Passover vs Eucharist

[WebersHome]

.
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 supper had no power to protect the people from losing their eldest sons that night. The table 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protection just that one night in Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's eldest sons after that, viz: the original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it provided the Jews a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. 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)

NOTE: 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)


_

 

[URA]

You may find this helpful; former Presbyterian minister & Protestant professor of theology Scott Hahn has very in-depth, Scriptural answers to questions such as this one. I'm too tired right now to think clearly enough for a debate, but this is a great article for seeing how the Eucharist fits into Scripture.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...day/eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-hahn.pdf

May God continue to bless us all with respect & openness to His will!

 

[charsan]

Christ real presence is in the Holy Eucharist not in the lamb's blood.

 

[WebersHome]

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

Christ's communion service-- per Luke 22:19-20 and 1Cor 11:23-26 --commemorates Christianity's 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
_

 

[Albion]

This is the Denomination Specific Theology forum. ("The Denomination-Specific Theology (DST) forum is for discussing and debating the specific theological doctrines of a denomination.")

Which denomination's Eucharistic theology is the subject of this thread?

 

[WebersHome]

This is the Denomination Specific Theology forum. ("The Denomination-Specific Theology (DST) forum is for discussing and debating the specific theological doctrines of a denomination.")

Which denomination's Eucharistic theology is the subject of this thread?

Catholicism
_

 

[charsan]

Catholicism
_

You actually lashed out as more than Catholicism with your unwarranted attack, you attack Liturgical Christians and with your title pitted Scripture against itself

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 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."
_

 

[Albion]

This long lecture has nothing in particular to do with the Catholic view of the sacrament.

 

[WebersHome]

.

This long lecture has nothing in particular to do with the Catholic view of the sacrament.

Should you decide to move this thread to another location, please let me know where to find it.

Thank You
_