Yes, red wine remains red in appearance as red wine.
Can a person drink blood and get drunk from it ?
When a priest drinks too much communion wine he gets enebriated.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John 6:53 (King James Version)
- Thread starter Sister Cyber
- Start date
Yes, red wine remains red in appearance as red wine.
Can a person drink blood and get drunk from it ?
When a priest drinks too much communion wine he gets enebriated.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not!! IT is symbolizing or representing something. So are you saying that we should eat flesh and blood? No, of course not. Just like baptisim, it symbolizes Jesus's death and resurrection. Very simple. The apostles knew that too. You probably believe in substitution too. I hope not.....
Yes, that right. Only God can give someone eternal life and He can do that through His son too.
Sister Cyber
Member
Not so. Your mix-and-match patch-up of scripture is an opinion; one teaching which is not a part of the actual accounts of the disciples who experienced the last supper before THE LAST Supper. Let's take a look at the Passover meal popularly referred to as "the last supper," when the man called jesus used the bread and wine in a dress rehearsal to remind his disciples in a very real way of what they were to do to him ~ eat him up and drink his blood. The mind-blower is that at the meal, he blessed the matzah (unleavened bread) in an unusual way, calling it his body and breaking it for his disciples to share, and then he blessed the chalice of wine (which, according to luke's story, he did not drink...) in an equally unsettling manner ~ he called it his blood. It was a practice session with impact for when they actually shared in theREAL Last Supper ~ the literal feast on his body to honor what their master verily, verily charged unto them days before the Passover.
Imagine, if you will, being a fly on the wall "in the upper room" over 2,000 years and a decade ago, where the man called jesus assumed the seat at the head of the table and observed with his disciples the high holy jewish ceremonies in remembrance of the tale of how death passed over the homes of their ancestors because they splashed the required sacrificial blood on the doorposts.
Are you there?
Having been married for a number of years to an Israelite who followed the religious belief system of Judaism, to help set the scene for those unfamiliar with the practices of traditional Jewish custom, I can tell you that the Seder (passover meal) is not a celebration; it is an observance, and it's supposed to be an extremely solemn occasion. In addition to eating matzah and drinking wine, it is common tradition for whole horseradish (root) to be eaten, to remind them of the bitter times of their forefathers and to literally bring tears to their eyes, for the shedding of tears is a most important element in the observance of passover. Roasted lamb is a most important serving in the Seder, for it represents the sacrificial lamb that was eaten after the required blood of it was splashed on the doorposts and its body cooked (biblically, "burned") upon the altar grill as is in jewish custom concerning sacrifical offerings to the god of their understanding. Hence the biblical reference in Mark 14:12: "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," and in luke 22:7: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
The tears they shed at the table together that evening were undoubtedly full of emotion; not so much for the past of passover because I am sure that they were crying about the events that were to unfold in their very-near future.
Suffice it to say that during the non-celebratory observance they had gathered for, there was no laughing, joking, goofing around or spreading of good cheer going on that night at the dinner table "in the upper room" at all.
Do you see it more clearly in the moment yet?
I am sure it was very quiet as they took their seats at the table after the necessary preparations and waited for their master to bless the Seder according to custom.
Remember and bear in mind, that the setting of the passover observance was used by him to be a solemn reminder to his disciples and he called the matzah his flesh as he broke it and told them to eat it as such. The wine of which he did not partake, he described as his blood and told them to drink it as such.
Zero in on that image with me because I can just see his serious facial expression as he spoke and made meaningful eye contact with each of them, then watched each bite of bread and each sip of wine from the chalice that they shared the wine from.
Consider the story of how they ran out of wine at that rich governor's wedding reception he was at with his mother when he miraculously turned the water in barrels into the best wine they had consumed all night. With that idea in mind, being the miracle worker he was purported to have been, I can reasonably imagine beyond a shadow of a doubt that his blessing of the meal had a powerful psychological impact on the disciples, but more especially an actual and mysteriously eerie effect on the matzah and wine jesus passed around, so that each bite, chew and swallow of the bread in their mouths had the distinct flavor, quality and texture of cooked meat as they consumed it during the sacred meal, and that what they drank from the chalice that he did not drink from with them had also mysteriously taken on the aroma, taste and consistency of blood.
If you are still that fly on the wall, flutter with me over to the middle of the table and land right in the center so you can see everyone's face up close.
Can you imagine the initial response and recovery after that first bite and that first sip, by each disciple who realized that what it tasted like they were eating and drinking was definitely not what they thought they knew they put in their mouth was supposed to taste or feel like?
There they were, eating the meaty "bread" and drinking the bloody "wine" while watching each other weep in a true display of the charged emotion of the occasion as they prepared themselves in mind and body when it hit home that they were really going to be eating jesus soon whenever the sacrifice was made.
On Easter Sunday, I was moved to add that as they ate and drank, the euphoric effects of the blood-wine that he did not drink any of may have caused them to "have a foretaste" or sampling of the power claimed to have been embodied in his flesh and blood, which I imagine was in no way an unpleasant or undesirable feeling for them to have experienced, and probably even had them more eagerly looking forward to the sacrifice because they mighthave been crying inspired tears of joyful anticipation of their "blessed assurance" after having their "FORETASTE of glory devine." Wow.
He knew he was going to be in big trouble in a matter of hours ~ very soon. He used the Seder as an opportunity to prepare them by going through the motions, of what was to actually take place within a few days.
I thought I would provide the biblical text for those who, like me, may be too lazy to reach for a bible for themselves or who may not own one or otherwise have an excuse not to peruse the references. Read them carefully; don't add anything to it or take anything away from it:
Mark 14:12-24
Matthew 26:17-28a
Luke 22:7-20
John 13:1 gives an idea of jesus' mental attitude just before the last supper before THE LASTSupper: "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."
Unlike mark, matthew and luke however, John, in his unique detail as an eyewitness, was rather moved to document the events that transpired right after the last supper before THELAST Supper, when he stripped naked, washed their feet and dried them using the cloth that covered his groin. Again, read it carefully, with sensible understanding, without adding anything to or taking away from the text as it is written, so that you receive trueunderstanding:
In spite of people's historic naming of that Passover observance as "the last supper," the fact is that biblical texts do clearly state that the man called jesus did most certainly and indeed wine and dine with his disciples on many occasions during the forty days he spent hanging out with them after he left the tomb as you know, or will soon come to know....
kepha31
Active Member
The priest consumes a small amount, so does everyone else. You can't get inebriated on a sip. How many Masses have you attended that qualifies you to make such dogmatic declarations?
___________________________________
St. Irenaeus tells us (circa A.D. 180) that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, the teacher of Irenaeus’s mentor Polycarp.His word and the Tradition of the whole Church trumps the opinions of higher critics any day.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel
___________________________________
A Satire on the Modernist Distortion of Jesus’ Human Nature and
Denigration of the Reliability of Holy Scripture
Denigration of the Reliability of Holy Scripture
The following is a satirical treatment of certain liberal theological tendencies in Christology and the study of Holy Scripture — somewhat in the style of C.S. Lewis’Screwtape Letters. In other words, what I write in the first section, I don’t really believe. It is the opposite of the theology of the Catholic Church (with which I agree). The idea is to reduce the heterodox view of Jesus Christ and the hyper-critical approach to Holy Scripture to foolishness, by utilizing a well-known technique of classical logic, called the argumentum ad absurdum. If the reader can bear with my deliberate satire and sarcasm, later I explain precisely what I meant: the very serious underlying point I am attempting to make.
The “agony in the garden” scene has several manifestations in the Gospels: In Luke it occurs on the Mount of olives; in Matthew it occurs at Gethsemane (probably the same exact place: “gethsemane” means oil press); in Mark, it is also Gethsemane; in John it is a garden, again in the Kidron valley and very likely Gethsamene. In the first three accounts there is no garden, but anguish and agony; in the last there is a garden but no agony [Lk.22:39-44; Mt.26:36-40; Mk.14:32-37; Jn.18:1-11].
Obviously the Bible writers contradict themselves, then. No doubt the contradictions were added to the Bible later by zealous Christians who anxiously awaited the arrival of the higher critics.
The witnesses and evangelists all deal variously with the nature of Jesus.
More contradictions, showing the “human nature” of the Scripture over against its Divine (Inspired) Nature. But of course God wanted the human element to be in the forefront.
This is good scriptural evidence for the fully human nature within the hypostatic union. We must connect with Jesus here in a visceral way. He is suffering and agonizing to the point of death. There is little to suggest that these accounts are unhistorical; this happened.
Yes, but we can’t trust these accounts, because they were added later in order to emphasize Jesus’ humanity. We must accept only the passages stressing Christ’s divinity as authentic, deriving from the Petrine “Q” etc.
And it is totally absent from John. Why? Is John a bad historian? Does he deny the humanity of Jesus?
Naw; if he could just be left on his own without all these darned later additions, he would have done a fine job . . .
Suffice it to say that John’s goal is different from the Synoptic. Whereas the latter seek to show us the essence of human suffering of abandonment and betrayal, the former seeks to show the Divine in hypostatic union with the human.
There you go again! Can’t you see that this is a proof of later additions? Otherwise, John would ignore the humanity of Jesus and stick to the Divine . . .
The synoptics show us a Jesus struggling with his fate, petitioning God; John shows us a Jesus, not struggling but sedate in knowledge of victory, in control of all events, demanding their unfolding. Are these two different Jesuses?
Yes (now you’re beginning to catch on!). We know that when the Bible talks about the Divinity of Jesus (i.e., Monophysitism), it is inspired; when it discusses His humanity, these are later gratuitous additions, put in by zealous Chalcedonian or Nestorian scribes who wanted to corrupt the historical portrayal of Jesus with their own Greek mysticism and preconceived notions . . .
At Chalcedon these issues were resolved in a very Greek and mystical way; this is how we understand Jesus today.
Gee, what a shame, eh? Too bad these infallible councils were chained to an outmoded way of thinking. If only the higher critics had been there! They would have avoided these pitfalls . .
There are scholars who would argue that references to this or that were added before this or that event. That may indeed be the case.
Of course it is the case! Haven’t you read what I just wrote yet? Don’t question the higher critics! They are clearly inspired, and we must place more credence in their judgments than in the Tradition of the Church or supposedly “inspired,” “infallible” Scripture, whenever there is a conflict. C’mon, wake up man!
How the gospels came to be written is certainly important stuff on some levels of discussion. Not this level.
Yeah; leave it to the esoteric, Ivory Tower higher critics. How could us mere mortals ever hope to grasp this?
One can never go wrong, however, working from the belief that the Gospels are given by God through the work of human hands.
No! NO! NO! The Bible came down from heaven in the King James Version. What are you, a liberal? Human intervention???!!! That would mean the Bible was possessed of original sin. We need a higher critic to come on this list . . . no doubt about it.
continued here
The “agony in the garden” scene has several manifestations in the Gospels: In Luke it occurs on the Mount of olives; in Matthew it occurs at Gethsemane (probably the same exact place: “gethsemane” means oil press); in Mark, it is also Gethsemane; in John it is a garden, again in the Kidron valley and very likely Gethsamene. In the first three accounts there is no garden, but anguish and agony; in the last there is a garden but no agony [Lk.22:39-44; Mt.26:36-40; Mk.14:32-37; Jn.18:1-11].
Obviously the Bible writers contradict themselves, then. No doubt the contradictions were added to the Bible later by zealous Christians who anxiously awaited the arrival of the higher critics.
The witnesses and evangelists all deal variously with the nature of Jesus.
More contradictions, showing the “human nature” of the Scripture over against its Divine (Inspired) Nature. But of course God wanted the human element to be in the forefront.
This is good scriptural evidence for the fully human nature within the hypostatic union. We must connect with Jesus here in a visceral way. He is suffering and agonizing to the point of death. There is little to suggest that these accounts are unhistorical; this happened.
Yes, but we can’t trust these accounts, because they were added later in order to emphasize Jesus’ humanity. We must accept only the passages stressing Christ’s divinity as authentic, deriving from the Petrine “Q” etc.
And it is totally absent from John. Why? Is John a bad historian? Does he deny the humanity of Jesus?
Naw; if he could just be left on his own without all these darned later additions, he would have done a fine job . . .
Suffice it to say that John’s goal is different from the Synoptic. Whereas the latter seek to show us the essence of human suffering of abandonment and betrayal, the former seeks to show the Divine in hypostatic union with the human.
There you go again! Can’t you see that this is a proof of later additions? Otherwise, John would ignore the humanity of Jesus and stick to the Divine . . .
The synoptics show us a Jesus struggling with his fate, petitioning God; John shows us a Jesus, not struggling but sedate in knowledge of victory, in control of all events, demanding their unfolding. Are these two different Jesuses?
Yes (now you’re beginning to catch on!). We know that when the Bible talks about the Divinity of Jesus (i.e., Monophysitism), it is inspired; when it discusses His humanity, these are later gratuitous additions, put in by zealous Chalcedonian or Nestorian scribes who wanted to corrupt the historical portrayal of Jesus with their own Greek mysticism and preconceived notions . . .
At Chalcedon these issues were resolved in a very Greek and mystical way; this is how we understand Jesus today.
Gee, what a shame, eh? Too bad these infallible councils were chained to an outmoded way of thinking. If only the higher critics had been there! They would have avoided these pitfalls . .
There are scholars who would argue that references to this or that were added before this or that event. That may indeed be the case.
Of course it is the case! Haven’t you read what I just wrote yet? Don’t question the higher critics! They are clearly inspired, and we must place more credence in their judgments than in the Tradition of the Church or supposedly “inspired,” “infallible” Scripture, whenever there is a conflict. C’mon, wake up man!
How the gospels came to be written is certainly important stuff on some levels of discussion. Not this level.
Yeah; leave it to the esoteric, Ivory Tower higher critics. How could us mere mortals ever hope to grasp this?
One can never go wrong, however, working from the belief that the Gospels are given by God through the work of human hands.
No! NO! NO! The Bible came down from heaven in the King James Version. What are you, a liberal? Human intervention???!!! That would mean the Bible was possessed of original sin. We need a higher critic to come on this list . . . no doubt about it.
continued here
Last edited:
kepha31
Active Member
moorea944
Well-Known Member
First Baseman
Retired athlete
kepha31
Active Member
Not just me, Jesus said to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood, repeatedly, emphatically and literally.
No, I don't. The Apostles taught baptismal regeneration, so did Martin Luther, the inventor of sola scriptura. I believe in the revealed truths that have been handed down from the Father to Jesus to the Apostles to their successors. You believe whatever you choose.
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch. What he received from St. John is the same as what the Church has taught consistently for 2000 years.
Of course. Invincible ignorance does not stop anyone from having eternal life. But spiritualizing everything in sight hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism.
"...So it is curious that most Protestants appear to possess a distinct and pronounced presuppositional hostility to the sacramental idea of the Real Presence, flowing as it does so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and Crucifixion itself. To me, this smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist... "
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/12/sacramentalism.html
Last edited:
On an empty stomach even a small amount of communion wine one can feel the effect.
So, if the wine is now blood there would be No effect even on an empty stomach.
After communion, if a person's blood-alcohol level is tested isn't it positive for alcohol ? _______
So, if the wine is now blood there would be No effect even on an empty stomach.
After communion, if a person's blood-alcohol level is tested isn't it positive for alcohol ? _______
Last edited:
Sister Cyber
Member
That depends on what is in the bloodstream.
No, I didn't.
Again, that depends on what is in the bloodstream.
Would the blood of Jesus be intoxicated ?
Sister Cyber
Member
Absolutely. I believe that the blood of Jesus did have a profound effect on the disciples who partook of it during his sacrifice. Its the permeating affect, kind of like someone who eats a lot of fresh garlic, their system is so permeated by it that when they sweat (or not) they smell like garlic, and like someone who drinks a lot of alcohol, same thing - you can smell it coming through their skin whether they just had a drink or not because their system is permeated.
However, I believe it was more like the following, in the case of Jesus....
Jesus' may very-well have prepared his body in a similar fashion, as you would for other meats ~ other types of animal flesh you would normally season with herbs and spices to grill outdoors. It also occurred to me and made much more sense for jesus to have prepared himself by soaking in baths containing certain herbs and spices, beginning with the 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes Nicodemus brought to him when they opened the tomb for him the night his disciples violated the sabbath before they rested in jewish observance.
He soaked not only to heal (sacrifice must be unblemished), but to simultaneously do them the favor of flavoring his flesh by pre-marinating his own body for them, but most especially because of the characteristics and qualities of the types of other herbs and spices that could have been used for the effect they have on the minds and bodies of those who consume them. For instance, many Shamans (Native American Medicine Men and Medicine Women) consume and/or inhale the smoke (sort of akin to aromatherapy) like the hallucinogen "eye-opening" Iowaska -- of certain herbs and things from nature that can facilitate a trance-like state or altered states of (higher) consciousness which may have other specific physical and/or psychological effects on the body and/or mind.
So had Jesus been eating particular herbs or spices for 40 days or 120 years until his sacrifice took place, and had he been soaking in such herbs and spices, his blood would have been permeated. Think of something as simple as taking a shower or bath - your skin being the largest organ absorbs up to eight glasses of water into your bloodstream when you bathe. His blood was so potent that it had profound effects even when it touched the skin of his disciples, though I do admit to being puzzled by the christian's proclaimed desire to be covered with and/or washed in blood.
That is a picture of "Carrie" from the 1970-s movie, covered in blood at her prom. Does "Carrie" look clean to you?
Anyway, I believe that that is verily, verily what Jesus did near-constantly and in every spare moment he did not spend with his disciples for extended periods of time during the 40 days after he left the tomb, so that he was in peak condition and in the best of health by the day he was slaughtered, sacrificed and eaten by them as he commanded, and that it likely occurred on the day of the recorded pentecostal experience when the disciples (initially and specifically PETER, John and Stephen) began "acting with power."
Also consider the story of how they ran out of wine at that rich governor's wedding reception he was at with his mother when he miraculously turned the water in barrels into the best wine they had consumed all night. With that idea in mind, being the miracle worker he was purported to have been, I can reasonably imagine beyond a shadow of a doubt that his blood definitely had some thype of euphoric/intoxicating effect on those who consumed it as commanded, and/or covered/washed themselves in it during the sacrifice.
Consider these popular songs most often, if not always, sung during the religious ceremony of communion; the imagined act of eating Jesus flesh and drinking Jesus blood, which is done because mainstream teaching dictates that when Jesus told his disci0ples at the last supper before THE LAST supper, "This do in remembrance of me":
There is Power, power, wonder-working power in The Blood of the Lamb
There is Power, power, wonder-working power in The Precious Blood of the Lamb
Oh the blood of Jesus, oh the blood of Jesus, oh the blood of Jesus, it will never loose its power
What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus
What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus
Oh precious is the flow that makes me white as snow
No other fount I know, nothing but the blood of Jesus
For my pardon this I see, nothing but the blood of Jesus
For my cleansing this my plea, nothing but the blood of Jesus
This is all my hope and peace, nothing but the blood of Jesus
This is all my righteousness, nothing but the bloo dof Jesus
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins
and sinners plunged beneath the flood lose all their guilty stains
The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day
And there may I though vile as he, wash all my sins away
Then since by faith I saw the stream thy flowing wounds supply
Redeeming love has been my theme and shall be till I die
Dear sc,
The flesh of the Son of man, is the word made flesh, which was typified by the unleavened bread, which is the good seed without leaven. Of course the "Christian" church couldn't stand bread without leaven, so they added the leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee Paul. Now they are stuck with a church of babel/babble, consisting of approximately 38,000 sects, depending on your source.
Sister Cyber
Member
Where do you get this information? is it in biblical scripture that "Christian" church couldn't stand bread without leaven? What this topic is about is how Jesus commanded his disciples to eat him, and they obeyed.
Dear cs,
Yeshua didn't command his disciples to "eat him". They were to eat of the unleavened bread which symbolized his flesh. "Take (unleavened bread) ,eat; this is My body." They did not eat his body, they ate the unleavened bread, which symbolized the word made flesh without hypocrisy, which has been rejected by the "Christian" church, in favor of the gospel of the Pharisee Paul, which is one full of hypocrisy.
Sister Cyber
Member
Should be "SC" and not "cs"
The disciples ate Jesus, as already has been outlined in detail. Sorry if you don't believe it, but it's true.
It says they were eating bread and drinking wine.
Dear sc,
It appears you will believe anything, contrary to common sense and what is written. The thought that you are a nun and think you have married "Christ", also comes across my mind. Being a vestal virgin may have worked for the pagans, but I am not thinking that is the "way" set out by Yeshua. Yeshua's admonition was for "my people to come out of her" (Rev 18:4), which refers to the daughter of Babylon, or to "receive of her plagues". My suggestion would be to follow that admonition.
Thinking you eat "Christ", however many times per week you do it, will not advance your understanding of his message. One must consume the "Word" without leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee.(Mt 16:6)
Sister Cyber
Member
Those scripture references describe the Passover meal popularly referred to as "the last supper," when the man called jesus used the bread and wine in a dress rehearsal to remind his disciples in a very real way of what they were to do to him ~ eat him up and drink his blood. The mind-blower is that at the meal, he blessed the matzah (unleavened bread) in an unusual way, calling it his body and breaking it for his disciples to share, and then he blessed the chalice of wine (which, according to luke's story, he did not drink...) in an equally unsettling manner ~ he called it his blood. It was a practice session with impact for when they actually shared in theREAL Last Supper ~ the literal feast on his body to honor what their master verily, verily charged unto them days before the Passover.
Imagine, if you will, being a fly on the wall "in the upper room" over 2,000 years and a decade ago, where the man called jesus assumed the seat at the head of the table and observed with his disciples the high holy jewish ceremonies in remembrance of the tale of how death passed over the homes of their ancestors because they splashed the required sacrificial blood on the doorposts.
Are you there?
Having been married for a number of years to an Israelite who followed the religious belief system of Judaism, to help set the scene for those unfamiliar with the practices of traditional Jewish custom, I can tell you that the Seder (passover meal) is not a celebration; it is an observance, and it's supposed to be an extremely solemn occasion. In addition to eating matzah and drinking wine, it is common tradition for whole horseradish (root) to be eaten, to remind them of the bitter times of their forefathers and to literally bring tears to their eyes, for the shedding of tears is a most important element in the observance of passover. Roasted lamb is a most important serving in the Seder, for it represents the sacrificial lamb that was eaten after the required blood of it was splashed on the doorposts and its body cooked (biblically, "burned") upon the altar grill as is in jewish custom concerning sacrifical offerings to the god of their understanding. Hence the biblical reference in Mark 14:12: "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," and in luke 22:7: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
The tears they shed at the table together that evening were undoubtedly full of emotion; not so much for the past of passover because I am sure that they were crying about the events that were to unfold in their very-near future.
Suffice it to say that during the non-celebratory observance they had gathered for, there was no laughing, joking, goofing around or spreading of good cheer going on that night at the dinner table "in the upper room" at all.
Do you see it more clearly in the moment yet?
I am sure it was very quiet as they took their seats at the table after the necessary preparations and waited for their master to bless the Seder according to custom.
Remember and bear in mind, that the setting of the passover observance was used by him to be a solemn reminder to his disciples and he called the matzah his flesh as he broke it and told them to eat it as such. The wine of which he did not partake, he described as his blood and told them to drink it as such.
Zero in on that image with me because I can just see his serious facial expression as he spoke and made meaningful eye contact with each of them, then watched each bite of bread and each sip of wine from the chalice that they shared the wine from.
Consider the story of how they ran out of wine at that rich governor's wedding reception he was at with his mother when he miraculously turned the water in barrels into the best wine they had consumed all night. With that idea in mind, being the miracle worker he was purported to have been, I can reasonably imagine beyond a shadow of a doubt that his blessing of the meal had a powerful psychological impact on the disciples, but more especially an actual and mysteriously eerie effect on the matzah and wine jesus passed around, so that each bite, chew and swallow of the bread in their mouths had the distinct flavor, quality and texture of cooked meat as they consumed it during the sacred meal, and that what they drank from the chalice that he did not drink from with them had also mysteriously taken on the aroma, taste and consistency of blood.
If you are still that fly on the wall, flutter with me over to the middle of the table and land right in the center so you can see everyone's face up close.
Can you imagine the initial response and recovery after that first bite and that first sip, by each disciple who realized that what it tasted like they were eating and drinking was definitely not what they thought they knew they put in their mouth was supposed to taste or feel like?
There they were, eating the meaty "bread" and drinking the bloody "wine" while watching each other weep in a true display of the charged emotion of the occasion as they prepared themselves in mind and body when it hit home that they were really going to be eating jesus soon whenever the sacrifice was made.
On Easter Sunday, I was moved to add that as they ate and drank, the euphoric effects of the blood-wine that he did not drink any of may have caused them to "have a foretaste" or sampling of the power claimed to have been embodied in his flesh and blood, which I imagine was in no way an unpleasant or undesirable feeling for them to have experienced, and probably even had them more eagerly looking forward to the sacrifice because they mighthave been crying inspired tears of joyful anticipation of their "blessed assurance" after having their "FORETASTE of glory devine." Wow.
As I said, he knew he was going to be in big trouble in a matter of hours ~ very soon. He used the Seder as an opportunity to prepare them by going through the motions, of what was to actually take place within a few days.
I thought I would provide the biblical text for those who, like me, may be too lazy to reach for a bible for themselves or who may not own one or otherwise have an excuse not to peruse the references. Now, read them carefully again; don't add anything to it or take anything away from it....
Sister Cyber
Member
Mark 14:12-24: "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."
Matthew 26:17-28a: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many..."
Luke 22:7-20: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed FOR YOU."
John 13:1 gives an idea of jesus' mental attitude just before the last supper before THE LASTSupper: "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."
Unlike mark, matthew and luke however, John, in his unique detail as an eyewitness, was rather moved to document the events that transpired right after the last supper before THELAST Supper, when he stripped naked, washed their feet and dried them using the cloth that covered his groin. Again, read it carefully, with sensible understanding, without adding anything to or taking away from the text as it is written, so that you receive trueunderstanding:
"And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.<p> </p>Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.<p> </p>Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.<p> </p>A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.<p> </p>Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."
In spite of people's historic naming of that Passover observance as "the last supper," the fact is that biblical texts do clearly state that the man called jesus did most certainly and indeed wine and dine with his disciples on many occasions during the forty days he spent hanging out with them after he left the tomb as you know, or will soon come to know....
Matthew 26:17-28a: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many..."
Luke 22:7-20: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed FOR YOU."
John 13:1 gives an idea of jesus' mental attitude just before the last supper before THE LASTSupper: "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."
Unlike mark, matthew and luke however, John, in his unique detail as an eyewitness, was rather moved to document the events that transpired right after the last supper before THELAST Supper, when he stripped naked, washed their feet and dried them using the cloth that covered his groin. Again, read it carefully, with sensible understanding, without adding anything to or taking away from the text as it is written, so that you receive trueunderstanding:
"And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.<p> </p>Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.<p> </p>Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.<p> </p>A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.<p> </p>Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."
In spite of people's historic naming of that Passover observance as "the last supper," the fact is that biblical texts do clearly state that the man called jesus did most certainly and indeed wine and dine with his disciples on many occasions during the forty days he spent hanging out with them after he left the tomb as you know, or will soon come to know....