logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline dajstill  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 2:50:59 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
John 6:53
Yahoshua therefore said to them, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Adam and drink His blood, you possess no life in yourselves"

My mom and I were talking and I believe He could NOT have said this. Even "metaphorically" He wouldn't have given the example of drinking blood. I cannot believe a Torah observant Jew, even the Messiah would give an example telling someone to drink blood. It was not allowed, never ever ever. The blood of the Passover lamb was not to be drunk. I have seen debate over if it was truly spread over the entire doorpost or whatever and I am still learning. Right now, all I have read thus far (English translations) says that it was spread over the doorpost. Yahoshua, as our Passover sacrifice, would have brought the entire thing to naught if people drank the Passover blood of the lamb rather than doing what YHWH requires with the blood.

Anyone else deal with this? While drinking blood is a definite no no in Torah, it isn't a no no in pagan worship - including Easter pagan worship. I have to wonder if the scriptures were altered so it wouldn't look like a Passover dinner - where He was simply explaining the Passover meal and declaring Himself the lamb (whose blood was not drank by those eating the meal) and had the words intermingled with pagan worship.

Any thoughts? This is a bid issue for me right now because Yahoshua was never to go against Torah and commanding to drink blood is against Torah - even metaphorically. Would really, really love some insight on this one. If I am seeing this wrong, please help me out with this.
Offline Daniel  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:49:37 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

A few paragraphs previous to this passage he says he is "bread", but no one actually goes up and pulls a morsel off of him, butters it up and eats it.

In response to the "eat of my flesh" statement, nobody cries foul and says "Hey, that is against Torah!".

We would do well to move away from our "Big Fat Greek Worldview" that gets us wrapped around the axial with hyper-literalist interpretations and understand that YHWH and Yeshua use all sorts of figurative speech, plays on words and possibly puns.
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline dajstill  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:57:19 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Eating flesh of humans is also against Torah - which is why it is such a strange parable to me. Why would the bread signify His body - why not the meat? Wasn't this the Passover meal?

I am trying to come out of my "Greek" worldview where paganism was intricately woven into Hebrew Scriptures creating Christianity. I feel a need to examine everything and something just doesn't seem right about this. I am not questing "Who" Yahushua was or "What" His life and sacrifice meant. What I am questioning is the parable. It makes no sense. I thought he was the Passover Lamb? Yes, the perfect Unleavened Offering, and yes - even the First Fruits offering. What does any of those things have to do with eating His flesh and drinking His blood? The blood of the Passover lamb was not consumed by the people.

I understand the difference between literal and figurative speech - but this one makes no sense. Drinking the blood of the sacrificial lamb in absolutely no way mirrors the Passover experience in my mind. While this might make sense as a Greek play on words, how would this have been spoken in Hebrew - or did Yahoshua start speaking Greek? Or do I just have to accept everything the NT says Yahoshua said without questioning it? If that is the case, I can go back to Christianity.
Offline lassie1865  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:04:23 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I am struggling with the same issue -- especially when speaking with my Catholic friends. It is true that the Passover lamb's meat/body was "eaten/consumed", but not the blood. It is hard to believe Yahowsha would ever say "drink my blood" unless it has some other connotation of which we are not aware.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:47:01 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Refer to the stage which Yahowsha set the previous day. He provided bread for their tummies which incited them to (nearly) make him king by force. Yahowsha evaded this effort by secluding Himself on the mountain. Now, they have sought Him out in a ruse of coincidence, “Well hey there, teacher! Gee, when did you come here?” Of course, Yahowsha gets to the heart of the matter and clarifies that they just want their tummies filled again. Then (IMO) one of the most powerful statements ever articulated is spoken, “Do not labour for the food that is perishing, but for the food that is remaining to everlasting hai, which the Ben of Adam shall give you, for the Father, Elohim, has put His seal on Him.” (HalleluYah Scriptures) The continued dialogue would be hilarious if not for the ramifications. The people feign piety and, oh by the way! How ‘bout some more bread!? Again, Yahowsha clarifies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, Mosheh did not give you the bread out of the shamayim, but My Father gives you the true bread out of the shamayim.” And what do they say? Yeah! Bring it on! Let’s eat! And then after hearing that He was referring to Himself … grumbled! The key is v. 63 I have to go to class but will check back.

Consider also Yahowsha’s reply after His (similar) discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4). “I have food to eat that you don’t know about.” “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.” The same key is divulged in this passage regarding the living water.

Many people stopped listening to Yahowsha because of statements like these. But I believe what He said about nothing being hidden that will not be revealed. I look forward to gleaning the wisdom of others who will comment on this subject.

Why flesh and blood? Why consume them as food/drink? I’m guessing that a profound image is being drawn. Read further into chapter 7:38-39. The Spirit will be given as promised. And be in the believers as though consumed … ‘you are what you eat’, right? It’s a hard concept that I certainly don’t fully comprehend. I could be far off base.

After further consideration, I cannot conclude that, "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was ever spoken. The audience would certainly have associated such with pagan religious customs.

Edited by user Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:04:07 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Reconsideration

Offline Daniel  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:24:00 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

The only "flesh"/"bread" I would eat would be that of the Sta-Puft Marshmellow Man.

UserPostedImage
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline Yah Tselem  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:42:16 AM(UTC)
Yah Tselem
Joined: 3/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 212
Man
United States
Location: Southern Wisconsin

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Yahowsha' never 'commanded' people to do anything because it's against Yah's nature to command us or to tell us to obey (rather he guides and instructs us so they we might choose His path). It's just a parable and it's referring to how the only way we can truly fill that empty Yah-sized hole in our souls is to fill it with Towrah. Yahowsha' is Towrah, they can't be separated.. and the only way to know and understand Yahowah is to know and understand Towrah (Yahowsha' being the living Towrah). Whoever fills up on the Towrah until their spiritual tummy is full of understanding and coming to know Yah.. those are the folks who become His family. Don't get hung up on the blood/bread thing.. it's a metaphor/parable and meant to teach and instruct us, just like the wine, lamb, unleavened bread, etc. With Yah it is always about understanding and not getting hung up on the doing. He was simply telling them to dive into Towrah.
Offline dajstill  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:02:58 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I get that its a parable, but what I don't get is why He would give a parable that would have them - even symbolically, do something against Torah. The cup had wine - not blood. Why not say - this cup represents the Word? Why say the cup represented His blood and it should be drunk by the follower? That makes NO SENSE! And I don't see how any Jewish follower would have interpreted as simply meaning "oh, He is saying dig into the Torah".

Case in point, when Peter had the vision of eating unclean things - he asked for clarity. He was told that the food represented Peter's ideas of non Jews being unclean. If the blood/body parable had been used at Passover - would Peter had been so concerned about the vision he had or would he already had been used to being asked to do things against Torah? In fact, this parable goes further than even Peter's vision. It simply asked Peter to eat something that was unclean. The blood/body parable is goes much further because not only were they asked to eat something unclean (human flesh) they were told to drink something YHWH has clearly stated numerous times was a definite no no.

Had the parable had Him representing Himself as the Lamb - okay that makes sense. Even representing the unleavened bread (although His body was NOT broken - in fact, wasn't a part of the package that no bones would be broken?) makes sense. Us drinking His blood makes no sense at all. Sure, I can make myself understand it, I can also make myself fit Paul's words into Torah as well. It just takes so many mental gymnastics moves it stops being feasible.

I get - He is the Word made flesh and we need to eat the Word. Okay, I am with you on that. What I cannot reconcile is drinking the blood. The blood wasn't for "us" to consume - it was the sacrifice required by YHWH and we were NOT to consume it, we weren't even supposed to touch it.

The reason this is even coming up is because I am preparing for Passover. I sat there realizing how utterly insane it would be to tell my children the wine represented blood and we are supposed to drink it! That is insane. Everything represents something when it comes to Passover, nothing was done by accident. While there was a blood sacrifice, what was done with that blood was NOT what was spoken in that verse. It just doesn't fit. Am I really supposed to tell my kids we are "spiritually" drinking the blood of Yahoshua? Yes, reading and studying the Torah can easily be related to consuming the entire Lamb which is the Word. I can easily talk to them about Him being the Unleavened Bread. I can easily reconcile that He was the First Fruit offering. But I still cannot see the Son of YHWH evening "encouraging" His followers to metaphorically drink blood. The blood of the Passover lamb went on the doorpost - not in the mouths of the children of Israel. How does holding up a cup, telling people it represents blood, and telling them to drink it lend itself at all to the Passover story? Show me somewhere, anywhere in scripture where "spiritually", "metaphorically", or naturally drinking blood ever was a part of the Feasts or any sacrifice before YHWH? It cannot, at all, in any way shape or form be reconciled with the rest of Torah in my mind. If it can be reconciled with the Torah - please, I am begging, show me. All I want is someone to help me see, in Torah, somewhere in Scripture - naturally, symbolically, spiritually, metaphorically, technically, or in parable drinking blood represented reading Torah, honoring Torah, obeying Torah, studying Torah, consuming Torah. I just cannot find it. Yes, I am stuck with English translations, I don't know Hebrew, I don't know Greek. I am very limited. So please, help me out. Because, right now - I can't reconcile it with the words, commands, or acts of YHWH at all.
Offline FredSnell  
#9 Posted : Thursday, February 9, 2012 7:02:17 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I have searched for an answer high and low, and not yet have I heard anyone explain any better than YT does. You sure asked an interesting one there, dajstill. I have read answers that reflect many understandings, but they are all over the place for the most part. It might get an answer of some measure on a Friday show of YY. I think that's when yada likes to answer any question he can. I already know it can't be literal or we'd be vampires and zombies.
Offline Yah Tselem  
#10 Posted : Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:26:05 AM(UTC)
Yah Tselem
Joined: 3/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 212
Man
United States
Location: Southern Wisconsin

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Daj, I looked at Swalchy's version of these verses, but that don't help, as it still mentions His blood.. We need to keep in mind that we can't put a lot of trust into the witness writings, since they are a translation of a translation of a etc.. Hey, speaking of getting ready for Passover, if you go to the radio archives, I just listened to a good one that talks about Passover.. it was Apr 18 2011.. the first one after Yada came back to do more shows.
Offline Mike  
#11 Posted : Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:23:54 PM(UTC)
Mike
Joined: 10/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 521
Location: Texas

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Dajstill,

Unfortunately we don’t have the original writings of MattithYah (Matthew). The earliest surviving papyri fragment is this one at Swalchy’s web site I believe. And it is a translation of the original.

Papyrus 37: Dated to 250 CE Containing MattithYah 26:19-52

26Consuming but as they, having accepted the Yahus[hua bread, and having b]lessed, He calledb, and having granted to the disciples s[aid, “Ac- cept, ea]t. This exists as the body My.” 27And having accepted t[he cup, and having giv]en thanks, He granted it to them, saying, “Drink from [it, every- one. 28Thi]s for exists the blood my of the covenant, th[e one concerning many bei]ng poured outc on behalf of forgiveness of Torah violations. 29I s[ay but to you neve]r may I drink starting here from this d offspring of the v[ine until th]e day that when it I may have drank toget[her with you afresh] in the kingdom of the FatherMy.” 30 And having s[ung, they left t]o go to the mountain of theolives.

bThe initial reading of εκαλεσεν possibly came about when the scribe accidently overlooked the λ, and continued to write out a word he knew. However, the meaning of the word εκαλεσεν is “He called,” which makes absolutely no sense in this context. Thankfully the scribe corrected the work back to εκλασεν, giving the translation “He broke it.”

The sad fact of not having early copies of MattithYah is discussed below at: http://www.jesuswordsonl...cripts-that-survive.html

This then allows us to make a conclusion that other than these papyri fragments all Greek texts earlier than 340-380 AD have been lost. And one of the reasons is evident by looking at Matthew 28:19. All scholars and the RCC admit there was a forgery to add the trinity formula for baptism into the text. But because no post 340-380 AD Greek text omits it -- while it is omitted in the ancient Syriac and old African Latin and the Hebrew Shem-Tob Matthew which rely upon sources predating 340 AD, there must have been an effort to eradicate the earlier Greek texts of Matthew that conflicted with orthodoxy that was willing to alter Matthew 28:19 to sustain late doctrines. This is alluded to by Conybear:
"In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version [in Greek] has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising for as Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us, 'the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them,' and which they held to be the right readings." (Conybear, Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907) at 424.
In other words, Conybear is saying that since scribes were freely altering texts to insert doctrines that were developing, the fact no conflicting text survived in Greek regarding Matthew 28:19 bespeaks that scribes did not want those texts to survive to challenge their work. The problem for those scribes is (a) we now have recovered fragments of earlier versions of passages other than Matthew 28:19 that show their corrupting efforts; and (b) the early church 'fathers' such as Origen, Justin, Tertullian etc., recorded in the 100s and 200s the early versions of Matthew and thus we can see that way the corrupting hand of scribes operated. Hence, this makes it necessary for Christians to exhort scholars to reconstruct faithfullly the original form of Matthew and the other gospels, to remove the hand of scribes who thought to 'help' in this improper manner.

Shalom
Offline Richard  
#12 Posted : Thursday, February 9, 2012 2:10:21 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Which adds weight to Yada's assertions that we do not really need anything from the later writings in order to walk with Yahowah in accordance with His family-oriented Covenant. The later writings could actually be helpful, and even precious, IF they were not so demonstrably unreliable. However, since they are indeed unreliable, they cannot possibly be necessary.

Edited by user Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:14:22 AM(UTC)  | Reason: highlighted all-caps word "IF"

Offline dajstill  
#13 Posted : Friday, February 10, 2012 8:49:54 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Thanks so much everyone who has responded - it has all been helpful. I am with you Flintface on agreeing with Yada's assertion as well.

Offline dajstill  
#14 Posted : Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:55:05 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Duh! Got my answer in the same chapter of John! Violated a YY rule (taking scriptures without reading the entire chapter in full) and see where that got me!!

Thankfully, I was reading on this website and it got me to the right direction: http://judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua%27s.htm

I had to read John 6:63!

In fact, If I read 6:61 it would have lead me to the answer. But Yahshua knowing within Himself that His taught ones were grumbiling about this, said to them "Does this make you stumble?" 62: "What if you see the Son of Adam going up where He was before?" 63: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh does not profit at all. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and are life."

So, Yahoshua clearly says that he is talking about His words. However, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the communion services I encountered as a Christian. Also, and this is what really, really threw me - I had associated it with what Paul Wrote in 1 Corinthians!

1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 25 says:
For I received from the Master that which I also delivered to you: that the Master Yahoshua in the night in which He was delivered took bread, and having given thanks, He broke it and said "Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me" In the same way also the cup, after supper saying "This cup is the renewed covenant in My blood. As often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me"

So, this was my Christian mind superimposing Paul over John. Yahoshua clearly explained to His followers that He wasn't literally talking about eating His flesh or drinking His blood - but was talking His Words, eating and drinking His Words. However, this explanation is nowhere in Corinthians. The Corinthians verse is the one that was quoted for every Christian communion service I took part in. So, when I read John I was associating it with Corinthians.

Now, Corinthians I still throw out completely. Especially since is clearly goes in a different direction than where Yahoshua went. Corinthians even goes further saying in 28 - 29: So that whoever should eat this bread or drink this cup of the Master unworthily shall be guilty of that bread and drink of that cup. For the one who is eating and drinking unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Master.

Yahoshua NEVER said anything like that. In fact, He clearly explained that He was talking about his Words and it wasn't supposed to be some bread/wine ritual. Also, isn't everyone "unworthy"? Who could be deemed "worthy"? I have absolutely GOT to get Paul out of my head. It is absolutely damaging my ability to eat the right Words of Yahoshua. I think I might really need to abandon the NT until I have the Scriptures (Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) down in my spirit filled to the brink. I honestly think that is going to be the only way to flush Paul out of my system.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#15 Posted : Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:59:06 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Did you miss post #5?

I'm learning much from your comments/questions and appreciate all of your input.
Offline FredSnell  
#16 Posted : Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:59:52 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Matthew/Mattanyah:

16:13 When Yahushua/Yahowsha came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist/Yahuwchanan the Immerser: some, EliYah/Elyah; and others, Jeremias/Yirmayahuw, or one of the prophets.

16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16:16 And Peter/Simon Kepha answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim.

16:17 And Yahushua/Yahowsha answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Peter/Simon: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Kepha, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.