Aphikomen or Eucharist?

[Douay]

yod- what do you think about the passage that reads unless you eat of my body and drink my blood you will not inherit the kingdom of God? I don't know if you were talking about that one or not.

[Guest yod]

Have you ever experienced a passover seder?

Just as He compared His body to the Temple earlier in His life, He was comparing His body to the Afikomen and His blood to the Cup of Redemption.

it would be real hard to explain in a short post what He was saying to these jewish men because we don't live in that cultural setting. They understood more than we realize because of the particular time and place this was said during the Passover meal which they had celebrated every year going back to Moses. This is the oldest celebration known to man being almost 5,000 years old but still a hidden mystery to gentiles for the most part.

But basically there is no way that He was making them drink blood. The commandment against ingesting blood is THE ONLY commandment repeated 3 times in the Bible. First to Noah, then to Moses, and again to the church in Acts 15 after His resurrection. The transubstantiation doctrine forces a contradiction where none is needed.

Many disciples left Him the first time He said this because they didn't understand he was speaking symbolically. He did that a lot, ya know...

[RGR]

I don't believe in the Eucharist becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus, but I'm not going to condemn the doctrine either. I find it is one of those things we disagree respectfully about. If my Catholic friend at work finds this as something that brings her closer to God, is it such a bad thing? What I mean is this-if in taking the Eucharist one is reminded of the sacrifice Christ made upon the cross for our sins, is it sinful? Now for Yod, it would be sinful as he would be going against the dictates of his conscience (and for me as well), but I think this falls under the doctrine of not judging your brother in meat or drink.

[Douay]

I see what you guys are saying and i like your opinions. What did Jesus mean then when he said this is a hard thing? It seemed to me like he was saying that it is hard to understand and he knew that many would leave because of it. This passage was the same one that yod mentioned at the end of his post I think.

[Guest yod]

I can't imagine what I would have done had I been there. It is a very hard saying!

I like what Peter says...."Where else would go? You have the words of life"

[RGR]

I honestly believe it boils down to a translation difference. Yod and I see it as symbolic. Mobile, Douay, Julie (my RCC friend from work-whom I invited over here BTW, but not to argue RCC with!) and other RCC folks see it as non-symbolic. Therefore, I don't (and I don't think Yod has either) hold it as something sacreligious since it is simply a translation difference. Many of the RCC doctrines I simply see as a translation disagreeance. Not all, but a lot. Frankly, if we can agree on Christ and His crucified, we've got more in common with each other than with the world!

[Guest yod]

Amen brutha!!!!

That and we like pies....

[RGR]

Amen brutha!!!!

That and we like pies....

:o :o :oww:

[Guest yod]

I was the one who started the idea that two loaves were used. Got the information from "Jews for Judaism". The point being the addition of the third loaf in second century doesn't address the main point on what Yeshua's mindset was toward the bread he was breaking. Did he consider it through Jewish eyes and understanding? Or did he consider the bread as the Eucharist.

now that is interesting. Jews for Judaism is an anti-missionary group. They oppose anyone preaching the gospel to jews...but they especially oppose messianic jews

This would be an admission of the tri-une nature of God for jews to start doing 3 pieces of matza AFTER Yeshua!

I don't believe them. Jews for Judaism has no credibilty as far as I'm concerned. Most jews don't even like them in Israel because they are bullies prone to violence. These are the same folks who would have persecuted the (jewish) church in the first century.

My study tells me that it has always been 3 pieces of matza and the messianics only added the MatzaTosh (bread bag with 3 compartments) in the Second Century.

Can you post a link to where you got this from?

[Guest jimraboin]

Yod,

now that is interesting. Jews for Judaism is an anti-missionary group. They oppose anyone preaching the gospel to jews...but they especially oppose messianic jews

As did Saul and Caiaphas, the High Priest. But both were used by G-d to speak the truth even though they personally were opposed to the Gospel. I am not as concerned with personal attitudes of Jews for Judaism as I am in what G-d vested with them. "The Jew comes first...then the Gentile".

Most of us do not build upon what G-d has vested in Israel. Rather, we build upon Catholic foudation that has its roots in early fathers. This is a purely Gentile source. As such, it is not first. No. It must be cross checked against what is first.

Speaking of bullies, if this is the standard for disqualifying a group, then surely you must disqualify the whole of Catholicism for its abuses done in the name of God. Yod, we are looking for facts and mindsets of Yeshua toward the bread he was breaking in that upper room. Whatever his mindset was, we need to have that identical approach.

Regarding the link for Jews for Judaism, I believe it is included in the first post. But here it is again.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/bookrevi...inpassover.html

Baruch attah Adonai!

Jim