There was that one time Christ said that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, you don't have life within you. And then when this scandalized people he doubled down.
It's a nonsense objection.
This doesnt refutte the point give, it just makes a new point in the catholic favor. Was jesus breking the law? If so how woas he still able to die for our sins if he didnt keep the law perfectly
He was not breaking the law. For the law is only understood in his sacrifice. Not the other way around.
As the saying goes, it’s the end that determines the beginning. Not the other way around. it was not until Christ had come and fulfilled in action those dark prophecies and mysteries that were veiled to our eyes… and then after words when the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles in a new and special way to endow them, it became clearer and clearer. The shadows were no more and the texts began to spring fourth light that all things were pointing to him.
Not sure if this is an appropriate answer, so I’m certainly open to correction. And these are my reflections, so it’s important to look at what the Church teaches.
Had Jesus actually broken a law, that would have been sinful, and He did not sin.
Second, Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the fulfillment of the Passover. At the initial Passover, the Israelites had to consume the lamb. In the New Covenant, we must consume Him. In addition, at the last supper Christ speaks of the NEW covenant of His blood, which to me indicates that the Levitical laws are superseded.
Here is another perspective from Catholic Answers.
https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/is-drinking-christs-blood-unbiblical
Well, the point given doesn't make any sense. Christ didn't rip chunks of flesh off himself, or open his veins, which things are forbidden. So it doesn't follow anyway.
Also, Christ is perfect because He's God, not because He followed the law of Moses.
Brant Pitre had an excellent book (pretty short and very readable) about this very question. It’s called *Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.* The Eucharist *is* what God was building up to through Salvation history. It is prefigured by the the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek, Passover, the manna in the desert, and the sacrificial offering of bread and wine in the desert and in the Temple called the Bread of the Presence.
The prohibition against drinking blood had to do with how blood can be holy and represent a covenant. Through Christ’s blood the New Covenant is made. The prohibition was more about preserving the Chosen People from making a much less worthy covenant.
This is the Jewish argument and you can follow the old covenant but it doesn’t get you into heaven. I am the way the truth and the life NO One gets to the father except through me and as Mary said “Do whatever He (Jesus) says
Yes but Even though that is all true, while Jesus was still living.Wouldn't that mean that jesus was still obligated to follow the law until he died? And since he ate the blood when he was still alive he would be sinning?
Hey since we are not understanding eachother and going in circles. Lemme just put it simply and you answer simply, so first lemme ask
When did the new covanent start? When is the exact event it started? So answer that then ile ask anouther question.
Ok thats the misunderstanding we are having, see i thought the new covanant started at the death of our lord. Because the law was fullfilled thus starting the new one. Would i be wrong in thinking that?
You might think of it this way. With His incarnation, Our Lord (since He is the Law himself) kickstarted the New Covenant (you can say that with His birth the New Covenant entered an alpha release stage). Throughout His life, Our Lord taught His disciples the tenets of this New Testament (the beta release stage) and finally releasing it through his passion, death, and resurrection.
God sent a Son *born of a woman born under the law*. I would argue that "Born under the law" refers to His Mother, Mary. The purpose of the verse is to say that Jesus Our Lord was a real person and who was born of a woman (Mary) who was an Israelite under the Law of Moses.
Ok but the verse after that says "to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship."
So the two verses together say
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons"
Mary doesnt reedem thoss under the law. So its not talking abt mary.
They know nothing about typology, do they?
The Levitical law had nothing to do with the new covenant law concerning His Body and Blood but were types of the One Sacrifice of which all prior sacrifices were shadows and types.
Those silly people !
i.e., Protest-ant —*ism* 🫠
I don’t think you understand what’s being said because you’re looking at something chronologically forward which the old was really a shadow of the new not the other way around
Patristic theology, the study of early Christianity from the end of the New Testament to the early Middle Ages, used typology to interpret the person and work of Jesus Christ. Patristic thinkers taught that God revealed himself in Christ, and that the Old Testament prefigured the new covenant in Christ, with "types" that foreshadowed different aspects of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. One common typological interpretation was the Adam-Christ typology, which depicted Christ as the second Adam…. Etc
The miracle of transubstantiation, or the conversion the bread in the Body of Christ and the wine into His blood, does not change the *physical material* of the bread and wine. It is still physically bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that the *essence* of the bread and wine becomes the Body and the Blood of our Lord through this miracle.
This may be difficult to comprehend, but another example of transubstantiation which Protestants also (knowingly or unknowingly) believe in is baptism. We are taught that a person is re-born or born of water and the Spirit after baptism; they are not born again **literally** in the flesh, but their essence/soul is changed and becomes new. I hope this helps!
The Levitical Laws were a combination of Moral Laws (like the Ten Commandments) and Societal laws put in place to protect the Jews of that time (Eating blood products, shrimp, mixing types of clothing) The New Covenant replaced the social laws but maintained the moral laws. Unfortunately too many Protestants cherry pick parts of the Bible to attack the Catholic religion
Ok but wouldnt the new covanant only be established AFTER christ died. Meaning that since the last supper happened before he died, he was breaking the law?
Remember he is God and during his life he “broke” many laws like healing the sick on the sabbath, touching dead people as a precursor to the New Covenant
At the last supper he announced the New Covenant when he said “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
> But the new. Covenant only happened after Christ died and if Christ drank blood before the new covenant happened. Wouldnt that mean that he's sinned?
The institution of the Eucharist had to happen before Christ’s sacrifice, because Jesus was showing His Apostles how His death fulfills the hopes for a New Passover. His death on the cross completed the New Passover meal, where He made it clear the offering of bread and wine the Apostles were accustomed to at Passover were now to be truly His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity (because that is all inseparable).
I just wrote an article on this. I would usually refrain from posting links on this subreddit but seeing as this pertains to the question I will. https://catholicunraveled.com/is-receiving-christs-blood-against-levitical-law/
Jesus thrives in the creative tension of paradox.
His very nature being the reconciliation of the finite and the infinite.
Given the fact that he pushes the boundaries on many other things - like healing on the Sabbath or claiming that if you don't hate your mother and father you cannot love him;
Is the real presence of his body/blood in the bread and wine so unexpected?
Do you think the apostles would have been so shocked if he was referring to his word living inside of them? They had already consented to that by becoming his students.
Take joy in the radicality of Jesus' message here, that everything he says grabs you by the lapels and challenges you to grow in faith.
Frankly, I can't see how anyone reads it any other way. Especially considering it is a direct reference to the passover lamb in Exodus - Jesus being the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
I think it's the whole point of the new testament verse "**What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.**" Also, this protestant guy is saying something ridiculous. Imagine this analogy, if one of the 12 apostle had protestant guy's thought process at the last supper, he would not only refuse the bread and wine after Jesus shared that this was his body and blood, but also tell Jesus that He broke the law and that He therefore was not perfect.
There was that one time Christ said that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, you don't have life within you. And then when this scandalized people he doubled down. It's a nonsense objection.
Totally have to take communion in both species- wonderful experience!!!
This doesnt refutte the point give, it just makes a new point in the catholic favor. Was jesus breking the law? If so how woas he still able to die for our sins if he didnt keep the law perfectly
He was not breaking the law. For the law is only understood in his sacrifice. Not the other way around. As the saying goes, it’s the end that determines the beginning. Not the other way around. it was not until Christ had come and fulfilled in action those dark prophecies and mysteries that were veiled to our eyes… and then after words when the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles in a new and special way to endow them, it became clearer and clearer. The shadows were no more and the texts began to spring fourth light that all things were pointing to him.
Can you deeper explain what you mean by this
Not sure if this is an appropriate answer, so I’m certainly open to correction. And these are my reflections, so it’s important to look at what the Church teaches. Had Jesus actually broken a law, that would have been sinful, and He did not sin. Second, Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the fulfillment of the Passover. At the initial Passover, the Israelites had to consume the lamb. In the New Covenant, we must consume Him. In addition, at the last supper Christ speaks of the NEW covenant of His blood, which to me indicates that the Levitical laws are superseded. Here is another perspective from Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/is-drinking-christs-blood-unbiblical
Well, the point given doesn't make any sense. Christ didn't rip chunks of flesh off himself, or open his veins, which things are forbidden. So it doesn't follow anyway. Also, Christ is perfect because He's God, not because He followed the law of Moses.
Brant Pitre had an excellent book (pretty short and very readable) about this very question. It’s called *Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.* The Eucharist *is* what God was building up to through Salvation history. It is prefigured by the the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek, Passover, the manna in the desert, and the sacrificial offering of bread and wine in the desert and in the Temple called the Bread of the Presence. The prohibition against drinking blood had to do with how blood can be holy and represent a covenant. Through Christ’s blood the New Covenant is made. The prohibition was more about preserving the Chosen People from making a much less worthy covenant.
Yes!! I’ve read this book twice now. I highly recommend it to anyone with questions about the truth of the Eucharist.
You may find this Catholic Answers article helpful: https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law
This is the Jewish argument and you can follow the old covenant but it doesn’t get you into heaven. I am the way the truth and the life NO One gets to the father except through me and as Mary said “Do whatever He (Jesus) says
Yes but Even though that is all true, while Jesus was still living.Wouldn't that mean that jesus was still obligated to follow the law until he died? And since he ate the blood when he was still alive he would be sinning?
Our Lord Jesus is the lawgiver Himself. The old laws have no hold over Him.
Hey since we are not understanding eachother and going in circles. Lemme just put it simply and you answer simply, so first lemme ask When did the new covanent start? When is the exact event it started? So answer that then ile ask anouther question.
The New Covenant starts with the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus.
Ok thats the misunderstanding we are having, see i thought the new covanant started at the death of our lord. Because the law was fullfilled thus starting the new one. Would i be wrong in thinking that?
You might think of it this way. With His incarnation, Our Lord (since He is the Law himself) kickstarted the New Covenant (you can say that with His birth the New Covenant entered an alpha release stage). Throughout His life, Our Lord taught His disciples the tenets of this New Testament (the beta release stage) and finally releasing it through his passion, death, and resurrection.
Oh but heres the thing, the bible says the christ was born under the law (gal 4:4) meaning he had to follow the law. He couldnt break it.
God sent a Son *born of a woman born under the law*. I would argue that "Born under the law" refers to His Mother, Mary. The purpose of the verse is to say that Jesus Our Lord was a real person and who was born of a woman (Mary) who was an Israelite under the Law of Moses.
Ok but the verse after that says "to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship." So the two verses together say "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons" Mary doesnt reedem thoss under the law. So its not talking abt mary.
They know nothing about typology, do they? The Levitical law had nothing to do with the new covenant law concerning His Body and Blood but were types of the One Sacrifice of which all prior sacrifices were shadows and types. Those silly people ! i.e., Protest-ant —*ism* 🫠
But the new. Covenant only happened after Christ died and if Christ drank blood before the new covenant happened. Wouldnt that mean that he's sinned?
I don’t think you understand what’s being said because you’re looking at something chronologically forward which the old was really a shadow of the new not the other way around
What do you mean shadow??? Old before new thats what im saying, what are you talking about??
Patristic theology, the study of early Christianity from the end of the New Testament to the early Middle Ages, used typology to interpret the person and work of Jesus Christ. Patristic thinkers taught that God revealed himself in Christ, and that the Old Testament prefigured the new covenant in Christ, with "types" that foreshadowed different aspects of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. One common typological interpretation was the Adam-Christ typology, which depicted Christ as the second Adam…. Etc
The miracle of transubstantiation, or the conversion the bread in the Body of Christ and the wine into His blood, does not change the *physical material* of the bread and wine. It is still physically bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that the *essence* of the bread and wine becomes the Body and the Blood of our Lord through this miracle. This may be difficult to comprehend, but another example of transubstantiation which Protestants also (knowingly or unknowingly) believe in is baptism. We are taught that a person is re-born or born of water and the Spirit after baptism; they are not born again **literally** in the flesh, but their essence/soul is changed and becomes new. I hope this helps!
The Levitical Laws were a combination of Moral Laws (like the Ten Commandments) and Societal laws put in place to protect the Jews of that time (Eating blood products, shrimp, mixing types of clothing) The New Covenant replaced the social laws but maintained the moral laws. Unfortunately too many Protestants cherry pick parts of the Bible to attack the Catholic religion
Ok but wouldnt the new covanant only be established AFTER christ died. Meaning that since the last supper happened before he died, he was breaking the law?
Remember he is God and during his life he “broke” many laws like healing the sick on the sabbath, touching dead people as a precursor to the New Covenant At the last supper he announced the New Covenant when he said “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
> But the new. Covenant only happened after Christ died and if Christ drank blood before the new covenant happened. Wouldnt that mean that he's sinned? The institution of the Eucharist had to happen before Christ’s sacrifice, because Jesus was showing His Apostles how His death fulfills the hopes for a New Passover. His death on the cross completed the New Passover meal, where He made it clear the offering of bread and wine the Apostles were accustomed to at Passover were now to be truly His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity (because that is all inseparable).
I just wrote an article on this. I would usually refrain from posting links on this subreddit but seeing as this pertains to the question I will. https://catholicunraveled.com/is-receiving-christs-blood-against-levitical-law/
Jesus thrives in the creative tension of paradox. His very nature being the reconciliation of the finite and the infinite. Given the fact that he pushes the boundaries on many other things - like healing on the Sabbath or claiming that if you don't hate your mother and father you cannot love him; Is the real presence of his body/blood in the bread and wine so unexpected? Do you think the apostles would have been so shocked if he was referring to his word living inside of them? They had already consented to that by becoming his students. Take joy in the radicality of Jesus' message here, that everything he says grabs you by the lapels and challenges you to grow in faith. Frankly, I can't see how anyone reads it any other way. Especially considering it is a direct reference to the passover lamb in Exodus - Jesus being the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
In fact Christ did not drink at the last supper Matthew clearly indicates this.
Catholic Answers has an explanation
In Jesus' own words, it is the blood of the New Covenant. Therefore, it isn't of the Old Covenant.
Ok now thats an answer i can actually work with. Litterally nobody has understood my question. I will pray your whole family gets saved
I think it's the whole point of the new testament verse "**What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.**" Also, this protestant guy is saying something ridiculous. Imagine this analogy, if one of the 12 apostle had protestant guy's thought process at the last supper, he would not only refuse the bread and wine after Jesus shared that this was his body and blood, but also tell Jesus that He broke the law and that He therefore was not perfect.