I read your post AGuest but part of the problem is there are quite a few here that don't believe the Bible is God's inspired word.
I'm not sure what that has to do with it, dear Alice, but thank you for responding... and peace to you!''
The writing of Leviticus was completed in 1512 B.C.E. Apart from the Old Testament and related sources, there are only a few surviving records of any sort from the Mosaic era, mostly in the form of inscribed stone slabs called stelae. There's certainly no record of blood transfusions as a medical practice, but both historical and Biblical records recount that humans worshiped a pantheon of gods made up of N'filim and fallen angels. Most polytheistic religions required human sacrifices and drank the sacrificial blood. Assyrians were noted to drink the blood of conquered nations while sieging their next conquest for intimidation purposes. As the book of Enoch includes the records of semi-divine entities drinking blood straight from a human, so do many other ancient religions. The Egyptian Sekhmet, the Greek Hecate, the Indian Kali and the Babylonian Lilitu are just a few examples.
Okay, I get all of that...
The Bible book of John was completed in 98 C.E. I already stated that blood transfusions weren't a medical practice in the 1st century (the century the last book of the Bible was completed). The first historical attempt at a blood transfusion was described in the 17th century, although there was no way to safely store blood, screen blood for diseases or match blood types in the 17th century. Jesus obviously wasn't referring to channeling a person's blood to someone else as a means of salvation. There's very little sacrifice involved in such a procedure. There would be more sacrifice in giving up a vital organ to someone on a long waiting list for an organ transplant, but that's not the message Jesus was conveying either in John 15:13.
Given your argument here, wouldn't the time span between the writing attributed to John... and the first attempt at a blood transfusion... show that James et al., WASN'T speaking of blood transfusions (i.e., as such a thing had not even presented itself to them)? And is there somewhere were Christ put a limit on HOW one was to show love? I mean, say, you're my good friend... or loved one... and would die if I didn't give you my blood. Since I love YOU... AND... since there is NO LAW AGAINST LOVE... what would be my "sin"?
But let's talk about sacrifice - if I have, say, 10 pints (the average) of blood in my body... and my body renews any blood that is lost... and I give you, say, one or pints... where is the "sacrifice"? Am I not giving... out of my SURPLUS? Yet, when one sacrifices one's life... one gives one's entire life, yes? So, if the greater "love" is giving my ENTIRE life... how can there be a problem with me giving 1-2 pints of it?
John 6:51-56 is obviously speaking in illustrative terms. "So the disciples came up and said to him: “Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted." (Matthew 13:10-11)
Yes, because Christ did not mean for us to eat his flesh... or DRINK his blood... literally. Why? Because one's life is IN one's blood... and drinking it would have been an absolutely disregard for that life. It relegates that life to nothing more than a beverage, a delicacy. In some instances, a talisman. It dishonors the life that belonged to that blood. But... GIVING one's blood... so that another can LIVE... isn't that one of THE most honorable things one can do for another? Isn't it what Christ DID... gave HIS blood... for you and me?
We can give another our breath (CPR). We can give another our semen (procreation). Both of these give life. But we can't give our BLOOD? True, we shouldn't do like the "nations" who, as you mention above, DRINK the blood... of anyone other than Christ. And then, pursuant to the symbols he gave us to do so. But dear one, taking fluids intraveneously isn't "drinking." If that were the case, we could just, say, inject wine, intravenously, couldn't we, and consider ourselves to "drinking" the blood of Christ. Yes? In that case, couldn't say, a "anointed" one who is, say, unconscious, simply be given an injection? Why do they need to be conscious? Okay, say they're conscious but cannot swallow: would your elders give them an injection? Why not?
John 6:35, 40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ.
I absolutely agree.
Since the Eucharistic transubstantiation: flesh and blood ritual is a principal rite of the Catholic Church, one might expect the Scriptures to support it. They do not. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition) explained why: “The chief source of our doctrine . . . is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory [entreating] value of the Sacrifice of the Mass.” http://www.usccb.org/catechism/document/protocol.shtml
Actually, you are in error. Partaking of the passover lamb was absolutely a requirement for Israel... and Christ is the Passover Lamb. And I don't know what you mean by "Eucharistic transubstantiation"... other than the false "miracle" that some have devised... where the bread and wine literally turns into flesh and blood. Seriously, though...
Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord. (1411)
Really! May I ask you... which of the first century disciples were "validly ordained priests?" And by whom?
I'd say it's better for Catholics that the miracle can't be performed by an ordained priest because eating anything turned into human blood and flesh once a week would probably make you ill after a while.
Wait a minute... you ARE saying that the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood! NEVER may that happen!! First, Christ is a spirit. His flesh... AND blood... were transfigured to SPIRIT. Which is why we have bread and wine. Second... wouldn't what you say be literally drinking blood... which you don't seem to have a problem with... but have a problem with intravenous???
What was stated in Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:2-7 and Matthew 23:23 was to men that constantly tried to trap Jesus in his speech. "Then the Pharisees went their way and took counsel together in order to trap him in his speech." (Matthew 22:15) Jesus replaced animal sacrifices as atonement for sin when he replaced the Mosaic law covenant.
Yes.
The Law covenant became in a sense “obsolete” when God announced by means of the prophet Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant.
Yes.
In 33 C.E. the Law covenant was canceled on the basis of Christ’s death (Collisions 2:14), the New Testament replacing it.
Actually, it was 30 C.E., but I get your point, yes.
Observing the sabbath and animal sacrifices were part of the law covenant under Moses, but the astonishment about abstaining from blood was reaffirmed in Acts 15:20,
Yes, the manner of the NATIONS (i.e., drinking it as a delicacy, sacrifice, disregard for enemy, talisman, etc.)...
so what does Matthew 9:13,
The "sacrifice" would be refraining from doing something that one may believe to be "against" the Law... for the sake of mercy. Which Christ did ALL the time. For example, under the Law (which was still in effect, even for him), he couldn't touch anyone/anything unclean. For example, someone with leprosy... a woman with a flow of blood... a dead body. Yet, for the sake of MERCY... he didn't worry about transgressing the Law - because HIS focus was on SURPASSING the Law. With love. Which is borne out... in mercy.
Matthew 12:2-7
It was UNLAWFUL for David and his men to eat the showbread, yes? Yet, they were hungry and there was no other food. Should David have simply let his men starve... for the sake of upholding the Law (which he was under)? OR... should he SURPASS the law... with LOVE for his men... and MERCIFULLY feed them?
Matthew 23:23
Here, the Pharisees were SO engrossed in keeping the "measure" of the Law, like, perhaps YOU are... with regard to this matter... that they overlooked the WEIGHTIER matters of the Law, one of which was MERCY.
have to with Acts 15:20?
The fact that the FULFILLMENT of the Law... is LOVE. Which is the BASIS for the NEW Covenant. So, should you go around disregarding the value of another's life by drinking his blood for, say, a show of your power/prowess? Should you drink it because "some" say drinking the blood of a member of a powerful tribe has life-giving properties? Should perhaps serve it at your house party? How about you believe the "gods" are "angry" and only drinking, say, a virgin's blood will appease them? Of course, not. But that is what some nations DID. All the back to, well, even BEFORE Moses... and still at the time after Christ's death. There are some who do so today... for the same or similar reasons.
BUT... what if someone you love lay dying and YOUR blood could save them? Would you be SO concerned with trespassing the "law"? Or would let LOVE... manifested by your MERCY... compel you to SURPASS the "law"?
They were to abstain from drinking blood, dear Alice. Not from saving another's life with their own. And the one TAKING such blood would be no more "guilty" than David (who was under the Law)... who committed murder (yes, murder)... as WELL as "coveted" his neighbor's wife... or Peter... who denied Christ... THREE times... to save HIS own life.
You... and those who believe this false teaching about blood... do not know the TRUTH about the love... or mercy... of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies (Psalm 68:4)... and so don't know how to live IN that love... or share it with others... yourselves. But you can learn - look at Christ. Would HE let someone die for want of a pint of blood? Or would HE... give his OWN life... so that such one could live?
Given that God wants MERCY... and NOT sacrifice... I think the answer is clear. And so, it's really not that hard to see him, dear one. Truly.
I bid you peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
