The Eucharist and Acts 15:20

A Evangelical stated that the Eucharist could not be the real Body and Blood because drinking blood is not allowed. I wasnt equipped to answer this question other than to say thats not what they mean (which obviously it wasnt)

Can anyone give me a hand here, Thanks

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Sometimes fight fire whit fire is the best thing. Tell him to read Matt.26:26-28.
Blessings,
Totterman

This, and the fact that the “blood” mentioned in Acts is the red fluid in mammals made up of Red Blood Cells. The Blood in the Eucharist is wine. The Blood, Body, Soul, and Divinity of Christ IS the Wine and the Host. He makes these part of Him. So it’s not like the wine and host magically turn into literal blood and flesh. Rather, it’s that Christ incorporates the Wine and Host as part of His Body. So it is literally wine, but this Wine is Christ’s blood.

Sounds to me the Evangelical simply doesn’t know how Transubstantiation works. Teach him the concept.

I think you may be mistaken. The wine literally turns into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but its still under the accidents of wine (looks like, tastes like, smells like, etc.).

… the meat of strangled animals, and blood. James is speaking of the blood of animals.

The last I checked, no Evangelical that I know of would consider Christ an animal. They would consider Him the God-Man.

Yeah, human sacrifice isn’t allowed either, but your Evangelical friend doesn’t seem to have a problem with that - just the Catholic stuff.

Was your friend basing his assertion on the OT regulations (Lev 17:11-14)?
If so:

The regulation is part the Old Covenant.
Jesus is establishing the New Covenant.
Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the* new covenant **in my blood. * (Also, Mt 26:28; Mark 14:24)

It is true that consuming blood was absolutely prohibitted in Judaism - and that is precisely why the people in John 6 recoiled in horror at His statements - which He then re-iterated, more emphatically. And then when they left Him, He did not say “wait, no, it’s symbolic, don’t you see?”

This is also why early Christians were repeated accused of cannibalism. (See Justin Martyr, First Apology)

No, its James’ words at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. These are the regulations placed on the Gentile converts, after the Council decided not to make the Gentiles follow the Mosaic Laws.

I understand that James stipulations are based on the Noahide Covenant.

Please read John 6:41-59
Christ Himself answers all the questions we have through the Holy Spirit from God.
From Him, through Him, and in Him is all sustinance by faith.

Here is your answer:

John 6:51-70

Why would Jesus allow for so many good disciples leave on a misunderstanding? If it was a symbol - why didn’t he just tell them, " hey it’s not really my flesh and my blood".

And why would He then turn to the Apostles and say “[and you, are you also going to leave?]”

Read this passage slowly and carefully…it is the answer and evidence of the True and Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist - it is Jesus Himself!

=Redbaron998;7091956]A Evangelical stated that the Eucharist could not be the real Body and Blood because drinking blood is not allowed. I wasnt equipped to answer this question other than to say thats not what they mean (which obviously it wasnt)

Can anyone give me a hand here, Thanks

Reading John 6: [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

What the Jews present then presumed is that Jesus was speaking of “his Cardnal body and blood.” They were applying human logic to a Divine Promise.

If we go to the last few verses in the chapter, we find Christ NOT calling the defectors back; saying “OPPS” I didn’t mean that in the maner I spoke it. NO, rather Jesus turned to His Apostles an asked" DO YOU WISH TO LEAVE ME TOO?

Peter replies: “LORD TO WHOM WOULD WE GO WE HAVE COME TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE CHRIST.”

The same misunderstanding is TODAY’s LACK OF PROPER UNDERSTANDING. The defectors knew not that soon Jesus would give His very life and in three day’s Rise from the Dead. The bible shows in many places that Jesus was aware beforehand of what was going to happen.

Jesus was speaking FACTUALLY and candidly about His soon to be Ressurrected Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

It is this immortal Resurrected Body Christ was speaking about.

This was CLEARLY understood and ACCPETED by the Apostles and believers.

1Cor.11 Verses 26 to 30: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

Paul here MUST be Speaking of the Most Holy Eucharist. Just simply eating table bread, drinking table wine in NOT going to send some to hell as Paul clearly warns about.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-21; John Chapter 6 and Paul 1 Cor. 11:23-29

Share these with your friend and then ask him to GOOGLE0 “Eucharistic Miracles” :thumbsup:

Love and prayers,
Pat

CONSUMING BLOOD

A scriptural analysis of the prohibition against eating blood does not support arguments against the Eucharist.

Jesus, himself, that gives us the command to eat his flesh and blood as true food and true drink.

A look at the OT reveals some interesting insights relative to the new covenant. In Leviticus 1:1-5 we read the following:

“THE LORD called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock. ‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.”

There are many similar references in the OT describing animal sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. This was done for the atonement of sin. When we compare this with the NT we see that “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:13]

The scriptures then go on to say “Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” [Hebrews 9:1-14]

There is clearly a foreshadowing in the Old Testament and an unveiling in the New Testament when it comes to blood, sacrifice, atonement, and eternal redemption. This foreshadowing includes the Eucharist which is prefigured by the manna and the bread of the presence as well as the sprinkling with blood. This whole theme in the OT is also continued in the Passover which requires the participants to consume the lamb. Jesus is the paschal lamb in the New Covenant.

So why is blood so important and why the prohibition of consuming blood in the OT? Furthermore, why does the consumption of Jesus flesh and blood become mandated in the New Covenant? Scripture clues us in by telling us the significance of the flesh and blood. The blood is considered to be “the life” in the living creature. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” Once again, this is a prefiguring of Jesus eternal redemptive sacrifice where we have a better covenant.

Please note that the “life” of the animal is in the blood and that is why the blood was given to God in sacrifice and everyone was forbidden to consume it. In the New Covenant Jesus blood gives us life. Animal blood in sacrifice cannot give that to us and that is why the Jews were told not to consume it. Eternal life is given to us through the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. His flesh and blood are not like the flesh and blood of the animal sacrifices of the OT. Moreover, we do not consume the flesh and blood of Jesus in the same fashion as condemned in the OT. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity. In the Eucharist we receive this precious life giving gift sacramentaly rather than carnally. The prohibition in the Old Law simply does not trump Jesus’s command that we eat his flesh and drink his blood as true food and true drink.

cont. on next post

cont. from prior post

The body and blood of Jesus are the “life” of Jesus. We are a priestly people and have a ministerial priesthood. Priests offer sacrifice. Hebrews 9:7 indicates that sacrifices are not offered without blood. Our sacrifice is the re-presentation of Jesus sacrifice of his body and blood offered to the Father. Jesus has told us to “do this in remembrance” of him. Jesus is the paschal lamb and must be consumed. Jesus says, “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus says, ““Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Eternal life is in the body and blood of Jesus and it is his body and blood that we are to consume.

I hope this helps.

The Eucharist is the perfection of the Passover. Point him to Hebrews as well.

I would tell the evangelical that he has an extremely shallow grasp of the scriptures. Then I would ask him why did Jesus command His Apostles to drink blood? If he says that Jesus didn’t. tell him He most surely did and if he knew his scriptures he would know it. Then tell him to read Mt 26:27-28 which states:

"27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” [Mt 26;27-28]

Actually, there are no parts of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ; The Wine is Our Lord Jesus Christ, not a part of Him. Each host you look at is Our Lord Jesus Christ and not a part of Him but a Whole. The same with the Wine, it is Our Lord Jesus Christ. You pour a portion of it into another cup and both are Our Lord Jesus Christ. Singular. They are not two but One. They are not part of the Whole but The Whole. In addition, each is God. Nevertheless, remember that there is only One God.

Hi, MarianD,

It may look like that … but, that is not the theology. The Bread and Wine are separate to symbolize that Christ has died - actually, He had no more Blood in Him when the soldier pierced His side. The consecrated Wine, as NotWorthy pointed out, contains the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - the same as the consecrated Bread.

There is no difference in the essence of either - just in the accidents, so that the Bread appears to be unchanged after the consdcration, in that it still looks like bread. The same is true with the Wine after conscration.

God bless

What you are describing is consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, after the consecration, the Host is no longer bread in any sense, and the Precious Blood is no longer wine in any sense. Their physical appearances (“accidents” in the language of classical philosophy) don’t change, but their underlying essence, their reality, is completely changed. See CCC 1376; also Article 2 and Article 6 in the Summa Theologiae, Question 75.

In Acts 15, the Apostle James gave the opinion that Gentile converts should be instructed to avoid things associated with idol worship, including animal blood. This could be considered merely “natural” blood. It has both the essence and the accidents of blood. The Precious Blood of the Eucharist, on the other hand, is not natural, but supernatural. It is sacramental Blood of a fundamentally different character than natural blood, even though both share certain essential qualities of blood.

That’s the most basic explanation that I think needs to be given.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.