Christians: The doctrines of the Eucharist

[-Peacemaker-]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse." You have one verse which could easily be Jesus using the bread to symbolically represent himself. It could be very much like when you show someone a photo of your mother and say "this is my mother." It doesn't mean you're related to a picture or that a picture gave birth to you. Catholics however take that one verse and create a whole theology around it in which a ceremony is included into the mass where the priest "transforms" the bread into literally the flesh of JC. This literal flesh is supposed to contain all these special graces which is available to those who eat it. The interesting thing is that JC said exactly what the eating of the bread really means in the next verses. It's to be done IN REMEBERANCE of him. That's all it is, something to help us remember what God did for us through JC. Just like the passover was instituted to remind Jews of what God did for them at Egypt. I think Catholics are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Sojourner, you had a great post in the Mary thread on this subject. I'd love for you to post it here

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Is it really his literal skin and muscles that he feeds us or is it his teaching and all the benefits that come with sonship (salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and God's purpose for our lives)?

 

[Me Myself]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse." You have one verse which could easily be Jesus using the bread to symbolically represent himself. It could be very much like when you show someone a photo of your mother and say "this is my mother." It doesn't mean you're related to a picture or that a picture gave birth to you. Catholics however take that one verse and create a whole theology around it in which a ceremony is included into the mass where the priest "transforms" the bread into literally the flesh of JC. This literal flesh is supposed to contain all these special graces which is available to those who eat it. The interesting thing is that JC said exactly what the eating of the bread really means in the next verses. It's to be done IN REMEBERANCE of him. That's all it is, something to help us remember what God did for us through JC. Just like the passover was instituted to remind Jews of what God did for them at Egypt. I think Catholics are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

One a guy who revives someone saying s/he was only asleep tells you that whatever he is giving you is his flesh. I, personally, would see no reason to beleive he is not saying that seriously.

And yes, catholic church eats Jesus flesh and blood in REMEMBRANCE of when the apostles ate Jesus flesh and blood.

I think you are making it confusing where it doesn´t need to be.

You can think he said it literally, you can think he didn´t. None of those ways of "thinking" are particularly bold after yo already beleive all the miracles he did were truly his so, no real biggy.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Here are verses talking about WHY we do communion

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26 -proclamation of what he did


And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24- Remeberance of what he did



Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 participation in the body of Christ

I haven't seen any verses in Scripture expounding upon the special graces received by virtue of having JC's blood literally coarsing through our veins

 

[Me Myself]

Here are verses talking about WHY we do communion

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26 -proclamation of what he did


And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24- Remeberance of what he did



Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 participation in the body of Christ

I haven't seen any verses in Scripture expounding upon the special graces received by virtue of having JC's blood literally coarsing through our veins

Why haven´t you? Actually (and I am quite serious) if you get Sida you can have that, as long as somebody else is taking care of you.

Jesus said that he *was* the sick.

Now if we go on on interpretation I would extend it to healthy people too and I would hardly say a bread and some wine are not fair play too.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, you had a great post in the Mary thread on this subject. I'd love for you to post it here

Mk. Here it is:

Except that the Greek term used is anamnesis, which means much more than "recalling to mind" or "committing to memory." It means "to pull into the present."
In other words, when the meal is shared, it is shared ONCE in all times and in all places, by all Christians. And when the meal is shared, we also share in the newness of life effected by Christ's resurrection.

I think you're downplaying it to the point of impotence.

From post #133 in the other thread.

 

[kepha31]

Is it really his literal skin and muscles that he feeds us or is it his teaching and all the benefits that come with sonship (salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and God's purpose for our lives)?

Consecrated Bread and "his literal skin and muscles" are one and the same sacrifice.

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.


Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Couldn't you call the remission of our sins a type of feeding that takes place through his body and not the literal act of gnawing on one of his arms?

Jesus didn't say, Take this and eat it, it is the remission of sins" He said, Take this and eat it, this IS My Body..."


John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

One a guy who revives someone saying s/he was only asleep tells you that whatever he is giving you is his flesh. I, personally, would see no reason to beleive he is not saying that seriously.

And yes, catholic church eats Jesus flesh and blood in REMEMBRANCE of when the apostles ate Jesus flesh and blood.

No, we do what He told us to do. And it's still one loaf.

I think you are making it confusing where it doesn´t need to be.

You can think he said it literally, you can think he didn´t. None of those ways of "thinking" are particularly bold after yo already beleive all the miracles he did were truly his so, no real biggy.

Then why is it a real biggy for those who accept His feeding thousands of people, but He is powerless to multiply his Body and Blood in the form of Bread and Wine for the life of the world?

And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24- Remeberance of what he did. Your definition of "rememberance" is more sentimental or cerebral and not how the word is used in scripture. See above.

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 participation in the body of Christ

I haven't seen any verses in Scripture expounding upon the special graces received by virtue of having JC's blood literally coarsing through our veins

That's because you still think of it as manna and wine.

source of citations: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IId

 

[javajo]

I like the wine part...jk.

 

[sojourner]

I like the wine part...jk.

Any old port in a storm...

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Consecrated Bread and "his literal skin and muscles" are one and the same sacrifice.

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.


Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.


Jesus didn't say, Take this and eat it, it is the remission of sins" He said, Take this and eat it, this IS My Body..."


John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.


No, we do what He told us to do. And it's still one loaf.

Then why is it a real biggy for those who accept His feeding thousands of people, but He is powerless to multiply his Body and Blood in the form of Bread and Wine for the life of the world?
1 Corinthians 11:24- Remeberance of what he did. Your definition of "rememberance" is more sentimental or cerebral and not how the word is used in scripture. See above.


That's because you still think of it as manna and wine.

source of citations: Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST

Talking about Greek and Hebrew is beyond my area of expertise. My guess is that it's beyond yours also but that's just me betting on the odds that you aren't a Greek or Hebrew scholar. You've cut and pasted arguements from a Catholic apologetic website. I can assure you that I could find a rebuttal to every one of them but I figure you could just go to the Protestant apologetic websites yourself if you're that interested in reading those scholarly arguements. You can literally find a "scholarly" arguement to support any side of just about any arguement that ever existed so I don't necessarily find it compelling when someone with a PHD starts spouting off on a certain subject.

 

[kepha31]

Talking about Greek and Hebrew is beyond my area of expertise. My guess is that it's beyond yours also but that's just me betting on the odds that you aren't a Greek or Hebrew scholar. You've cut and pasted arguements from a Catholic apologetic website. I can assure you that I could find a rebuttal to every one of them but I figure you could just go to the Protestant apologetic websites yourself if you're that interested in reading those scholarly arguements. You can literally find a "scholarly" arguement to support any side of just about any arguement that ever existed so I don't necessarily find it compelling when someone with a PHD starts spouting off on a certain subject.

The truth rests on it's own merits, or it's not truth. The Truth doesn't need scholarly arguments. Selecting "truth" soley on the grounds of lexicons, concordances and pure human effort is a form of Pelagianism. I will take the divine protection promised by Christ, the councils, the fathers, the saints and other sources over and above Protestant human opinion any day.
Christianity without consistency is what?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The truth rests on it's own merits, or it's not truth. The Truth doesn't need scholarly arguments. Selecting "truth" soley on the grounds of lexicons, concordances and pure human effort is a form of Pelagianism. I will take the divine protection promised by Christ, the councils, the fathers, the saints and other sources over and above Protestant human opinion any day.
Christianity without consistency is what?

But you're talking about translating the meaning of Greek words. Believe it or not that translation can vary depending on the "expert" doing the translating

 

[joe28]

One a guy who revives someone saying s/he was only asleep tells you that whatever he is giving you is his flesh. I, personally, would see no reason to beleive he is not saying that seriously.

And yes, catholic church eats Jesus flesh and blood in REMEMBRANCE of when the apostles ate Jesus flesh and blood.

I think you are making it confusing where it doesn´t need to be.

You can think he said it literally, you can think he didn´t. None of those ways of "thinking" are particularly bold after yo already beleive all the miracles he did were truly his so, no real biggy.

here is my reply to your remarks, i see protestants still trying to carry on there silly refromation with luther who has been dead for 450 yrs or more, if you read the new testatment, it explain the catholic churchs position on the eucharest and other such believes, the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine which even the lutherns and the anglicans still partake in every mass, only the extremists in the evangilical christian chruchs such as the southern baptits and the pentacastols do they have a problem with such practices which has been tradionaly christian for about 1500 yrs before martin luther, and john calvin if i am saying his name right. period

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, you had a great post in the Mary thread on this subject. I'd love for you to post it here

Been too long. Wouldn't know where to begin looking.

But I will say that the word translated as "remembrance" is the Greek anamnesis. The meaning is more than simply recalling a past event. Anamnesis must be viewed in a non-linear way. Anamnesis seeks to pull past events into our present, so that we may participate in them. Therefore, when anamnesis is invoked in the Eucharist, we are not simply eating bread that reminds us of Jesus, we are participating in the very bodily self-sacrifice of Jesus, which has been pulled into our present, and been made part of our physical reality.

 

[obi one]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse." You have one verse which could easily be Jesus using the bread to symbolically represent himself. It could be very much like when you show someone a photo of your mother and say "this is my mother." It doesn't mean you're related to a picture or that a picture gave birth to you. Catholics however take that one verse and create a whole theology around it in which a ceremony is included into the mass where the priest "transforms" the bread into literally the flesh of JC. This literal flesh is supposed to contain all these special graces which is available to those who eat it. The interesting thing is that JC said exactly what the eating of the bread really means in the next verses. It's to be done IN REMEBERANCE of him. That's all it is, something to help us remember what God did for us through JC. Just like the passover was instituted to remind Jews of what God did for them at Egypt. I think Catholics are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. The "Word" is the Scripture (OT) plus his testimony (Rev 19:10). One needs to eat the "Word", which is shown by eating the unleavened bread. The bread needs to be unleavened because it needs to be Yeshua's testimony and with no double minded hypocracy of the Pharisees added. Of course, as it turns out, the hypocracy of the Pharisees has leavened the whole loaf. The message of the kingdom of God is a Spiritual message, with each aspect paralleled with something physical. The circumcision of the flesh is mirrored by the circumcision of the heart as shown in Jeremiah 31:33.

 

[obi one]

The truth rests on it's own merits, or it's not truth. The Truth doesn't need scholarly arguments. Selecting "truth" soley on the grounds of lexicons, concordances and pure human effort is a form of Pelagianism. I will take the divine protection promised by Christ, the councils, the fathers, the saints and other sources over and above Protestant human opinion any day.
Christianity without consistency is what?

It seems to me that the Catholic Church lacks a certain consistancy. Back in the day, Catholics could not eat meat on Friday, the mass was in Latin, Protestants supposedly all went to hell, etc. I was raised in a Catholic family, but my friends were mostly Protestants. Although both sects seemed to have similiar problems, I felt that while the Protestants have plenty of stumbling blocks, the Catholics have the over riding stumbling block of Peter. (Mt 16:23)

It seems that each sect tries to take the splinter out of each other's eye, yet they keep over looking the logs that both seem to have which goes in one ear and out the other.

I know some older Catholic nuns, and it seems that they would roast those Catholic leaders, responsible for pediphilia in the church, over a hot fire. There seems to be a complete lack of respect for the leadership among some of its members. Personally, I think the original respect for their leadership was misplaced. Neither sect seems to have even a rudimentary understanding of what Yeshua taught.

 

[obi one]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse." You have one verse which could easily be Jesus using the bread to symbolically represent himself. It could be very much like when you show someone a photo of your mother and say "this is my mother." It doesn't mean you're related to a picture or that a picture gave birth to you. Catholics however take that one verse and create a whole theology around it in which a ceremony is included into the mass where the priest "transforms" the bread into literally the flesh of JC. This literal flesh is supposed to contain all these special graces which is available to those who eat it. The interesting thing is that JC said exactly what the eating of the bread really means in the next verses. It's to be done IN REMEBERANCE of him. That's all it is, something to help us remember what God did for us through JC. Just like the passover was instituted to remind Jews of what God did for them at Egypt. I think Catholics are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

You seem to miss the point. Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. And the bread of the Passover is unleavened bread. The unleavened bread is meant to symbolize that you must consume the "Word" (Law & prophets), without the hypocracy of the Pharisees (leaven). The most vocal Pharisee of the Pharisees being Paul. The Law & the prophets is the Spirit of Revelation, and the Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of Revelations (Rev19:10) These you must consume to be reborn. The bread must be unleavened.

 

[sojourner]

Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. The "Word" is the Scripture (OT) plus his testimony (Rev 19:10). One needs to eat the "Word", which is shown by eating the unleavened bread. The bread needs to be unleavened because it needs to be Yeshua's testimony and with no double minded hypocracy of the Pharisees added. Of course, as it turns out, the hypocracy of the Pharisees has leavened the whole loaf. The message of the kingdom of God is a Spiritual message, with each aspect paralleled with something physical. The circumcision of the flesh is mirrored by the circumcision of the heart as shown in Jeremiah 31:33.

Except that's not what John meant by logos...
logos does not mean "scripture."

 

[sojourner]

You seem to miss the point. Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. And the bread of the Passover is unleavened bread. The unleavened bread is meant to symbolize that you must consume the "Word" (Law & prophets), without the hypocracy of the Pharisees (leaven). The most vocal Pharisee of the Pharisees being Paul. The Law & the prophets is the Spirit of Revelation, and the Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of Revelations (Rev19:10) These you must consume to be reborn. The bread must be unleavened.

You seem to miss the point that the bread of the Passover happened before the advent of either the Law or the prophets. the bread of the Passover was unleavened, because leavening bread takes a lengthy process -- time which the refugees didn't have.
Your exegesis is cute, but mistaken.