I've gotten so frustrated by hearing people say, "I've been saved by the blood of the Lamb" and "I've got a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," without understanding the full implications, especially when they leave the Church. Many of them base this on an emotional or "feeling" response, which they confuse  with convictions. It is not a conviction of faith. Feelings are fickle. They are not conviction! Often, a bible was slapped into a person's hands as if to say, "You now have the authority to interpret for yourselves..." It gives a person a false feeling of power and esteem that is very much misleading. It is a manipulation. It is the beginning of many a cult.

We must start as Jesus did. He spoke to three particular groups of people. First, he spoke to the crowds. These were the sensationalists. They loved what they perceived as magic. They hated Rome and the persecution they were under as Jews. They were willing to have any excitement that would aggravate the Roman government. They weren't so excited about Jesus as they were about the possibility of Him becoming a leader that would get them out of Rome's hands.

The second group was the leadership, which consisted of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and government leaders who had power over the people. They had the knowledge and responsibility, but were not using it to serve the people. They were jealous of Jesus' leadership and the threat of His presence "dethroning" them.

The third groups are the disciples. They are the ones who followed Jesus to learn the "disciplines" of "discipleship." See the similarities of the two words? They would be the ones who stuck by Him. Out of these disciples, Jesus chose twelve Apostles. He did not choose them to be only for themselves or that age. Every bishop of this age can trace His orders through the laying of hands back to the Apostles. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them the total authority of the Church. He didn't promise that they would be perfect. But He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them so "whatever they held bound" would be protected by that same Spirit. This still exists today, for he said to them, "I will be with you until the ends of the earth." Jesus knew that the Apostleship would continue because He established it. It was His intention to do so. When we abandon this authority that He established, we betray the One who established it. This is a very serious crime against God.

It was this same Apostleship in later generations that used their God-given authority to plow through different scriptures that were going around to compile the Bible. In fact, there are some of the scriptures they went through which still exist today. They simply were not appropriate for the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas is one of them. You can still get a copy.

St. Paul thought he had an experience with Christ. Yet, he went to the Apostles to make sure his claim was valid. When ever he came up with some kind of theological thought, he always looked to the Twelve for validation. Even when he had his argument with St. Peter, he respected the authority that Christ bestowed upon Peter to come up with the final conclusion. There is still someone who holds the "chair of Peter' whom we call the pope. Since Jesus established these roles, we do not betray them by abandoning them. We would be abandoning Christ... no matter how good we felt with another community.

We are not bible worshipers. The Word is not merely typing on paper. It is and always has lived with His people. Jesus established the Church, an actual institution,  more than three hundred years before the bible was compiled. That means that His Holy Spirit has been alive and well and living through the Church all along. By what authority did the bishops compile the New Testament? Think about it. The Scriptures prove the Church's existence and the Church validated the Scriptures. One cannot use one without the other and call themselves a true disciple, for to depart from one or the other contradicts God Himself and His will for us.

In order to understand the Scriptures, on must understand the meaning behind the Scriptures. A good example of this is the word "remember" or "memory." Today, we use this word to reflect on the past. But that is not how the Jews use that word... even to this day. Jesus was a Jew and would have used the word in the Hebrew tradition. In this tradition, the word means "To make a reality present." think about it... "remember your love Lord.." Does the writer of the Psalms mean that God has Alzheimer's? No, it means "Make present your love." How about "Remember not my sins Lord." It means "Do not make present my sins."  Then finally, "Do this in memory of me." If this is the case...   what does it mean?
 

Let's take a look at what it actually conveys. In the Old Testament times sacrifices were made for the atonement of sins. An innocent animal was sacrificed. It was brought by the people to the priest. It had to be the best. the priest would sacrifice the animal. it would be roasted and only the priest could partake of the   cooked food. Otherwise it was completely burnt up. The fragrant smell of the cooking food was offered up to God. The blood was spilled on the altar and sprinkled on the people. Do you think that God liked the sight of all this? No, He loved the sign of the repentant human heart!

One must look deeper into this to understand. How would you feel if you had blood splattered all over you. Yet, the people of this age were more than willing to have it done to them. Why was that? Well, the wages of sin is what? it's death, right? What are wages? They are the effect or result of something. When you work, you earn a wage. When we sin, we earn a wage too. If I gossip about something, I've earned the wage of causing death to the person's reputation. If I steal, I earn the wage of causing death to their likelihood. The death of the animal through the separation of body and blood were a very graphic illustration of what our sins do to each other. The people wore the blood as a sign of ownership that this was what their sins did to each other before God. In wearing the blood, they advertised their ownership and sorrow for their sinfulness and proclaimed their dependence in God's mercy.

But they were not allowed to consume the blood. Why was that? Blood to the Jew was the essence of life. Animals are a lower life form. To commune with them would be an act of bestiality. it was an abomination as it is today.

In the next age, God expanded on the sacrifice. During the Passover, a new image was formed, that of family. Each family had to procure the sacrifice. It was no longer an individual thing. The blood was put over the doors and windows of the house. That proclaimed the helplessness before God and full dependence upon His mercy in judgment passing over them. Again, repentant spirit was the key. The Egyptians wouldn't acknowledge God. The family would also have to partake of the sacrifice. It was no longer just the priest. God was proclaiming all of us to have a priestly nature... that of sacrifice. (more on this later). But everyone had to eat of the lamb. No exceptions if judgment was to "Pass over." Again, by Levitical Law, they would not partake of the blood. It was worn on the windows and doors.

When Jesus was gathered with His Apostles, he said "This is my body which will be given up for you." They must have thought this was strange. A human sacrifice? Then he said something even more peculiar, "This is my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant..." No one ever drank blood!!!! Then he told His Apostles, "Do this in memory of me." This was a command, not a request.

None of this would make sense for  a while. Jesus was murdered. How could it be an eternal covenant when he was murdered? He was dead. And what did drinking of the blood mean? It wasn't until he rose again that the idea of an eternal covenant made sense. and, instead of wearing the blood externally, the consuming of the blood signified the internal conversion of one who had been forgiven.

But what about "Do this in memory of me." What did this command mean? Well, take a look in Acts with the disciples (not Apostles) walking on the road. These were two men who knew Jesus. They had what you might call a "personal relationship with Him." They heard Him teach. They saw Him suffer and die. Why did they not recognized Him.? Wouldn't you? It was only three days. They only recognized Him after the explanation of the Scriptures and the breaking of the bread. It was a liturgy of the Word and celebration of the Eucharist. That is the way he commanded them to know Him. On cannot truly have a "personal relationship" with Jesus without following His "personal" command.. and then... and only then can they really know Him in a personal relationship. Surely they can know "about" Him though the reading of His story in the Scriptures, but they can't know Him.

If one is to truly have a personal relationship with Christ, one cannot reject any truth about Him. One cannot reject what He established. He established the forgiveness of sins though the Apostles when he said, "Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.. Whoever's sins you hold bound will be held bound."  He didn't say this to the general discipleship. If we truly know Jesus personally, we must recognize that forgiveness comes through the authority of Christ by way of the Apostleship that he established.. We imitate this same forgiveness with each other because we know what it is like to receive forgiveness.

If we truly proclaim to know Jesus as the truth the way and the life, we cannot forsake anything that he taught or established for us..