are circumventing God's clear commands on consuming blood. It is not ever considered a food, and it is and always has been prohibited for ingestion.

Such bondage

[onewithhim]

For anyone who wants to understand what is going on with the wine and the blood of Jesus, the following link will give you helpful information:


https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... _index]=11


The section on "Emblems" leads to what we've been talking about. Jesus couldn't have been talking about his literal flesh and blood being transubstantiated in the cup because as the disciples ate and drank, Jesus was still there in front of them, whole.

.