Eucharist and Statues

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.

Moses striking the Rock

At the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, St John writes that blood and water flowed from Christ when struck with a spear.

The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.--John 19:32-34

Numbers 20:8-13 refers to a Rock in the wilderness that Moses was ordered by God to take the staff and SPEAK to the rock to make it produce water.

And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.--Numbers 20:11

St Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:3 refers to Christ as the great Rock which followed the Israelites in the wilderness:

and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.--1 Corinthians 10:4

Now what does Christ being crucified and the Rock have in common? Both produced water when struck according to Numbers 20 and John 19, when even more fascinating Jewish legend claims when Moses struck the Rock--BLOOD also came out!

 

In Jewish Tradition, as found in Louis Ginzberg's Legend of the Jews concerning the Rock in the wilderness that accompanied the Israelites and provided them water, it states:

And, again, through the third miracle he was bidden to perform, God conveyed to Moses what would happen in the latter years of his own life. The sign He gave him was to make known to him that, before the water came, blood would flow from the rock at Meribah, when Moses should strike it after uttering the hasty, impatient words that were destined to bring death down upon him.--Louis Ginzberg's Legend of the Jews, Volume II, Chapter Moses in Egypt 

This seems to be based on the much older (Pseudo) Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel (aka Palestinian Targum) of Numbers which reads:

And Mosheh took the rod of the miracles from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. And Mosheh and Aharon gathered the congregation together before the rock. And Mosheh said to them, Hear now, rebels: is it possible for us to bring forth water for you from this rock? And Mosheh lifted up [JERUSALEM. And Mosheh lifted up] his hand, and with his rod struck the rock two times: at the first time it dropped blood; but at the second time there came forth a multitude of waters. And the congregation and their cattle drank.--Targum pseudo Jonathan of Numbers 20:11, SECTION XXXIX. (chapter XX)

וזקף משה ית ידיה ומחא ית כיפא בחטריה תרתין זמנין בזימנא קמאה אטיפת אדמא ובזימנא תניינא נפקו מיין סגיאין ואשתיאת כנישתא ובעיריהון --Targum pseudo Jonathan of Numbers 20:11

 

Desperate Protestant arguments to "prove" Mary is not the Mother of God

The other day I encountered the most desperate arguments by Protestants to explain why Jesus did not have original sin, without having a sinless Mary--God forbid should the woman the Lord chose be sinless! They likewise concocted some screwy reasons why Mary was not really Jesus' mother!

 One of them was arguing that Jesus has blood that was special and did not have sin--as if sin were transmitted in the blood, or that blood in of its self were evil.  The fact is when the bible calls blood righteous or blameless it's an expression for the righteousness of the person being killed. It's not refering at all to "sinful blood." To say that blood itself transfers sins is smacking with gnostic doctrine which believes the physical world to be evil. I was continually question by people if "blood passes to the child"-which it generally does not, however DOES occassionally happen, they were trying to argue that somehow this proves Jesus did not get "Mary's tainted blood", yet what they fail to realize if in the womb they themselves do not get their mother's "tainted" blood, NOR THEIR FATHERS! So why are not all men conceived without original sin or "sin nature" as they prefer to say? (As a side note, they seem to be ignorant that a child's blood is determined by a combination of the mother and fathers, eg. if the mother is AA and the father is OO the child will be AO; also, ignorant of the fact that modern biology says the mother is the one that accepts the seed via chemical signals, though neither of these are really relevant to the discussion).  Now, continuing she pretends Acts 17:26 somehow proves sin is passed in the blood--though it only says (and only in certain manuscripts) that all men were made of "one blood" (ie Adam), yet she conveniently forgets that Christ too is a "man."  So apparently "all does not always mean all" applies here too! Regardless, this verse in no way speaks of sin being passed in the blood. Even Jesus spoke of other people's blood as being "just":

upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.--Matthew 23:35

Dare we interpret this to mean their physical blood was a better quality than the rest of man's "sinful blood'"? After all, they too were of the "one blood" of Adam! This is the some person I addressed in a previous Question and Answer session over this issue.  People continued to argue that Jesus was not of Mary because she was sinful, so He could have "none of her DNA or blood."  In this desperation to discount Mary they make Jesus a false Messiah because He had to be of the tribe of Judah to be King.  Furthermore, he is called the "seed of David"--so he must be of the "blood line" of David.  If He did not have anything from Mary--how was He the "seed" of David at all?

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?--John 7:42

In fact, this is not the only verse in the Scriptures which call Him the "seed of David."  St Paul even makes it clear He speaks of Christ being a literal descendant of David by also adding that Christ was of the "seed of David ACCORDING to the FLESH."

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;--Romans 1:3

Another person tried to make an even more desperate against Mary by saying that Jesus' body was prepare in Hebrews means God created a body for Jesus then placed it inside of Mary.

For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in."--Hebrews 10:5-6

Nothing in this verse at all implies God created a body outside of the Virgin Mary, in fact if it did it would contradict the Scripture when it says:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.--Isaiah 9:6

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.--Luke 1:30-31

Why does the Archangel Gabriel call it conceiving, if according these Protestants God merely relocated an already made body inside of Mary for Jesus?

Furthermore, why is Jesus refered to as the "fruit of the womb" of Mary if Jesus is not the fruit that was produce from Mary via an umbilical cord? Also, how can these people even argue Jesus is the one being spoken of as the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 if Jesus is not Mary's seed? (This is an argument from a Protestant prespective, since all Christians are actually the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis, not simply Christ, though He fulfills the role first and foremost and without that seed none of the others ones would prosper in overcoming the serpent).

 Why shouldn't we simply believe the Holy Spirit when speaking through Elizabeth the Blessed Virgin Mary is declared to be the "mother of my Lord"?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?--Luke 1:43

In summary: Mary is called the "Mother" of the Lord, Jesus is called the "seed of David according to the flesh" by St Paul, Mary is told she will "conceive" in her womb (not be implanted with a preexistent body), and Jesus is called the "fruit of her womb," so there is NO reason to speculate Jesus was not a physical descendant of the Virgin Mary.

Addition: I have also encountered people objecting to calling Mary the Mother of God on the basis that she did not bear the Father and the Holy Spirit.  However, this reasoning is faulty in that it would mean that Jesus is not God since He is not the Father and the Spirit.  If such requirements were needed to make Mary the Mother of God, then Jesus, nor any other member of the Trinity maybe called God on Their own since, no person of the Trinity is Himself all Three!  Thus the Bible would have errored in Hebrews 1 and Psalms when it has the Father addressesing the Son says "Thy throne of God.."