Protestants reject the Eucharist as being actually substantially Christ's body and blood and opt for a symbolic view on the basis that eating blood and flesh of man is forbidden by the laws of Moses, therefore it would be "unclean" for Christ to actually do this.
However, Protestants generally make another argue that's unrelated about statues and images. They say the Laws of Moses forbid making statues and graven images in Exodus 20 in the 10 commandments, then say it does not matter that Exodus 25 has God ordering Moses to make a statue of angels on the ark, since its an exception and God specifically gave him orders to build it, so its ok for Moses.
Now, if we are to apply this reasoning to the Eucharistic debate their logic backfires on them. They would have to admit that despite God prohibiting eating flesh and blood in the Law, that if God (in the person of Christ) instructs people to eat His flesh and Blood, then it is lawful and must be done, since orders were given to do precisely that. So the Protestant's symbolic view of the Eucharist on the basis of prohibition of blood backfires on them and shows they have a double standard.
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath--Exodus 20:3
And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends of the ark-cover.
--Exodus 25:18
But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.--Deuteronomy 12:23
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.--John 6:53
Law God's "special instruction"
Don't drink blood (Deuteronomy 12:23) "Drink my blood" (John 6:53)
Don't make a graven images (Exodus 20:3) "make two cherubim of gold"(Exodus 25:18)
Furthermore, the law explains why not to "eat" the blood, because the "blood is the life" and Jesus said you must drink His blood to have life!
Also, some explain the commandment to drink His blood as a symbol that they are no longer bound to the laws of Moses but under a new covenant with new promises.
*Also Acts states:
avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood--Acts 15:20 (some debate if drinking blood is alluded to here at all, some believe its an expression for violence)
Regardless, if we are to accept the Protestant reasoning that a specific commandment may be an exception to a general rule, then even if Acts 15:20 addresses drinking blood, it does not matter since a specific command was given to do it in a special case with Christ.
Here is evidence Abba does not mean "daddy" we see Joseph addressing Pharoah talking about his father and brothers, and the accompanying Aramaic translation. The Hebrew has avi , the Aramaic has aba אַבָּא
Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said: 'My fatherand my
brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are
come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of
Goshen.'
--Genesis 47:1
וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי וְעָנְהוֹן
וְתוֹרֵיהוֹן וְכָל דִּילְהוֹן, אֲתוֹ מֵאַרְעָא דִּכְנָעַן; וְהָא
אִנּוּן, בְּאַרְעָא דְּגֹשֶׁן.
--Genesis 47:1 Onkelos Aramaic Translation using Hebrew font The Hebrew text reads Avi אָבִי , 'my father', the Aramaic reads אַבָּא aba, though another site has it as אַבָה --ava.
Now if Abba/Aba/a means "daddy" how silly would it be for Joseph--the prime minister of Egypt to address his boss concerning his father and brother using the word "daddy"? It would have been embarrassing! Granted Joseph probably did not use either Abba or Avi, since he would have been speaking Coptic to the Pharoah, however the Hebrew bible and the Aramaic translation of it use the ORDINARY word for "my father" which are avi and aba/ava.
Furthermore, Barabbas, has the word abba in it, yet no one supposes this means "son of daddy,"
We see the Aramaic texts (old Syriac and Peshitta) have Aba/Ava spelled the same as the Aramaic text of Genesis 47:1 "וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי " Here is how two popular Protestant lexicons explain the name "Bar Abbas"
Thayer
Barabbas = "son of a father or master"
1) the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
Strong
G912
Of Chaldee origin ([H1347] and G5 (Greek)); son of Abba; Bar-abbas, an Israelite: - Barabbas.
We see it is either a name, or just how to say "father", and if it is a name, its not likely a parent will name their son "daddy" (unless they're Hispanic, but even it would be a petname).
Now, let's go to the texts where the word "Abba" appears in Greek and English untranslated:
And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”--Mark 14:36 NASB
And he said, Father, my Father, thou canst (do) every thing, cause to pass from me this cup: but not my will, but thine.--Mark 14:36, Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
"And He said, My Father, everything is in your hands, it has arrived. Make this cup pass from me, yet not according to my will, but according to your will."--Mark 14:36 translation of Old Syriac Sinaiticus page 364
Elsewhere in the Peshitta text of Mark we see the SAME EXACT spelling of Aba being used
Jeshu responded and said, Amen I say
to you, There is no man who forsaketh houses, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of me,
and on account of my gospel,
--Mark 10:29 Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
"For a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father [ܘܐܒܐ] his son, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them."--Mark 13:12 translation from The Old Syriac Gospels: Matthew and Mark
Now for reference the other times Abba appears in the Greek texts of the New Testament untranslated:
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”--Romans 8:15 NASB
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”--Galatians 4:6 NASB
Finally, let's looks how dictionaries, lexicons, concordances refer to it as:
Thayer:
Abba = "father"
1) father, customary title used of
God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek
interpretation joined to it, that is apparently to be explained by the
fact that the Chaldee "ABBA" through frequent use in prayer, gradually
acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek
speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue. Part of Speech: noun Citing in TDNT: 1:5, 1
Strong:
G5
Of Chaldee origin [H2]; father (as a vocative): - Abba.
1 fatherCom.
--(a) of humansCom.
(a.1) honored senior, chief, masterOfA-Egypt, JLAtg.
(a.2) chief monkSyr.
--(b) Heavenly, i.e. God (see also below s.v. ˀabbā)JLAtg, PTA, CPA, Syr.
--(c) of animals: sireJBA.
2 ancestor, forefatherCom.
--(a) pl. parentsQum, Syr, JBA.
--(b) in particular, the three forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also sg. for any one of them)Qum, JLAtg, Gal, PTA, JBA.
--(c) progenitor, spiritual founderPTA.
--(d) the fathers of the ChurchSyr.
3 ˀabbā : my father! (vocative)JLAtg, Gal, PTA, CPA, Syr, JBAmb.
4 fig.Qum, JBA.
--(a) creator, sourceQum.
--(b) common factorJBA.
--(c) 'source' as an architectural termJLAtg.
5 byt ˀb, ܒܝܬ ܐܒ : family, clanOA, Qum, Syr.
6 as a personal nameSyr, JBA.
7 in compounds with relational terms.
--(a) ˀb ˀbwhy: grandfather or ancestorPalm.
--(b) אב דאב : paternal grandfatherPTA, JBA.
--(c) אבא דאימא : maternal grandfatherJBA.
--(d) אחא דאבא٠ אח אב : paternal uncle : see s.v. ˀḥbJBA.
Notice all of these say its just a way of saying father, biological or not and make no mention of it being a way of how a small child says "daddy." Yet sites like "gotquestions.com" ignorantly spread this "fact" around.
Should the Genetic Argument--"born that way" be relevant in a moral discussion about homosexuality?
No. If we were to judge the morality of homosexuality on the basis of a person's genetic predisposition, it would only be logical to apply this reasoning towards all behaviors. Some people are believed to be genetically predisposed to being more aggressive which in turn would cause them to be more likely to commit acts of violence.
IF homosexuality is arguably acceptable only the basis its genetic (if it is) then why is not violence likewise arguably acceptable on the basis on genetics? Double standard? I am not comparing homosexuality to violence as a lot of homosexual advocates might over simplify my argument to be, I am saying we must judge acts for themselves, and not look at genetics to justify them. They might say homosexuality is consensual, violence is not, well if that is the case then how is the genetic argument relevant at all in the discussion of morality? It isn't.
Furthermore, if homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted on the basis its between consenting adult, then shouldn't it be acceptable for two consenting adults to give each other narcotics since its consensual, and doesn't harm others? By this reasoning it might be argued incest, self infliction, and suicide should be tolerated or accepted on the basis if a person if only harming himself and not others, or acting with free will and consent.
Finally, why should a sexual act be recognized as acceptable by a society that is disproportionally linked to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and has no real benefit to society as a whole, except PERHAPS as a sort of population control--removing a number of people from the breeding population. Furthermore, if homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't the open homosexuality with homosexuals refraining from procreating decrease the future homosexual population? This may change though because of things like invitro fertilization.
I have recently run into a community of Seventh Day Adventists that are very anti-Catholic and very pro-KJV, insisting that the other Bibles are riddled with the fleas of Popery. Let's check out some of the Popish Romanism the KJV 1611 is logged full of.
Conclusion: This and many more show the Catholic influence in the King James Version 1611 Bible. A good seventh day Adventist or good Baptist should either reject this so called translation for its obvious influence by Popery or become a miserable papist himself! As it must be asked if Adventists and Baptists insist the KJV 1611 is perfect because of its pure manuscripts from Textus receptus of the Antioch Line, then why is it no Baptist or Adventist makes a modern-updated version of the text into modern English, rather than spend all the time on the older English of the KJV--since after all the NKJV is corrupt? Could it be no Baptist or Adventist is qualified to do such a thing, or that they cannot trust their own people?!
ADDENDUM:
Per request, the KJV 1611 calendar for December-January:
December:
Notice it includes the "Conc. of Mary" ie the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, feast day of St Nicholas on December 6, Luci virgin (St Lucy) on December 13, as well as Christmas on December 25, the feast of [Pope] St Sylvester on December 31
Counter-missionaries accuse the New Testament of being anti-Semitic for having content where some Jews call other Jews names along the likes of stubborn, heart hearted, sons of the Devil, harlots and so one, but does this make the New Testament anti-Semitic? Let's take a look at the Hebrew Bible and see the criticism and names it calls the Jewish people.
Anti-Semitic Moses? Moses calls some Levites Rebellious, Stubborn, Corrupt:
Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying:....For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck; behold, while I am yet
alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and
how much more after my death?....ye will in any wise deal corruptly--Deuteronomy 31:25,27,29
Anti-Semitic God?
God calls Israel uncircumcised of heart and stubborn
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.--Deuteronomy 10:16
God calls Israel and Judah whores and talks about divorce
And the LORD said unto me in the days of Josiah the king: 'Hast thou
seen that which backsliding Israel did? she went up upon every high
mountain and under every leafy tree, and there played the harlot...And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery,
I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet
treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played
the harlot;
--Jeremiah 3:6,8
God Calls Israel stiff-necked, threatens total annihilation except Moses' offspring
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people. Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee [Moses] a great nation.'--Exodus 32:9-10
There is much more which if it were not found in the Hebrew Bible, it would appear to be the most anti-Semitic literature around--what worse can be said than when God called the whole Jewish community in Jeremiah whores? or when God says in the Torah that perhaps He should kill ALL the Jews?
Conclusion: If it should be conceded the New Testament is a work of anti-Semitism because of pejoratives used by Jews towards other Jews, then by that same standard it should be admitted that the Hebrew Bible and the Torah itself are by far more Anti-Semitic, and should be categorized as the foremost books on hatred of Jews.
Muslim theology believes that Islam did not start with
their “prophet” Muhammad, but that it was the religion from the time of Adam,
and that even Jesus was a Muslim! As evidence for this claim, some Islamic
apologists make the following assertion:
Muslim argument from answering Christianity:
Let us look at Luke 6:40 from my N.I.V.
Bible "A student is not above his teacher, but
everyone who is fully trained will be like his
teacher."
The perfection here means a spiritual one.
What the verse is saying is that knowledge is not what matters! The
teacher or master is higher in knowledge than his student. But the
student can be as high as his teacher, or even higher, by being a true 'MUSHLAM' or Muslim, a spiritually perfect
and well-disciplined person!
Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into Hebrew as shown below
This absurd argument is not saying that Lord Jesus speaking in Greek,
Aramaic, or even Hebrew, or St Luke in the translation of the Aramaic Peshitta
text has Jesus using the word Muslim, but that a MODERN day translation of the
verse into Modern Hebrew from Aramaic uses a word that is similar to Muslim! Biblical
Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible never uses the word שמשלם[shemmushlam],
and משלםis used 19 times in the Hebrew Bible and even then 17 [e.g.
2 Kings 22:3, 1 Chronicles 3:19, Ezra 10:29, Nehemiah 3:4,...etc] of those times
refers to a person’s name: מְשֻׁלָּםM'shullam, whereas the other two
appear in Isaiah 66:6 and Jeremiah 51:6 and appear as follows:
It is the sound of the LORD repaying [מְשַׁלֵּם,m’shallém]
his enemies all they deserve—Isaiah 66:6 (NIV)
קוֹל יְה, מְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְאֹיְבָיו—Isaiah 66:6 Hebrew Text
Kol YHVH, m’shallem g’mul
l’oyevav—Isaiah 66:6 transliteration
Let’s see Jeremiah 51:6
It is time for the Lord’s vengeance;he will repay [מְשַׁלֵּם, m’shallem] her what she deserves.—Jeremiah 51:6
Ki et n’kamah hi, l’YHVH—g’mul m’shallem
lah-- Jeremiah 51:6 transliteration
Here we see the word is m’shallem, not Mushlam, or Muslim, or anything like that.
So the word Muslim is NEVER used in Biblical Hebrew, and the closest is a
person’s name, and the only time otherwise it is used in context of God smiting
His enemies! Certainly less than complimentary for Islam.
If we were to look at the same chapter the Muslim provides
for the word Muslim ‘appearing’, we can see another verse in which the word for
‘Muslim’ is used in the Peshitta Aramaic Text of Luke 6:
And Judas the son of James, and Judah of Iscariot, who
became the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mushlamana ] —Luke 6:16 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic
The word is also used in Luke elsewhere at the last
Supper:
ܒܿܪܲܡ ܗܵܐ ܐܼܝܕܼܸܗ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ ܥܲܠ ܦܿܵܬܼܘܼܪܵܐ—Luke
22:21 Peshitta Text
"But behold, the hand of him who is tobetray [ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ , domushlaman’ ]me is on the table—Luke 22:21 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic
We see here the Aramaic word for Muslim ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐmushlamana is used in Luke 6 and it means “traitor”—not submission or peace
like Muslims claim Muslim means! If we were to move on the Peshitta text of Matthew's gospel we see the word appear more, with a word that is even closer to Muslim:
"Arise, let us go; behold he who is to deliver me [ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ, domashlema] has arrived. Whiel he was speaking, behold, Judas the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana ] ......"--Matthew 26:46-47
The word domashlema--wheredo--who, which, and mashlema--transfer, hand over [in this case hand over in the sense of betrayal!]. Interestingly enough the domashlema seems to have shlama, or 'peace' or 'wholeness' as its root, similar to what SOME Muslims claim the word Muslim is related to, yet we see here that mashlema here means to BETRAY Jesus.
Now, going back to just the Aramaic word for Muslim--ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana, we see it appearing in Matthew 4 times in: Matthew 26:25, 26:47, 26:48, and 27:3. All of these refer to Judas Iscariot when he BETRAYED Jesus. If we were to go to Mark's Gospel it appears once in Mark 14:44
"And the traitor who was to do the delivering gave them a sign, and he said, He whom I kiss is the one; seize him carefully, and take him away"--Mark 14:44 Lamsa
Finally, St John's Gospel also uses the word ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana twice:
They said to him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said to them, I am he. Judah the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana] was also standing with them.--John 18:5 Lamsa
Though the
word mushlamana
did not take up
the Muslim meaning until the 7th century, the same word was used
long before it in Jewish and Christian writings, as we see in this definition:
nom. ag. active: Syr. (a) betrayer Syr. 3Mac3:24ܘܢܗܘܘܢ ܡܢ ܡܫܠܡ̈ܢܝܢ ܘܒܥܠܕܒܒ̈ܝܢ they might become some of our betrayers and our enemies.
nom. ag. passive Syr. (a) perfected one Palmyrene, CPA, Syr, JBA. JSB1 191:12 ܡܫܠܡܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܕܠܐ ܢܚܘܬ He was perfect before he came down. BT San 7a(25) שבע בירי למשלמאנא וסליק٠ וחדא לדעבד ביש there are seven pits for the perfect person, and then he arises, but one for the evildoer [cf. Prov. 24:16]. (b) muslim Syr. BHMQ7 1.3.1 ܠܟܪ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܝܘ̈ܕܝܐ ܘܠܡܫ̈ܠܡܢܐ all Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Conclusion:
The word for Muslim is used in Aramaic text of the New Testament—and it refers
to the one that betrayed the Lord Jesus Christ, Judas Iscariot, the son of
perdition! If Muslims wants to be in the New Testament let them be the TRAITORS
they are, for the betrayed Christ’s own words of Divinity that He had Glory
with His Father before the world was (John 17:3). Furthermore, it is insignificant that translating an old text in Aramaic into modern Hebrew produces a word that resembles Muslim.
