Symbolism of the Seder Disproves Real Presence

Lulav said:

If in 'communion' when you eat the bread and the bread you believe becomes the body of Christ (transubstantiation) and we are the body of Messiah, then isn't that like cannibalizing yourself?

Click to expand...

No, imo it isn't anything like cannibalism.

...just going on to say that my friend thinks that true believers undergo a physical change on the genetic level that mark's us as Messiah's. When you consider how little of the human genome has actually been mapped, it is possible and an interesting topic of conversation - as long as you realize that there is no way to substantiate that theory.

Rachel Rachel said:

Thank you, talmidim. No problem at all and I'm glad we got it straightened out.
I realize this is a touchy subject.

Click to expand...

Lulav said:

It is his words that bring life. He was speaking a 'hard saying' because it sounded to them like he wanted them to eat his body and drink his blood as the heathens did to their gods. This they knew was forbidden so they didn't understand.

Click to expand...

Well, if he wasn't speaking literally, why didn't he tell them to come back and tell them "It wasn't literal" or such, when they left Him due to a 'hard saying'?

I don't believe the verse regarding not drinking blood goes against drinking the blood of Jesus, which is something else than drinking blood of a literal lamb or such.

Jonathan95 said:

Well, if he wasn't speaking literally, why didn't he tell them to come back and tell them "It wasn't literal" or such, when they left Him due to a 'hard saying'?

I don't believe the verse regarding not drinking blood goes against drinking the blood of Jesus, which is something else than drinking blood of a literal lamb or such.

Click to expand...

That was exactly why they didn't understand him teaching this because it went against the Torah, which they knew he upheld. But you must remember what he said about why he spoke in parables.

It is a way of separating out his sheep from the rest.

Lulav said:

That was exactly why they didn't understand him teaching this because it went against the Torah, which they knew he upheld. But you must remember what he said about why he spoke in parables.

It is a way of separating out his sheep from the rest.

Click to expand...

Yes, what He said later on, has been used to support the spiritual view, as opposed to literal view (that he meant literally drinking His blood etc).

". . .the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

talmidim said:

...just going on to say that my friend thinks that true believers undergo a physical change on the genetic level that mark's us as Messiah's. When you consider how little of the human genome has actually been mapped, it is possible and an interesting topic of conversation - as long as you realize that there is no way to substantiate that theory.

Click to expand...

I would agree it's entirely possible and a fascinating subject!
There's so very much we don't understand.

Rachel Rachel said:

And thats exactly why we were told we must drink the blood of Yeshua to have eternal life..

Click to expand...

I hope I'm not breaking a rule by posting this, but I must ask - where do the Scriptures say we must drink (literally) the blood of Yeshua in order to have eternal life? I find this problematic on a few levels:

1. G-d did not change His mind about drinking blood. Even Paul, when speaking to the Gentile converts and trying to give them the basics of Torah obedience, reiterated the prohibition against consuming blood.

2. To partake of a literal blood and flesh of Yeshua is to say He must be sacrificed over and over and over again, when the Bible is clear His sacrifice on the cross was once and for all.

3. Yeshua said, "this do in remembrance of Me", not ""this do and sacrifice my blood and body over and over again".

4. Yeshua referred to the cup of wine as "the fruit of the vine". He only referred to it as "the blood of the new covenant", but never did He say he transformed the fruit of the vine into literal blood. In the book of Matthew, Yeshua calls it the blood of the new covenant first, but immediately afteward refers to it as the fruit of the vine. Why wouldn't He have called it the cupf of blood from that point on?

5. By saying that if one does not literally drink the blood of Yeshua and eat His flesh will not have eternal life, is to imply that those who have never partaken of the eucharist will be damned.

6. Peter was present at the last supper, which means he would have consumed human flesh and blood, but later in Acts 10, during his vision, he tells G-d he has "never eaten that which is common or unclean". Did Peter conveniently forget, or did the disciples know better than many Christians today that Yeshua was using figures of speech regarding the unleavened bread and the wine?

The showbread that represents Israel and all of us I believe, it was eaten by the priests to sustain them, and I believe it was symbolic for flesh.

That each week they ate the bread as a symbolic nourishment, but I guess everyone knows that already.

It's the drinking of blood that is so curious.

Here is something, I don't know what it says, but it says something.

Hebrews 2: 14 Insomuch than as children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared the same.

I guess he is just talking about being human?

But it says,'' Partaken''

So I don't know.





Mark 14:24 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.


From what I understand, this cup which Jesus lifted was the cup of the covenant that Nobody ever drank, it was always poured out and there are only two people who are allowed to drink the cup of the covenant, and those two are Elijah, or the Messiah, and by his drinking the cup, he was showing himself to be the Messiah{ I think}.