Transubstantiation - Eating the Flesh and Blood of the Historical Jesus Christ

What You Believe, Bill

I don't know about Catholics, but in my little group most people "knowest not what thou doest" anyway and too many could care less. And I will bet that you are just taking the words of the priest. Remember, that I told you that Jesus fired those people whose greatest skill was "to take away the key to knowledge." In Protestant groups, however, they just keep crawling out of potato patches claiming the right to "worship" for you. Well, they don't often have a clue about "worship" either. So, let's get started by looking at what you believe because I couldn't tell you what most of us believe. When I get to me, I will try to take a fresh look at the Scripture. Oh, yes, you think that I don't have the right to study for myself. Well, I get told that pretty often but I have a hard head and a wicked sense of humor.

As stated in the Catholic Creed (See Eucharist in Catholic Encyclopedia):

"We believe that the Mass which is celebrated by the priest in the person of Christ in virtue of the power he receives in the Sacrament of Order, and which is offered by him in the name of Christ and of the members of his Mystical Body, is indeed

the Sacrifice of Calvary sacramentally realised on our altars.

"We believe that, as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into his Body and Blood which were to be offered for us on the Cross, so likewise are the bread and wine consecrated by the priest changed into the Body and Blood of Christ now enthroned in glory in Heaven. We believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord under the appearance of those things which, as far as our senses are concerned, remain unchanged, is a true, real and substantial presence."

Just as David thought that He had God trapped in a box, and we tend to believe that we have trapped Him in His "house," Catholics claim:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the ONLY church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist - He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host in Holy Communion."

In other words, we have Jesus trapped inside of our building -- just like David -- and He cannot get out and be present where "two or three or gathered together in my name" (Matthew 18:20) -- or in the presence of one as Jesus prescribed prayer in the closet and not in a "prayer boot camp."

The Council of Trent

CANON I

"If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure - let him be accursed!" I know. You thought that preaching another was worse:

Well, Bill, we know what that would have meant in the good old days, don't we. Well our "Calvins" was trained up right. You know, your older "fathers" never believed that God was three, independant "persons" which is to say, people like us. They used the word, "personae" which means three different roles. Now, Johnny had a different view (now adopted by Catholics as "God in Three Persons, Blesed Trin-uh-tee."

Now, Servetus, arrogantly held onto the old Biblical view and Johnny had him burned in effigy first and then conspired to have him literally burned at the stake. The Catholic authorities decided to burn Servetus "the old fashioned way" by having him slowly roasted.

Now, why would you depend upon Canon Law for an unlearned view of the "trinity of people" in agreement with Calvin, and reject his views on what Scripture always calls "the Lord's Supper?"

I think that misused Scripture often turns around and bites those who invent a "new and improved version" of faith or practice:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

CANON VI

Bill, you have to give the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia credit: they tell it like it is. For instance, we noted that they admit that robes and clergy Precentors, choirs and candles and music was adopted from paganism. On the host, they note:

"According to Ovid the word comes from hostis, enemy: "Hostibus a domitis hostia nomen habet", because the ancients offered their vanquished enemies as victims to the gods. However, it is possible that hostia is derived from hostire, to strike, as found in Pacuvius.

When the "host" has been changed into Jesus Christ then they can literally carry "him" around in procession and worship the little sun-symbol wafer because God is inside and trapped:

"If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, not to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters, - let him be accursed!"

LATRIA, supreme worship, offered to God alone. In practice it is difficult as to how far the worshippers understand these grades -- Latria, Hyperdulia and Dulia.

"The eucharistic liturgy of the Orthodox Church is a kind of mystery drama in which the advent of the Lord is mystically consummated and the entire history of salvation--the incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Christ the Logos, up to the outpouring of the Holy Sprit--is recapitulated. The Orthodox Church also attaches the greatest value to the fact that within the eucharistic mystery an actual transformation of the eucharistic elements in bread and wine takes place. This is not the same as the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ, though the properties of the elements remain the same, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine.

"According to some Orthodox authorities, the Orthodox view is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence. The essential and central happening in the Orthodox liturgy, however, is the descent of the resurrected Lord himself, who enters the community as "the King of the universe, borne along invisibly above spears by the angelic hosts." The transformation of the elements is, therefore, the immediate emanation of this personal presence. Thus, the Orthodox Church does not preserve and display the consecrated host after and outside the eucharistic liturgy, as in the Roman Catholic Church, because the consecrated offerings are mystically apprehended and actualized only during the eucharistic meal.

"In the Roman Catholic mass, the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is strongly emphasized, but it is less so in the Orthodox liturgy. This is because in the Orthodox liturgy the Eucharist is not only a representation of the crucifixion sacrifice (as in the Roman mass) but also of the entire history of salvation, in which the entire congregation, priest and laity, participates. Thus, the Orthodox Church has also held fast to the original form of Holy Communion in both kinds. Christianity" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Of Course, Christ is trully Trapped by the Church and His Words are Not True if they Differ from the Church:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture...and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:

"...usually, the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true."

Well, you've got me there: most protestant churches have come under the same bondage Jesus pulled them out from under.

Pagan Origins

In our Babylonian Index and the Apocalyptic section of the Documents Index, we have listed a lot of Sumerian or Babylonian rituals which, as God warned from beginning to end, find their way into all other religions. The very concept of "worship" as a set of rituals directed to God to appease Him or to earn merit (as a sacrament) or to magically revive the "audience" while ignoring the Words of God is the key concept in all pagan rituals.

Lest this appear too harsh, ancient Catholicism freely admitted that they merged pagan rituals into the Catholic rituals to make it more appealing to them. In the modern world, many churches have put the emphasis upon attracting the secular seekers using a secular worship service:

Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." (6) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (7) In Egypt, priests would consecrate round, thin cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. The roundness of the cakes symbolised the sun, which fitted well as Osiris was their sun-deity. The pattern of giving intact round wafers stems from these pagans, not from Christ. Jesus offered His followers broken fragments of unleavened flat bread which he said represented his body which would be given for them. (Luke 22:19) (8) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma (blood) drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites. (9)

The idea of eating the flesh of deity was popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ. When Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image (See Host) made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." A fuller explanation of these notes may be found here.
Catholic Encyclopedia
We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and in the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; they were common to almost all cults. There You Have It straight: and that is Where Transubstantation was "Borrowed" but it took 1200 years -- twelve centuries to interpret the Words of Christ to their own destruction. See how they squirm out of being idolaters.

Egyptian Parallel

As background to the Mount Sinai idolatry, the following notes go along with the notion of gods dismembered, scattered so that you have to round them up and even eat vital parts. The worship of Isis, Osiris and even Apis, worshipped at Mount Sinai, were similar. The ceremonial emphasis meant that:

"The worship of Isis, and common with her, was daily, and began before dawn. On festivals

the main service took the form of a drama of divine sacrifice, the passion of Osiris.

Priests carefully trained in mystic theology, liturgies, and symbolism, accompanied by attendants, all clad in appropriate vestiments,

came into the presence of the deities. Osiris and or Seraphis, Isis, Horus, and others, the faithful being in front of the sanctuary. The first great sacred act consisted in the exposing to the view of the assembled congregation the sacred image of Isis. Before the image libations of holy Nile water were poured out, and the faithful were sprinkled with it. The sacred fire (incense) was kindled, after which

the high priest awakened the goddess in an address uttered in the sacred Egyptian language.

"A burnt offering was then presented,

accompanied by singing and music; and finally the goddess was ceremoniously clothed, adorned, and adored. The second service took place in the afternoon, which consisted chiefly of prayer and meditations before the images and symbols of the gods and

which closed with music and antiphonal singing.

A third service, quite brief... left Isis unclothed in her quiet temple... The two great autumn and spring festivals featured the death and resurrection of Osiris... and it was expressed with all the symbolism, mystery, music, singing, ritual, and pagentry... it was calculated to stimulate the deepest religious emotions, and fan the flames of ecstatic joy." (Fairservice, Walter A., Jr, The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, p. 171-172, Mentor).

"there is a Greek Magical Papyrus in London: 'I shall shout the name of him who stayed three days and three nights in the river--of him who was drowned, carred by the river current, flung into the sea, and swallowed up by the waves of the sea and the clouds of the air'." ( de Vaux, Roland, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Doubleday, p. 218, note 43)

In other models Osiris' body was "broken" or cut into may pieces and these relics were worshipped. In contrast to this, the body of Jesus was not separated or broken.

Israel in the Wilderness

"The triumphal hymn of Moses had unquestionably a religious character about it; but the employment of music in religious services, though idolatrous, is more distinctly marked in the festivities which attended the erection of the golden calf." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, Music, p. 589).

"They sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. They practiced rites in which they made themselves naked, perhaps similar to those which were carried out by naked Babylonian priests." (Woodrow, p. 158).

"Not to be overlooked here is the accompaniment of music and dancing which, with the character of the ensuing phenomena, makes the diagnosis (of idolatry) certain." (Schaff-Herzog, Ecstasy, p. 71).

The Marzeah When Israel Set up Their Apis Bulls Representing Osiris

When Israel fired God and demanded a king to rule like the nations and permit them to worship like the nations, they literally wanted to be in control of the God so that they could drag Him around and command him to meet their needs. They wanted to use the music as the witch of Endor used the "familiar spirit" which was the echo of her own voice spoken or sung into an old wineskin as a magical, magical device. They let the living starve to death by hiding the Words of God from them while the clergy lived a life of leasure by "taking up collections" from the poor. Their daily "religious festivals" of food and wine forced their dead ancestors to feast with them and replace God's words with the improvized songs of the "Cows of Bashan" or the effeminate, perfume-reeking male musicians:

Please remember that the idolatry of Israel at Mount Sinai had conditionally sentenced them to captivity and death. When the elders demanded a king "like the nations" God "translated" that to mean "so that we can worship like the nations." As God answered their prayer to practice idolatry at Mount Sinai but "sent leanness into their hearts," God granted the king and kingdom. However, He warned that the kings would destroy them and lead them into captivity. Therefore, we do not deny inspiration but affirm it when we quote the historical facts about the temple:

"The ritual observances at the Hebrew and at the a Canaanite sanctuary were so similar that to the mass of the people Jehovah worship and Baal worship were not separated by any well-marked line... A sacrifice was a public ceremony of a township or clan... Then the crowds streamed into the sanctuary from all sides, dressed in their gayest attire, marching joyfully to the sound of music, and bearing with them not only the victims appointed for sacrifice, but store of bread and wine set forth the feast...Universal hilarity prevailed." (Gurney, p. 37).

"The marzeah had an extremely long history extending at least from the 14th century B.C. through the Roman period. In the 14th century B.C., it was prominently associated with the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), on the coast of Syria... The marzeah was a pagan ritual that took the form of a social and religious association... Some scholars regard the funerary marzeah as a feast for--and with--deceased ancestors (or Rephaim, a proper name in the Bible for the inhabitants of Sheol)." (King, Biblical Archaeological Review, Aug, 1988, p. 35, 35).

"These five elements are: (1) reclining or relaxing, (2) eating a meat meal, (3) singing with harp or other musical accompaniment, (4) drinking wine and (5) anointing oneself with oil." (King, p. 37).

"With the wine-drinking (which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew for feasting), went music and dancing." (Heaton, E. W., Everyday Life in Old Testament times, Scribners, p. 93)

"Worship was form more than substance; consequently, conduct in the marketplace was totally unaffected by worship in the holy place. Amos spoke from the conviction that social justice is an integral part of the Mosaic covenant, which regulates relations not only between God and people, but also among people." (King, p. 44).

David

Israel was doomed when she "rose up to play" in the belief that the little tabernacle and later the ark actually contained "god in a box" which is not unlike "God in a wafer." David was stopped cold when he tried to make the ark-moving into a "congregational" affair. Later, when the Levites carried the Ark properly and the procession was not a "called assembly" of the congregation, David played before the ark just as the nation had done under Aaron:

"Wearing a linen ephod, David once performed an ecstatic dance before the ark of the Lord. From the fact that his wife Michal chided him for having uncovered himself before his servant's handmaidens (2 Sam. 6:20), it seems likely that the king's exhibition was vulgar and revealing. Apparently as a retaliation for her scolding, David fathered no children by Michal (2 Sam. 6:23)" (Garrison, p. 31-32).

The conclusions of King's comments about the Marzeah are consistent with what we know about the Babylonian use of musical instruments. It is also consistent with the like-David festivals and the ancient Hittite worship of which Gurney wrote--

"we recognize the same elements: the sacrifices and libation, the cultic feast in which the congregation gets a share of food and drink after it has been blessed by the king, and the merry-making, now in the form of instrumental and vocal music.

But the central act of the ritual, which was performed by the king,

is called literally 'drinking' the god (Gurney, O. R. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, p. 33-34, Oxford University Press, 1977)

Dionysus Worship

When Jesus came, the Jews had for centuries been under the attack of Dionysus or Bacchus worshipers. The Jewish clergy tried to force Jesus into the Dionysus dance and chant hoping that if He could be made to engage in the effeminate singing and dancing while the clergy played the flute this would prove that they could literally "drag around a deity which would prove that they were more powerful than the deity."

"Instruments, especially flutes and drums, were used to induce ecstasy, or frenzy, in the worshippers of certain deities. The devotees of Thracian Dionysus (Bacchus) engaged in orgies at night. Members of the society were seized with a divine madness as they danced to the music and would

seize an animal who was believed to be the incarnation of the god,

tear the body limb from limb, and eat it on the spot.

By this sacred communion they hoped to attain union with their god and themselves become Baccoi.

"There was a wave of Bacchic enthusiasm that swept Italy in 185 B.C. and created such a scandal that it was sternly repressed by the Roman senate." (Green, William M., The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments" unpublished paper, p. 32).

Jesus

Before looking at the institution of the Lord's Supper, let us look at a key passage used by Catholics who spread the word that Jesus said that: "The wine is my blood" and the because it distorted the saying of Jesus, it keeps spreading to those who are not able to hear Jesus speak: Those who have already rejected the natural evidence for the existance of God, Jesus began the primary Catholic Encyclopedia "proof text" by saying:

To Those Not Given the Truth Jesus said:

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:55

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. John 6:56

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. John 6:59

To Those To Whom He Explained the Parable Jesus said:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:61

What and if ye shall see the Son of man (flesh) ascend up where he was before? John 6:62

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

The "flesh and Blood" Jesus was going away and the Spirit Christ would return (John 14:16-18). Therefore, it was self evident that His flesh and blood was not for carving up and blood sucking.

To Romans and Corinthians tempted very early to do what Rome finally did.

Using the fatal attraction of the Egyptian bull whose flesh you could eat and blood you could drink which sentenced Israel to destruction at Mount Sinai, Paul warned not to repeat the pagan god-resurrection rituals so that you could carry him around in procession. He warned the Romans (and Corinthians in 10:20) not to try it:

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Romans 10:6

Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) Romans 10:7

Bill, this directly quotes what the Israelites at Mount Sinai were doing as they tried to call a more reliable "god" into their midst to lead them back into captivity. Their loud singing while refusing to keep the Covenant sentenced them to captivity and death. The Romans and Corinthians were restoring this old idolatry. Isn't it simple that, according to the Fathers, that "if a man drags a diety then he is more powerful than the deity."

What does this mean?

Did you know that Jesus doesn't speak to those who refuse to sit down and listen to the quiet Word as they rest beside still waters? He absolutely cuts of the line of communication so that people cannot hear His message. After Jesus spoke to the "multitudes" using parables,

To those who would hear Jesus telling them to eat His literal flesh and drink His blood:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Matthew 13:10

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Matthew 13:11

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew 13:12

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew 13:13

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Matthew 13:14

For this peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:15

When people turn back to ancient rituals they are looking for "the lost God" and they cannot find Him.

To those who would listen and hear Jesus speak about SPIRITUAL FOOD:

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Matthew 13:34

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Matthew 13:35

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. Matthew 13:36

Conclusion: If you hear the literal Flesh and Literal Blood message you have lost your right to hear Christ's Spiritual message.

Now, lets look at your proof-text about the institution of the Lord's Supper:

You will notice that the bread and juice are treated differently.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: Luke 22:17

For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Luke 22:18

After the kingdom came Jesus would participate in the Lord's Supper: where two or three are gathered together in my name there will I be in the midst of them. It is still called the fruit of the vine and not blood.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,

This is my body

which is given for you:

this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22:19

Soma (4983) so'-mah; from 4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.: - bodily, body, slave.

Sozo (g4982) sode'-zo; ("safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (lit. or fig.): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

Jesus said that when they ate the bread it was to remind them of Him after He left as a physical presence

Anamimnesko (g363) an-am-im-nace'-ko; from 303 and 3403 (recall to mind) ; to remind; reflex. to recollect: - call to mind, (bring to, call to, put in), remember (-brance).

Now, Bill, here comes some more of that "engineering stuff": The bread was and is the literal flesh of Jesus or it was to remind of Him. It it reminded the people of Him and "proclaimed" or preached His death it represented His Body, and Johnny Calvin was right.

If breaking of bread is done in remembrance of Jesus christ then the memorial and the body are not the same thing. Otherwise, Jesus could have said: "I want you to eat my body." However, In John 6 He has already gone through that:

The literal flesh and blood parable was spoken to the multitude to whom He did not reveal the meaning.

He did reveal the spiritual meaning to the Apostles and we saw that the literal body will disappear and Jesus was speaking of "eating" His Words as Spirit and life (John 6:63) which is one action which "keeps Him in remembrance."

Now, let's face it Bill: either

Wine IS the literal blood - looks like blood, tastes like blood, analyzes as blood in the lab, can be used for transfusions. No, Bill. It isn't "spiritual blood" because spirits don't have blood. The priest knows that it isn't blood or he wouldn't drink it!

Juice represents the blood.

Now, that ain't too hard for a rocket scientist!

Next, reading 101: Jesus never said: "This cup is my blood." Instead, He used different symbolism by which we must also understand the bread:

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,

This cup is the new testament

in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:20

I believe that this would be diagramed as:

-	-	-THIS	-
Juice	Is	Testament
		\_____	In My Blood

ANALOGY: When my aunt died suddenly, we met to set her affairs in order. On a certain day, my dead aunt, in the persons of her executors, stood up and said: "This is my Testament which after my death gives you my property." No, the piece of paper was not turned into a literal sum of money or a couch. However, that piece of paper was her ability to control her estate after she was dead and to pass on ownership.

By showing that document to the bankers and others we "showed forth" her death and acknowledged our right to be her heirs. We walked into the bank, got the security box, looked at her documents and laid claim to them. The banker had a copy of the death certificate and the will and she treated my uncles and I as having the authority of my aunt through her will.

I also have a will of a Great-Great grandfather bestowing houses and lands and cows and slaves and pewter plates. However, "Lucy" would not be my property because the will was not written with my name on her. However, when we eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine we claim and visually proclaim that our name is written in Christ's will with His own blood.

APPLICATION: In Egypt, the Israelites took the blood of the slain lamb and applied it to the door frame. This was their testament from God which caused the death angels to pass over that house. In a similar way, Jesus held up the Passover bread and fruit of the vine and said before His death: "This is my testament which will be written in my own blood." Now, the bread and juice were not His literal blood and not His literal property. However, each Sunday we show forth His death as the authority to claim our right to be His heirs. The Lord's Supper is Christ's will and the witness of twelve men is His death certificate. We exhibit the will and claim His property.

As long as we eat and drink with Him in His Kingdom we acknowledge the free gift through His will and we lay claim to the benefit of His once-shed blood. And we proclaim or preach His death. This is not an "act of worship" in the sense of a sacrament to earn points with God because He needs nothing we have and doesn't even need to be entertained. Rather, like the entirety of the "service" of Christianity, everything is to teach and edify using Christ Words and authority.

CONCLUSION: Because of the power my aunt infused into her once-written and once-witnessed testament, her authority continued after her death. How absurd to meet each Sunday and perform some ceremony and pretend that we can resurrect my aunt so that I could again and again prove my right to own some of her beautiful furniture and heirlooms from past generations.

How utterly blasphemous and Christ-denying to pretend to resurrect Him over and over to prove that the God-Resurrector has more power than God in His written testament or will.

Well, even the attempt is based upon an utterly fallible reading of what Jesus really said.

Did you miss what He didn't say? Well, let's hear it again:

Jesus never said: "This wine is my blood."

My aunt didn't say: "This will is my couch." Nor, did she say, "This will is my death certificate."

But the "doctors of the law" who according to Jesus, took away the key to knowledge, want to diagram the sentence this way and it denies the Words of Christ and replaces them with the words of the priest (preacher):

-	-	-NOT THIS	-
Wine	Is	Blood
		\_____	of My Testament

Looking at two other versions. The cup or contents were poured out and distributed:

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant (disposition or will) in My blood. Luke 22:20NAS, RSV

When the Jews made a drink offering of WINE it was POURED OUT at the base of the altar. The blood would be poured out only once in the future: the fruit of the vine was then being poured out. Therefore, the juice was not the blood.

What does the cup represent? The cup represents the suffering Jesus underwent as He paid for all of the sins of all history -- just once -- and it was the ultimate Passover. Suffering brought Him so close to death that He sweat like drops of blood. He poured out His blood beginning in the garden as He asked God not to allow Him to be prematurely killed by suffering prior to the cross:

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew 26:39

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. Matthew 26:42

So, here the cup is symbolic of suffering for sin. This "cup" paid the price for the New Covenant. We participate in the Testament or Covenant when we are baptized and eat the Lord's Supper because Christ literally died for us and literally shed His blood. If we do not want to literally shed our blood in baptism we had better not try to drink the literal blood of Jesus.

What is a cup?

Poterion (g4221) pot-ay'-ree-on; neut. of a der. of the alt. of 4095; a drinking-vessel; by extension the contents thereof, i.e. a cupful (draught); fig. a lot or fate: - cup.

So, you see, Jesus began His comments using the cup as symbol of the contents; just as the juice was a symbol for the blood shed for the New Covenant.

The "blood of the Old Covenant during Passover was grape juice: the "blood of the New Covenant" was grape juice. That is what Jesus held in His hand.

The blood of the Old Covenant had value only in the future shed blood of Jesus.

The blood of the New Covenant has value only in the past shed blood of Jesus.

The juice was not literal blood in the Old Covenant; the juice is not literal blood in the New Covenant.

The word "blood" us used both literally and figuratively:

Haima (g129) hah'ee-mah; of uncert. der.; blood, lit. (of men or animals), figurative (the juice of grapes) or spec. (the atoning blood of Christ); by impl. bloodshed, also kindred: - blood.

We do not drink literal wine. We do not drink anything which REPRESENTS wine: we drink GRAPE JUICE which lacks FERMENT or we pollute the altar.

Remember, that we saw above that the "figure" of literal flesh and blood was spoken to those whom Jesus did not want to know the truth. The spiritual (which means figurative) meaning was explained only to His disciples who wanted to know the truth.

Now, the fruit of the grape never represents Christian Brother's spiked-up alcohol.

In Egypt, the blood was literal but later at Passover, the fruit of the vine was substituted for literal blood. When wine was substituted for blood in sacrifices it was poured out and not consumed. The fruit of the vine or wine represented the literal blood of the animal.

Every knowledgeable person understood that the "blood" of the Old Covenant during Passover was literal fresh or preserved grape juice. The grape juice was never confused with the literal blood of a bull. Rather, juice (no leaven allowed) was understood as an allowable representative or symbol of real blood for Passover. While we don't know when that change was made, Jesus approved of it during Passover. Before He instituted the Lord's Supper He already acknowledged that juice represented blood..

And He laid no foundation for changing the well-understood symbolism.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper He had not yet died. If the apostles understood "literal blood" they would have questioned Him. They had not seen Him stab Himself to get literal blood or carve off a muscle to get literal flesh. You remember that I told you about John 6 where Jesus said: "The flesh counts for nothing, the words I speak are Spirit and Life" or food and drink (6:63). Well, my spirit is my inward being and God's Spirit is His Mind which is the Mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2). Now, we know that the words of the Bible are not the literal, fleshly brain of Jesus but they represent His Mind to us. To bad we minimize it in song and sermon.

Being Jews, they understood that the "blood of the New Covenant" was grape juice.

Are we going to insult the Incarnate God of the universe by forcing Him to believe that "flesh and blood" can reveal secret knowledge?

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mt.16:17

Flesh and blood were symbolic of a literal, human person. Jesus, the man, was flesh and blood. He would die and the "flesh" would count for nothing in the Spirit realm which centers around His Words which supply the Spirit and Life and replaces the literal blood which contained the physical life principle.

Paul, guided into all truth by the Risen Spirit Christ, used the statement of Jesus to make it clear so that we could not get confused about literal flesh and literal blood:

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:25

Not, in imitation of a legalistic SACRIFICIAL MEAL but of Jesus Christ Who has become OUR Passover.

The New Testament life was purchased by the blood of Jesus. The cup (symbolic of the contents) was the New Testament life principle.

Being inspired, Paul knew that someone would confuse the sign with the reality and told the Corinthians to eat bread and juice and not flesh and blood:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,

ye do shew the Lords death till he come. 1 Corinthians 11:26

We do not eat flesh and blood which repudiates the cross: we SHOW FORTH or preach the Death of Jesus Christ.

So, there you have it. Many years after the death of Christ, Paul performed no ceremony as Jesus Christ by virtue of his ordination to turn the bread and juice into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

He called it bread and the contents of the cup.

Therefore, if a priest can convert bread and juice into literal flesh and blood to be worshipped, Paul, who had been guided into all truth, did no know about it. But then, all believers were priests of God so he knew that to play priest would make the "audience" into nothings.

So, Bill, you are left with the unauthorized and outlawed clergy to interpret Scripture to say exactly the opposite of what it says and make it stick because of the authority which they, like most clergy, have usurped from God and man.

Not: "Drink the literal blood" but show is:

Kataggello (g2605) kat-ang-gel'-lo; from 2596 and the base of 32; to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, shew, speak of, teach.

So, you see, the Lord's Supper is not to convert wine to literal blood: it was to preach that the Lord died and shed His blood. It also shows to the watching world that my name is attached to the blood of Christ and I am in His will. There is magic in remembering but there is no magic in the juice, and there is destruction in wine because it show's contempt for history and the Lord's words.

Bill, the priest tells you that little untruth so that he gets all of the spiked-up poison which has no relationship to "the fruit of the vine." Because you are considered "unwashed and unclean" and not "certified." you are unworthy to handle the literal blood of God. Poor Paul, still thinks that it is bread and juice.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27

The Theological Lexicon of the New Testament says the root word "means 'discern' . . . Paul applies the word with a religious meaning, to Christians themselves: 'Examine yourselves.' . . . 1 Cor 11:28 before taking communion, people must examine their conscience in order not to partake unworthily ([anaxios]);

they must discern the true nature of this sacred meal,

which is entirely different from an ordinary repast" (vol. 1, p. 356).

Topic: Unworthily, Unworthy

A-1, Adverb, 371, anaxios

is used in 1 Cor. 11:27, of partaking of the Lord's Supper "unworthly," i.e., treating it as a common meal, the bread and cup as common things, not apprehending their solemn symbolic import. In the best texts the word is not found in ver. 29 (see RV).

a, negative, n, euphonic, axios, "worthy," is used in 1 Cor. 6:2. In modern Greek it signifies "incapable."

Chalal (g2490) khaw-lal'; a prim. root [comp. 2470]; prop. to bore, i. e. (by impl.) to wound, to dissolve; fig. to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word), to begin (as if by an "opening wedge"); denom. (from 2485) to play (the flute): - begin (* men began), defile, * break, defile, eat as common things, * first, * gather the grape thereof, * take inheritance, pipe, player on instruments, pollute, (cast as) profane (self), prostitute, slay (slain), sorrow, stain, wound.

It is still bread, Bill. In the next verse, if you are going to be so literal, you must not let women get involved in the communion:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Corinthians 11:28

The priests (Catholic and protestant) want to examine you as they insist upon performing all of religion for you. However, Paul said that we should examine ourselves, answer to no human priest and then eat of both the bread and the juice. Bill, you are not doing that.

The priests just wants you to eat from his hand but not drink as Jesus commanded. Paul insists that the participants both eat and drink:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. 1 Corinthians 11:29

Discerning the "body" is important because it means to discriminate the literal from the spiritual. It means to "decide for the body or decide against the body." The Spiritual body of Christ is the church of Christ and only He is the head and Chief Priest. To keep people away from the full Lord's Supper denies that His Once-For-All literal shedding of blood was adequate as something to purchase a New Covenant.

Bill, seeing this as a literal body, flesh, blood and cup leads your people to turn into cannibals and violate everything Jesus and Paul said. It causes some of my fellowship to insist on 'ONE CUP" when every Jew knew that each participant had their own cup. Others insist on one cup in a literal sense because: "Everyone knows that a cup has a handle." Well, Bill, they didn't drink the cup but the contents of the cup. It was the fruit of the vine which was important and not the container.

The cup was a symbol or sign used by Paul to identify the contents and the "grape juice" used by Jesus symbolized His blood which was still circulating in His literal body as He spoke.

You are left with no power to remember the body of Christ because you cannot get your hands on His literal body to carve it up and suck out His literal blood. But, you say, "Not to worry. My priest is just as powerful as Lord Jesus Christ. He can turn this intoxicating wine (not juice at all) into the literal blood of Christ."

Get real, Bill, turn to the Lord and take up Jesus' offer not to "call any man father" and remember that He fired all of the clergy and made you a priest of God. If you are still "going to the temple because this is the place of worship and you can meet God only if you punch in" then you need to hear the gospel and get right with Christ.

Take care, Bill, and let Jesus remove the forged shackles and get you off the slave ship.

If I sound intolerant, I am. Neither the literal "blood" or the literal "cup" people have a clue. Jesus warned that He hid the truth by using parables from those who do not love the truth. Only when you turn away from self and turn to Lord Jesus Christ can you read what Jesus said and Paul repeated without getting it jumbled by Medieval theology or old sermon outlines.

For the Douay-Rheims version on this parable to the flesh eaters, Click Here.

Ken Sublett

Home Page

Church Index

Musical Worship Index.

Home... Apocalyptic... OT Pseud... Aporcryphal.. Awakening... Baptism.....Caneridge... Church.... Colonial... Godhead.... MaxLucado Index... Max Lucado Creed....Max Lucado Shepherding....Lynn.Aderson... Musical Worship... Preaching... Restoration... RubelShelly... Search Our Site.. Tongues... Topical...

Counter added 1.23.05 5:10p 4669 12.28.12 14000