Passover vs Eucharist

[Webers_Home]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted.

"The supper shall be a sign for you, in the houses where you are; and when I
see you eating, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex 12:13)

No, that's not right. The angel of death didn't look inside their houses to see
whether people were eating the lamb from whence the blood came to mark
the door posts of their homes. The angel looked for only one thing, and one
thing only: the blood itself.

"The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you
to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The lesson is that the meal had no power to protect the people from losing
their eldest sons that night. The eating in fact was, and is, strictly
commemorative.

"This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to
The Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance
for ever." (Ex 12:14)

Another lesson is that the bloody part of the first passover's procedure had
no lasting value. No, it was for their sons' protection just that one night in
Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original
passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's
eldest sons after that, viz: the original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it
provided the Jews a narrow window of opportunity that if missed, didn't offer
a second. In other words; good intentions were to no avail. Had the blood
not been where and when required; it would've been just too bad.

Another lesson is that the Jews didn't include the lamb's blood in their meal
that night. Instead of eating the blood, they drained it from the animal and
used it to mark their door posts. That was in compliance with the post-Flood
law of God that prohibits using animal blood for food.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the
green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life,
that is, its blood." (Gen 9:3-4)

FAQ: That passage probably shouldn't be appropriated to prove it's wrong
to eat human blood. It's clearly limited to animals. (cf. Lev 7:26-27)
_

 

[CharismaticLady]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted.

"The dinner shall be a sign for you, in the houses where you are; and when I
see you eating, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex 12:13)

No, that's not right. The angel of death didn't look inside their houses to see
whether people were eating the lamb from whence the blood came to mark
the door posts of their homes. The angel looked for only one thing, and one
thing only: the blood itself.

"The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you
to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The lesson is that the dinner had no power to protect the people from losing
their eldest sons that night. The dinner in fact was, and is, strictly
commemorative.

"This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to
The Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance
for ever." (Ex 12:14)

Another lesson is that the bloody part of the first passover's procedure isn't
oft repeated. No, it was only for their sons' protection just that one night in
Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original
passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's
eldest sons after that. The original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it
provided the Jews a narrow window of opportunity that if missed, didn't offer
a second. In other words; good intentions were to no avail. Had the blood
not been where and when required; it would've been just too bad.

Another lesson is that the Jews didn't include the lamb's blood in their
dinner. Instead of eating the blood, they drained it from the animal and
painted it on their door posts. That was in compliance with the post-Flood
law of God that prohibits using animal blood for food.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the
green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life,
that is, its blood." (Gen 9:3-4)
_

Do you know whether this meal included leavened bread, or unleavened bread?

 

[marksman]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted.

"The dinner shall be a sign for you, in the houses where you are; and when I
see you eating, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex 12:13)

No, that's not right. The angel of death didn't look inside their houses to see
whether people were eating the lamb from whence the blood came to mark
the door posts of their homes. The angel looked for only one thing, and one
thing only: the blood itself.

"The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you
to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The lesson is that the dinner had no power to protect the people from losing
their eldest sons that night. The dinner in fact was, and is, strictly
commemorative.

"This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to
The Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance
for ever." (Ex 12:14)

Another lesson is that the bloody part of the first passover's procedure isn't
oft repeated. No, it was only for their sons' protection just that one night in
Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original
passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's
eldest sons after that. The original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it
provided the Jews a narrow window of opportunity that if missed, didn't offer
a second. In other words; good intentions were to no avail. Had the blood
not been where and when required; it would've been just too bad.

Another lesson is that the Jews didn't include the lamb's blood in their
dinner. Instead of eating the blood, they drained it from the animal and
painted it on their door posts. That was in compliance with the post-Flood
law of God that prohibits using animal blood for food.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the
green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life,
that is, its blood." (Gen 9:3-4)
_

I have a feeling that this is another reason why the claim by the catholic church that when you drink the wine you are drinking the blood of Jesus is false. I have told them it was forbidden to drink blood but they insist that it did not apply to drinking Jesus blood.

 

[historyb]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted.

"The dinner shall be a sign for you, in the houses where you are; and when I
see you eating, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex 12:13)

No, that's not right. The angel of death didn't look inside their houses to see
whether people were eating the lamb from whence the blood came to mark
the door posts of their homes. The angel looked for only one thing, and one
thing only: the blood itself.

"The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you
to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The lesson is that the dinner had no power to protect the people from losing
their eldest sons that night. The dinner in fact was, and is, strictly
commemorative.

"This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to
The Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance
for ever." (Ex 12:14)

Another lesson is that the bloody part of the first passover's procedure isn't
oft repeated. No, it was only for their sons' protection just that one night in
Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original
passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's
eldest sons after that. The original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it
provided the Jews a narrow window of opportunity that if missed, didn't offer
a second. In other words; good intentions were to no avail. Had the blood
not been where and when required; it would've been just too bad.

Another lesson is that the Jews didn't include the lamb's blood in their
dinner. Instead of eating the blood, they drained it from the animal and
painted it on their door posts. That was in compliance with the post-Flood
law of God that prohibits using animal blood for food.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the
green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life,
that is, its blood." (Gen 9:3-4)
_

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.

 

[Grailhunter]

I have a feeling that this is another reason why the claim by the catholic church that when you drink the wine you are drinking the blood of Jesus is false. I have told them it was forbidden to drink blood but they insist that it did not apply to drinking Jesus blood.

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.

 

[Marymog]

I have a feeling that this is another reason why the claim by the catholic church that when you drink the wine you are drinking the blood of Jesus is false. I have told them it was forbidden to drink blood but they insist that it did not apply to drinking Jesus blood.

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

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Let's make a deal, I won't hate on you evangelicals and you stop hating on us who choose to go by Scripture.

How about every just top bashing on everyone?
I like that deal.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 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
_

 

[historyb]

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.

 

[historyb]

How about every just top bashing on everyone?
I like that deal.

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

 

[Jane_Doe22]

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

It's a flaw all people have. We can only open the door and still love even when another person scoffs at that open door.

 

[Grailhunter]

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

Christian communion services, as per Luke 22:19-20, and 1Cor 11:23-26,
commemorate Christ's passover just as the Old Testament service
commemorates Jehovah's passover.

The word "passover" means, in a nutshell, to exempt.

Well; the first lamb's blood did for Jehovah's followers pretty much the same
as what Christ's blood did for his followers; at least that's what the apostle
Peter said.

● 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 Jews overcame death by means of their lamb's blood, just as Christians
overcome the Devil by means of their lamb's blood.

● 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
_

There is a lot to understanding the scriptures and it is a Holy Spirit thing that all scriptures from start to finish has to taken in light...."the light" of the Spirit of Christ.

And then there is personal talent of putting your thoughts in words. The OP....Passover vs Eucharist....really! Passover versus the Eucharist. I don't think you are expressing your thoughts well. Are you trying to place one against the other or compare them?

 

[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

Here we go again the same old same old. You have one source and I have several noted scholars who have spoken regarding this subject. Only the other day I read that from the first Passover where the Israelites were leaving Egypt, no blood was drunk. It was sprinkled on the doorposts. The drinking of blood was metaphorical.

So that is my last word on it. You stick to your catholic ideas and I will ignore them especially when you keep asking questions that I have answered.

 

[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 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 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.

Do you not know that I have heard all these arguments time and time again and I have patiently answered them umpteen times. I am not a catholic so I have no obligation to follow the teaching of the Catholic church. If you want to be my guest. I am not stopping you, but please, do not assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. The Catholic church has a lot to answer for with the sins of the fathers and Popes producing children so let's not get all high and mighty.

 

[Grailhunter]

Do you not know that I have heard all these arguments time and time again and I have patiently answered them umpteen times. I am not a catholic so I have no obligation to follow the teaching of the Catholic church. If you want to be my guest. I am not stopping you, but please, do not assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. The Catholic church has a lot to answer for with the sins of the fathers and Popes producing children so let's not get all high and mighty.

You do not have to hate Christ because you hate the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic and this is about Christ and the scriptures. There is nothing that Christ said that even hinted about anything of a symbology. Do you even believe that it was the blood of Christ that saved us? That is what He described and performed. And like you the Apostles objected and Christ gave them no choice. Right or wrong it is not up to me, you call Christ a liar! Do you think He would lie? The scriptures pertaining to this are long and are in detail. Why not say you do not believe in Christ either? Why believe anything He said?

The Catholics have done a lot of good things and have been blessed with many connections with God. But then they also have a horrid past. The Protestants never had the power to be tempted, they splintered into thousand of denominations
because they could not agree on what the scriptures meant, and other than that the Protestants have their own issues, John Calvin was near to a mad man and started the religion of the monstrous puppet master. The Catholics baptize babies and some Protestants believe that baptism is merely a public display of someone picking a religion...no spiritual connection. They all have their problems and thankfully the Catholics are part of religion that forgiveness in a tenet of faith. I forgive the Catholics and I love all Christians. Believe what you will....freedom of religion, right? But don't try to promote the lie that Christ said, This is my symbolic blood. That is not what He said. You call Christ a liar and I have problems with you.

 

[Marymog]

Here we go again the same old same old. You have one source and I have several noted scholars who have spoken regarding this subject. Only the other day I read that from the first Passover where the Israelites were leaving Egypt, no blood was drunk. It was sprinkled on the doorposts. The drinking of blood was metaphorical.

So that is my last word on it. You stick to your catholic ideas and I will ignore them especially when you keep asking questions that I have answered.

Are you going to at least try to answer my questions?

patient Mary

 

[Josho]

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

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Rom 15:4 . . .Whatever was written in former days was written for our
instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the
scriptures we might have hope.

The Eucharist speaks of Christ's passover in the same way that the paschal
lamb speaks of the Jews' passover; only Christ's has more to say.

The paschal lamb's death, along with the correct application of its blood,
served to protect the Jews' eldest sons; whereas Christ's death, along with
the correct application of his blood, serves to protect everybody regardless
of age, gender and/or ethnic identity.

● John 1:29 . . .The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said:
Look, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Was the paschal lamb's blood successful at protecting the Jews' eldest sons?
Yes.

● Ex 12:26 . . And when your children say to you: What do you mean by this
service? you shall say: It is the sacrifice of The Lord's passover; for He
passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the
Egyptians but spared our houses.

Now, the million dollar question is: Does Christ's blood have the potential to
successfully protect the world? Yes.

● 1John 2:2 . . He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also
for the sins of the whole world.

If yes, then why will anybody, Catholic or Protestant, end up dead as per
Rev 20:11-15? Well; it's simply because they failed to correctly appropriate
Christ's blood. You see, had the Jews only killed their lambs and eaten them
that night without applying their lambs' blood to the doorposts as instructed,
their eldest sons would've been slain.

Now here's the thing: Christ was slain; that part of his passover is done.

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

The Jews were instructed to apply their lambs' blood themselves with a
desert plant called hyssop (Ex 12:22). That was convenient because
apparently hyssop was not only leafy but common too.

So; what might be a practical way to apply Christ's blood? Well; for some
the Eucharist's wine species does the trick; and I guess that's okay if it
works for them. But I suggest an even more common method. Why not just
go to God in prayer; speak up for yourself and say something like this:

"Father, I would like to appropriate your son's blood to protect myself from
the wrath of God."
_

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

If this is true, Why does not Christ blood give the one who drinks what Jesus promised in John 6. That they would never thirst again? Why is the eucharist, just like manna, Drank over and over, why does it does not have the power of Christ's blood?

Just asking

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How about every just top bashing on everyone?
I like that deal.

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.