Eating His Flesh and drinking His blood

[francisdesales]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is right. The sharing of the bread and the wine is in remembrance of Jesus. The eating of the Word/bread brings life eternal. The Word is the flesh, and inside the flesh is the life (blood) of God.Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are life.

Amen, its the words that bring life eternal. Not a superstitious ritual. Even the disciples who stayed "got it" Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Notice Peter did not say " You have the flesh of life that we eat" He did not fall for the parable, he understood the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

Hi Cornelius,

You are right in saying Peter did not say 'You have the flesh of life that we eat.' It was Jesus who repeatedly said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood' you have no life in you. etc -- this is reiterated a number of times in different ways where the emphasis is clearly the body and blood of Christ.

The difference is simply this you eat with your mouth, but/and listen with your ear. While Jesus is speaking to the Jews (who left him) and the disciples what He is speaking about is clearly His physical body and blood.

If a Hebrew slave heard and believed the intent of the passover without eating the passover lamb and sprinkling the blood on the doorposts ... the destroyer would 'kill the firstborn... so you see it wasn't enough to listen, and understand it spiritually though that was necessary -- but to fulfill the physical requirements. In the same was the NT speaks of eating the body and drinking the blood, it isn't enough to believe and understand- this is a falling short.

blessing brother

Good point on the connection to the Passover Lamb, as that was the CONNECTION Jesus purposely made. We must eat the Passover Lamb, physically, to be saved.

Go figure.

Where've you been, haven't heard from you for awhile...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Who are you to make such comments for the Christ???

Of course I can say this, because He has already said that ! :yes

Only to those who do NOT eat His flesh, Cornelius. Think about those who left Jesus, formerly disciples. People like yourself, who want everything in parables, spiritually done, so that you don't have to actually suffer with the physical. Those without faith from above LEFT.

Indeed, He did say it, and I guess it has not been given to you...

 

[Cornelius]

Who are you to make such comments for the Christ???

Of course I can say this, because He has already said that ! :yes

Only to those who do NOT eat His flesh, Cornelius. Think about those who left Jesus, formerly disciples. People like yourself, who want everything in parables, spiritually done, so that you don't have to actually suffer with the physical. Those without faith from above LEFT.

Indeed, He did say it, and I guess it has not been given to you...

No brother. The people who left were those who had your understanding and was grossed out about it. The disciples who stayed were not grossed out, because they knew He was talking about the words of life. They stayed.

By the way, the parables is not my idea. It is very clear in Scripture.You have to add and add and add to get away from it. Not that you are scared to add, but I am just saying.............

(You must admit, if there is one group under the Christian flag that is not scared to add to Scripture it is the RCC. When it comes to adding, they are WAY up there in front and still gaining speed. Not a single hair of fear on their head regarding the warning in Revelation. Nope, they even have an answer for that ! )

 

[francisdesales]

No brother. The people who left were those who had your understanding and was grossed out about it. The disciples who stayed were not grossed out, because they knew He was talking about the words of life. They stayed.

So let's think about this...

Who among ANY of the Apostles knew what Jesus was talking about, behind the literal? If you look at ONLY a literal point of view with a human understanding, you'd think you'd eat a piece of Jesus arm to gain eternal life. Jesus conversation leading to 6:51 should alert us to something IN ADDITION to the verses that follow 6:51. Note, Jesus uses Greek words that speak of literal chewing of food with the teeth, not the eating of words as you are suggesting.

Now, those who walked away, did they believe Jesus and remain His disciples? No. Sixty six says they didn't. So the comparision falls short. Those who leave do not understand and refuse to count on faith to overcome the initial confusion caused by Christ's words.

Did Peter understand? No. I don't think anyone understood what was in Jesus' mind at this point but Jesus. Yet, the Apostles knew that Jesus had the words of eternal life. They were given faith to believe, even if Jesus' words didn't make sense to them. It would take more cues from Jesus for them to understand HOW they could eat Jesus' Body LITERALLY, while He maintained His physical structure at the Last Supper (take and eat, THIS (bread) is my Body...)

By the way, the parables is not my idea. It is very clear in Scripture.You have to add and add and add to get away from it. Not that you are scared to add, but I am just saying.............

I don't see Scripture pointing out any parable in John 6:51 and on. How am I adding to get away from it? The Greek allows no other explanation.

Clearly, Jesus is saying you must eat my flesh.

"EAT"?
"Yes, CHEW".
"What"????
"Yes, truly, chew my flesh".
"Yes, truly chew my flesh to have eternal life".
(many disciples) "let's get out of here, that's crazy talk".
(apostles) "you are the Christ, we believe your words that we must chew your flesh. We'll await your explanation"
(Jesus) "At the Last Supper, you'll get it..." (yea, I added that last one, to show I am not afraid to add!)

That's not a parable. Parables, Jesus later explains. Where does Jesus explain the definition of "CHEW MY FLESH" that counters the literal meaning??? Nowhere. The story ends with the Apostles admitting that He is the Christ and believe Him, even though they have absolutely no idea what He means...

(You must admit, if there is one group under the Christian flag that is not scared to add to Scripture it is the RCC. When it comes to adding, they are WAY up there in front and still gaining speed. Not a single hair of fear on their head regarding the warning in Revelation. Nope, they even have an answer for that ! )

Warning in Revelation refers to the Book of Revelation, not all of the Bible. Otherwise, you should backtrack to the warning in Deuteronomy...

We don't change the words, we are detailing the meaning of those words, once given orally and in written form, called "tradition", the teachings of the Apostles. Ya remember we are supposed to keep BOTH???

WHY is Jesus called the "LAMB OF GOD"????
What do you do with the Lamb on the Passover? What is the purpose of this PURE Lamb? Wouldn't this have some sort of meaning to Jews who were saved from the slavery of Egypt (sin) to come through the waters of the Red Sea (baptism) and to be continued to be fed from above by God during their journey through the desert (life) onto the Promised Land (eternal life)?

We must eat the Passover Lamb, bodily, as in every other such communion sacrifice of the Jews. This is the context of Jesus command and fulfillment at the Last Supper.

Regards

 

[happyjoy]

I haven't read this thread at all.

I will only say that drinking human blood and eating human flesh are for vampires and zombies. One only need Jesus to be saved.

 

[chestertonrules]

I haven't read this thread at all.

I will only say that drinking human blood and eating human flesh are for vampires and zombies. One only need Jesus to be saved.

Most Christians have a different understanding of the Eucharist.

The bible is quite clear, despite your grumbling:

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[happyjoy]

I haven't read this thread at all.

I will only say that drinking human blood and eating human flesh are for vampires and zombies. One only need Jesus to be saved.

Most Christians have a different understanding of the Eucharist.

The bible is quite clear, despite your grumbling:

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My faith does not require me to eat human flesh or drink human blood or any flesh or blood. I only rely on Christ.

 

[Caroline H]

I haven't read this thread at all.

I will only say that drinking human blood and eating human flesh are for vampires and zombies. One only need Jesus to be saved.

Most Christians have a different understanding of the Eucharist.

The bible is quite clear, despite your grumbling:

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Chestertonrules, please cite which translation you are using for clarity's sake and copyright laws.

 

[francisdesales]

My faith does not require me to eat human flesh or drink human blood or any flesh or blood. I only rely on Christ.

Interesting. Jesus says to do something, and in your "only relying on Christ", have chosen to ignore Him...

Words/actions... Hmm.

To clarify, we don't eat actual human flesh, we eat what is known as Sacramental flesh. It is the same flesh that died on the Cross, making it Jesus' flesh, indeed. But it is also PRESENTED IN A NON-BLOODY MANNER (mode), as I related to Mondar several pages ago while quoting the Catechism and the Council of Trent vs the non-believing Protestants who walked away (as the Jews...).

To give you a terrible example, consider the chameleon. He can change the color of his skin, the mode that is presented to the viewer. Jesus, being God, can present Himself as a piece of bread, miraculously, on Catholic and Greek Orthodox altars throughout the world, daily, so as to present the fruits of the Cross to each of us individually who desire to abide in Christ by the sharing of HIS LIFE, His sacred Body and Blood.

Regards

 

[mondar]

To clarify, we don't eat actual human flesh, we eat what is known as Sacramental flesh. It is the same flesh that died on the Cross, making it Jesus' flesh, indeed. But it is also PRESENTED IN A NON-BLOODY MANNER (mode), as I related to Mondar several pages ago while quoting the Catechism and the Council of Trent vs the non-believing Protestants who walked away (as the Jews...).
us individually who desire to abide in Christ by the sharing of HIS LIFE, His sacred Body and Blood.

Francisdesales, our issue concerned the Mass being a resacrifice. I think I was correct. I was again looking at the council of Trent. It says....
"Cannon 1 If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else then that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema." While the council of trent denies that it is a bloody sacrifice, it affirms that it is a non-bloody sacrifice, and thus still violates Hebrews 9. Christ died once for forgiveness of sin, and there is no more sacrifice for sin other then what happened on the cross.

 

[chestertonrules]

I haven't read this thread at all.

I will only say that drinking human blood and eating human flesh are for vampires and zombies. One only need Jesus to be saved.

Most Christians have a different understanding of the Eucharist.

The bible is quite clear, despite your grumbling:

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Chestertonrules, please cite which translation you are using for clarity's sake and copyright laws.

Probably NIV. I use bible gateway.com to look things up on the net, and it has most translations so it's easy to cross reference.

Is there something specific that you think is less than accurate?

 

[francisdesales]

To clarify, we don't eat actual human flesh, we eat what is known as Sacramental flesh. It is the same flesh that died on the Cross, making it Jesus' flesh, indeed. But it is also PRESENTED IN A NON-BLOODY MANNER (mode), as I related to Mondar several pages ago while quoting the Catechism and the Council of Trent vs the non-believing Protestants who walked away (as the Jews...).
us individually who desire to abide in Christ by the sharing of HIS LIFE, His sacred Body and Blood.

Francisdesales, our issue concerned the Mass being a resacrifice. I think I was correct. I was again looking at the council of Trent. It says....
"Cannon 1 If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else then that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema." While the council of trent denies that it is a bloody sacrifice, it affirms that it is a non-bloody sacrifice, and thus still violates Hebrews 9. Christ died once for forgiveness of sin, and there is no more sacrifice for sin other then what happened on the cross.

Christ died once, but that doesn't mean the sacrifice is "done" and not continuously offered. Jesus DEATH is finished, but the offering to the Father is ETERNAL! The Priest, the Victim, and the internal desires remains, thus, the sacrifice is continuously offered.

The non-bloody sacrifice is not a repeat sacrifice - but presented in a different mode through eternity. Scriptures note this, for example, when they say "Jesus INTERCEDES for us", currently, now. He didn't just go before the "throne of heaven" one time, as if God's time is the same as our chronological time. Recall, God is eternal. Going before the Throne of God in God's "time" is an eternal act, an act in the NOW of God, the Present. Thus, the Scriptures say "Jesus intercedes for us". Present tense. Not "Jesus interceded for us".

John says we have an advocate in heaven for when we sin. In your way of thinking, why would Jesus have to ask "AGAIN" that the Father forgive us of sins? If Jesus already (when John wrote the first epistle) advocated for us on the cross, why does John say that we STILL have an advocate who calls upon the Father??? This is among the many discrepancies with Protestant thought vis a vis Scriptures and the sacrifice on the cross. The death is done, but the sacrifice to the Father continues, in a different mode.

Christ CONTINUES in the eternity of NOW to offer that sacrifice to the Father. Recall what is needed for a sacrifice: The Priest and the Victim continue, the sacrifice is not "over" in heaven. The internal disposition remains within the Son. The sacrifice of the Son to the Father continues to be offered, we continue to have an advocate, and we continue to be able to be joined to that sacrifice, offered in an unbloody mode, at the Mass.

There is no re-sacrifice, it is ongoing via a different mode.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

To clarify, we don't eat actual human flesh, we eat what is known as Sacramental flesh. It is the same flesh that died on the Cross, making it Jesus' flesh, indeed. But it is also PRESENTED IN A NON-BLOODY MANNER (mode), as I related to Mondar several pages ago while quoting the Catechism and the Council of Trent vs the non-believing Protestants who walked away (as the Jews...).
us individually who desire to abide in Christ by the sharing of HIS LIFE, His sacred Body and Blood.

Francisdesales, our issue concerned the Mass being a resacrifice. I think I was correct. I was again looking at the council of Trent. It says....
"Cannon 1 If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else then that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema." While the council of trent denies that it is a bloody sacrifice, it affirms that it is a non-bloody sacrifice, and thus still violates Hebrews 9. Christ died once for forgiveness of sin, and there is no more sacrifice for sin other then what happened on the cross.

Christ died once, but that doesn't mean the sacrifice is "done" and not continuously offered. Jesus DEATH is finished, but the offering to the Father is ETERNAL! The Priest, the Victim, and the internal desires remains, thus, the sacrifice is continuously offered.

The non-bloody sacrifice is not a repeat sacrifice - but presented in a different mode through eternity. Scriptures note this, for example, when they say "Jesus INTERCEDES for us", currently, now. He didn't just go before the "throne of heaven" one time, as if God's time is the same as our chronological time. Recall, God is eternal. Going before the Throne of God in God's "time" is an eternal act, an act in the NOW of God, the Present. Thus, the Scriptures say "Jesus intercedes for us". Present tense. Not "Jesus interceded for us".

John says we have an advocate in heaven for when we sin. In your way of thinking, why would Jesus have to ask "AGAIN" that the Father forgive us of sins? If Jesus already (when John wrote the first epistle) advocated for us on the cross, why does John say that we STILL have an advocate who calls upon the Father??? This is among the many discrepancies with Protestant thought vis a vis Scriptures and the sacrifice on the cross. The death is done, but the sacrifice to the Father continues, in a different mode.

Christ CONTINUES in the eternity of NOW to offer that sacrifice to the Father. Recall what is needed for a sacrifice: The Priest and the Victim continue, the sacrifice is not "over" in heaven. The internal disposition remains within the Son. The sacrifice of the Son to the Father continues to be offered, we continue to have an advocate, and we continue to be able to be joined to that sacrifice, offered in an unbloody mode, at the Mass.

There is no re-sacrifice, it is ongoing via a different mode.

Regards

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering [sacrifice] for sin.

 

[francisdesales]

Christ died once, but that doesn't mean the sacrifice is "done" and not continuously offered. Jesus DEATH is finished, but the offering to the Father is ETERNAL! The Priest, the Victim, and the internal desires remains, thus, the sacrifice is continuously offered.

The non-bloody sacrifice is not a repeat sacrifice - but presented in a different mode through eternity. Scriptures note this, for example, when they say "Jesus INTERCEDES for us", currently, now. He didn't just go before the "throne of heaven" one time, as if God's time is the same as our chronological time. Recall, God is eternal. Going before the Throne of God in God's "time" is an eternal act, an act in the NOW of God, the Present. Thus, the Scriptures say "Jesus intercedes for us". Present tense. Not "Jesus interceded for us".

John says we have an advocate in heaven for when we sin. In your way of thinking, why would Jesus have to ask "AGAIN" that the Father forgive us of sins? If Jesus already (when John wrote the first epistle) advocated for us on the cross, why does John say that we STILL have an advocate who calls upon the Father??? This is among the many discrepancies with Protestant thought vis a vis Scriptures and the sacrifice on the cross. The death is done, but the sacrifice to the Father continues, in a different mode.

Christ CONTINUES in the eternity of NOW to offer that sacrifice to the Father. Recall what is needed for a sacrifice: The Priest and the Victim continue, the sacrifice is not "over" in heaven. The internal disposition remains within the Son. The sacrifice of the Son to the Father continues to be offered, we continue to have an advocate, and we continue to be able to be joined to that sacrifice, offered in an unbloody mode, at the Mass.

There is no re-sacrifice, it is ongoing via a different mode.

Regards

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering [sacrifice] for sin.

Does Hebrews 10:18 state that all sins ever committed, past, present and future, are remitted?

It says where there is remission of sins,

such as WHEN THE APOSTLES FORGIVE SINS, as per John 20:22-23, AFTER Christ died FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMITING SINS...

THEN, there is only one offering. A priest doesn't have to ask AGAIN to God to forgive one sin. It is done.

John says we continue to have an advocate. NOW, in heaven, interceding for us NOW. Did you even BOTHER to read my post???

 

[francisdesales]

Christ died once, but that doesn't mean the sacrifice is "done" and not continuously offered. Jesus DEATH is finished, but the offering to the Father is ETERNAL! The Priest, the Victim, and the internal desires remains, thus, the sacrifice is continuously offered.

The non-bloody sacrifice is not a repeat sacrifice - but presented in a different mode through eternity. Scriptures note this, for example, when they say "Jesus INTERCEDES for us", currently, now. He didn't just go before the "throne of heaven" one time, as if God's time is the same as our chronological time. Recall, God is eternal. Going before the Throne of God in God's "time" is an eternal act, an act in the NOW of God, the Present. Thus, the Scriptures say "Jesus intercedes for us". Present tense. Not "Jesus interceded for us".

John says we have an advocate in heaven for when we sin. In your way of thinking, why would Jesus have to ask "AGAIN" that the Father forgive us of sins? If Jesus already (when John wrote the first epistle) advocated for us on the cross, why does John say that we STILL have an advocate who calls upon the Father??? This is among the many discrepancies with Protestant thought vis a vis Scriptures and the sacrifice on the cross. The death is done, but the sacrifice to the Father continues, in a different mode.

Christ CONTINUES in the eternity of NOW to offer that sacrifice to the Father. Recall what is needed for a sacrifice: The Priest and the Victim continue, the sacrifice is not "over" in heaven. The internal disposition remains within the Son. The sacrifice of the Son to the Father continues to be offered, we continue to have an advocate, and we continue to be able to be joined to that sacrifice, offered in an unbloody mode, at the Mass.

There is no re-sacrifice, it is ongoing via a different mode.

Regards

Mondar,

Another point of contact with Scriptures to consider is the figure of Christ in heaven in the Book of Revelation. A lamb that appears to have been slain. Now, consider, how would the Jewish/Christian reader of this take the symbol to mean? If John is concerned about "VICTORY", why isn't Jesus represented as a lion, etc? What image does the lamb bring up? Sacrifice. And this is not refering to a sacrifice already accomplished, but an offering that is ongoing, on offering to the Father for the sake of forgiveness of our sins today, dozens of years after Christ died on the Cross. The lamb once slain still provides the image of sacrifice to the reader of Scriptures because the Victim CONTINUES to offer Himself to the Father.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

Christ died once, but that doesn't mean the sacrifice is "done" and not continuously offered. Jesus DEATH is finished, but the offering to the Father is ETERNAL! The Priest, the Victim, and the internal desires remains, thus, the sacrifice is continuously offered.

The non-bloody sacrifice is not a repeat sacrifice - but presented in a different mode through eternity. Scriptures note this, for example, when they say "Jesus INTERCEDES for us", currently, now. He didn't just go before the "throne of heaven" one time, as if God's time is the same as our chronological time. Recall, God is eternal. Going before the Throne of God in God's "time" is an eternal act, an act in the NOW of God, the Present. Thus, the Scriptures say "Jesus intercedes for us". Present tense. Not "Jesus interceded for us".

John says we have an advocate in heaven for when we sin. In your way of thinking, why would Jesus have to ask "AGAIN" that the Father forgive us of sins? If Jesus already (when John wrote the first epistle) advocated for us on the cross, why does John say that we STILL have an advocate who calls upon the Father??? This is among the many discrepancies with Protestant thought vis a vis Scriptures and the sacrifice on the cross. The death is done, but the sacrifice to the Father continues, in a different mode.

Christ CONTINUES in the eternity of NOW to offer that sacrifice to the Father. Recall what is needed for a sacrifice: The Priest and the Victim continue, the sacrifice is not "over" in heaven. The internal disposition remains within the Son. The sacrifice of the Son to the Father continues to be offered, we continue to have an advocate, and we continue to be able to be joined to that sacrifice, offered in an unbloody mode, at the Mass.

There is no re-sacrifice, it is ongoing via a different mode.

Regards

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering [sacrifice] for sin.

Does Hebrews 10:18 state that all sins ever committed, past, present and future, are remitted?

It says where there is remission of sins,

such as WHEN THE APOSTLES FORGIVE SINS, as per John 20:22-23, AFTER Christ died FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMITING SINS...

THEN, there is only one offering. A priest doesn't have to ask AGAIN to God to forgive one sin. It is done.

John says we continue to have an advocate. NOW, in heaven, interceding for us NOW. Did you even BOTHER to read my post???

What Christ does in heaven man cannot control. Man cannot sacrifice Jesus anew...even symbolically. Jeus sacrificed His life here willingly. Men did not sacrifice Him then, neither can they do so now. We can only remember and commemorate what Christ has done. God will judge all, including believers.

 

[francisdesales]

What Christ does in heaven man cannot control. Man cannot sacrifice Jesus anew...even symbolically. Jeus sacrificed His life here willingly. Men did not sacrifice Him then, neither can they do so now. We can only remember and commemorate what Christ has done. God will judge all, including believers.

Thanks for the red herring. I didn't even imply that we control anything in heaven...

Thanks for the strawman. We don't sacrifice Jesus anew.

God will judge all, yes. That includes you. The logical fallacies aren't helping the case you are building when you come before the Judge in Heaven.

 

[Adullam]

What Christ does in heaven man cannot control. Man cannot sacrifice Jesus anew...even symbolically. Jeus sacrificed His life here willingly. Men did not sacrifice Him then, neither can they do so now. We can only remember and commemorate what Christ has done. God will judge all, including believers.

Thanks for the red herring. I didn't even imply that we control anything in heaven...

Thanks for the strawman. We don't sacrifice Jesus anew.

God will judge all, yes. That includes you. The logical fallacies aren't helping the case you are building when you come before the Judge in Heaven.

So, you do not support the re-sacrificing of the the holy Victim (hostia) at every mass around the globe? You disagree with the power of the priesthood to change the common elements into the true Body of Christ?

 

[stranger]

First comes the letter and then the spirit.

First they literally had to eat the flesh of the lamb
Now we do not, we eat the Word by taking it into our spirit.


Blessings
C

Hello Cornelius,

First they literally ate the flesh of the lamb (OT passover);
then they had to eat the flesh of the lamb of God.
You eat the Word but stop short of the Word became flesh which you are invited to eat. So there is an issue with Jesus' humanity here (incarnation) , not Jesus' divinity.

blessings brother

 

[Cornelius]

Hello Cornelius,

First they literally ate the flesh of the lamb (OT passover);
then they had to eat the flesh of the lamb of God.
You eat the Word but stop short of the Word became flesh which you are invited to eat. So there is an issue with Jesus' humanity here (incarnation) , not Jesus' divinity.

blessings brother

They never really "ate" the flesh of the Lamb of God. It is a parable as I have shown.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread.

So does this mean the bread also changes into our bodies ? Surely it must mean that then too, because it speaks of the same bread that is blessed ! We , who are many are one bread ! So we too are the Eucharist.

G2842
????????
koin?nia
koy-nohn-ee'-ah
From G2844; partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution, fellowship.