I was walking in despair because I hated myself and my burden was great, and my only comfort was that there were others with burdens greater than my own and I loathed myself all the more. Then a man came to me holding a cup filled with the blood of the son of God which had been shed through great torture. And he said, drink from this cup and you will be renewed and live forever. And I saw judgment at the cup. For if this son of God suffered torture and death so that I might be spared from a cruel and merciless prosecuter, I'd better drink from it so that his suffering will not have been in vain. But if it is to escape the righteous judgment that I have coming to me, I would rather die in my sins than be willing to harm one hair on his precious head.
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Significance of the Last Supper
- Thread starter arunangelo
- Start date
Ok, we agree concerning Israel. Both leaders and the people are guilty of this man’s (Jesus’s) blood based on Acts 5 and Matt 27.
As for the Gentile Pilate, in Matt 27 Pilate washes his hands and says 'I am innocent of this man's blood'.
From the point of view that all sin is related and stems from Adam's sin -- whose descendants are both Jews and gentiles, the gentiles are implicated 'in this man's blood.'
I will think about the expression 'to repent of this one sin to be forgiven of pasts sins'? I presume that 'past sins' are also repented of.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
"presume that past sins are also repented of"- Nada. John the Baptist's teaching preceeded what Jesus was to perfect by his crucifixion and knocks your idea in the head. Note Acts 18:24-27 & Acts 19:1-5. Adam's sin is irrelevent. Because it is the PENALTY derived by Adam's sin, death, that is the solitary inheritance to every one who is naturally born. We by the process of just having been the production of natural birth do serve the PENALTY of death for that reason alone. All die. But what is the Way of escape the naturally born individual MUST have the faith (absolute conviction by mind set) to use (obedience) that BY the crucifixion of Jesus has been perfected? Was it past sins that were repented of in order to be added to the church Jesus is head of or was it just one recently past sin they all (unilaterally) were guilty of? But is salvation from the penalty of eternal death just for the Jews who actually crucified Jesus? No. It is for the naturally born Gentile too. But for a Gentile to obtain a remission from the penalty of eternal death he MUST himself be convinced to use a process that is not unlawful in regard to guilt of the sin associated to Jesus' crucifixion that was explained to them through hearing the Acts two message. So then what does the term "make atonement for sin" in regard to Jesus' crucifixion actually mean? Not what is taught about the word, atonement, in contemporary churches, but exactly the opposite. To make a proper thruthful interpretation about the result of Jesus' crucifixion "for" is an incorrect preposition "of" is the word needed. His crucifixion, as a sacrifice, has only accomplished one thing. Increased sin by one, but for all. His life is a guilt offering to God for God's purpose for each man. Obey what his son commands to have life or perish eternally for the disobedience of not obeying exactly whatsoever he says through their message.
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Theodore,
How do you realize these verses and what would deem a participant unworthy according to Paul's writings within this letter to Corinth?
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
No person is forbidden to participate in the Lord's table. However it is a negative consequence for the person who does participate if their conjecture about Jesus' crucifixion is not correct. Note if you will the proceedural aspect. An examination of the individual's mind set about the result of crucifying Jesus' body is a prerequisite prior to participating. I say when an individual's judgement call about Jesus' crucifixion is directly benefical for him that this type of judgement actually results in an incrimination.
"Thou preparest a table before Me in the presence of mine enemies." This statement, my friend, is not an understatment.
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Theodore,
Please be patient with me while I try to wrap my mind around your thoughts so that I can gain a better understanding of your perspective.
I had to actually look up the word conjecture just so I knew I had understood you correctly.
I do not believe we need to use conjecture in regard to the crucifixion of Jesus as the scriptures are very clear on what occurred. But more to your point, what would you conclude as correct conjecture in this case?
And what would you say the correct view would have to be? If one's view is skewed, is it then still the Lord's Supper they are partaking of?
I don't quite understand this statement. Are you talking about guilt here?
Agreed.
Please be patient with me while I try to wrap my mind around your thoughts so that I can gain a better understanding of your perspective.
I agree with this, but would also put certain qualifiers around what constitutes the Lord's Table. But let's not focus on that.
I had to actually look up the word conjecture just so I knew I had understood you correctly.
I do not believe we need to use conjecture in regard to the crucifixion of Jesus as the scriptures are very clear on what occurred. But more to your point, what would you conclude as correct conjecture in this case?
And what would you say the correct view would have to be? If one's view is skewed, is it then still the Lord's Supper they are partaking of?
I don't quite understand this statement. Are you talking about guilt here?
Agreed.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
Preliminary Remarks
The great assumption made in this exposition of 1 Cor 11: 25 -34 is the perfectly reasonable one that the passage is all of a piece. The context must decide the meaning of any particular part of the section, and in particular these odd verses:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
I say ‘odd’, because the question of ‘examining himself’ has been tortured out of all recognition, and been pressed into the service of imparting damnation if the ‘examination’ isn’t properly done.
It is sheer theologians’ nonsense (and they have a lot to answer for), to suppose that a man has to indulge in a colossal piece of navel-gazing at the Lord’s supper. This is not a time for introspection, or psychological excesses. How do we know?
He said Himself, ‘Do this in remembrance of ME’, not in self-inflicted mental torture or psychological masochism, remembering YOURSELF, and not HIM as instructed.
However, the above-quoted words are very severe, apparently, and deserve a careful piece of study.
What is the Context?
11. 17 ¶ Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
So what was the cause of these particular divisions? He tells us.
There are ‘heresies’ here! What? Doctrinal heresies? No, certainly not. So what then?
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Some were stuffing themselves with food – because they were rich and could afford to bring a lot of food and alcohol
And some were going hungry while the others were gorging themselves!
Small wonder there were ‘divisions’! Resentment among the poorer ones must have been rampant and vocal.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Note the class distinction that existed:
1 Some had houses to eat in
2 Others had none, and were probably the slaves of the houseowners.
The slaves, if there were such, brought the food, laid it on for their masters, and then had to stand around with the other poor, while the houseowners gorged themselves and became drunk on the wine the slaves had brought.
It was a shameful situation. He goes on. Jesus wasn’t like that.
23 … That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Note well, he means, Jesus took HIS bread, HIS body, and passed it round to ALL the disciples present at the Lord’s Table. They ALL shared His largesse, unselfishly distributed.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
He shared out His wine, too, to ALL OF THEM, rich (like Matthew, James, John), and poor (like the others), telling ALL of them to drink of the cup.
That’s your example, Paul says.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
If you rich hogs are scoffing it all, then the poor unfortunates who don’t get a look in, CANNOT, and DO NOT, ‘shew the Lord’s death – and it’s because of you rich men and women.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [Please see footnote here].
The Greek word, anaxiws is used in the LXX in one very apposite place:
De 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
That son was worthy of death:
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I very much doubt if that law was ever invoked, but the relevance to 1 Cor 11 is extraordinary.
Here were gluttons and drunkards at the Lord’s table, feasting gorgeously, like the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, while their poorer brethren starved, and maybe went out to steal in order to stay alive.
They, the rich, were worthy of death: and were eating and drinking damnation to themselves. Hence the very apposite and pointed remarks:
29 For he that eateth and drinketh [to excess at the Lord’s supper], eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body.
‘Discern not’ here refers to 'failing to see' thathe is destroying the Lord’s body: the church, and that, says Jesus, is worthy of death:
'Mr 9:42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."ESV
From the above, it is now obvious that when he said ‘let a man examine himself’, he means ‘in respect of this matter’, not a major psychological overhaul and masochistic self-flagellation.
Footnote
The words 'guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' are tragically reminiscent of the following passage
from Heb 10:
29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, [clearly his BODY] and hath counted the blood [clearly HIS blood] of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What does that mean?
Again, the context of Hebrews as a a whole, and ch 10 in particular, clarifies the whole thing.
They were NOT to return to the Law of Moses. Doing so, (forsaking the assembling of themselves together - note the strength of the word 'forsaking') meant trampling the body of Christ (His sacrifice) underfoot, and despising the blood of the covenant, counting it an unholy thing.
In sum, it refers to the abandonment of Christ, forsaking the Lord's Supper, for other things.
So here, in 1 Cor 11, use of the words 'guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' refers to the evil practice which is being condemned here, resulting in
a. the poor being unable to break the bread and drink the wine - because they didn't have any
b. the rich being guilty of causing many of them to leave Christ as a direct result of the shame and embarrassment they must have felt.
It's not a nice picture at all.
The great assumption made in this exposition of 1 Cor 11: 25 -34 is the perfectly reasonable one that the passage is all of a piece. The context must decide the meaning of any particular part of the section, and in particular these odd verses:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
I say ‘odd’, because the question of ‘examining himself’ has been tortured out of all recognition, and been pressed into the service of imparting damnation if the ‘examination’ isn’t properly done.
It is sheer theologians’ nonsense (and they have a lot to answer for), to suppose that a man has to indulge in a colossal piece of navel-gazing at the Lord’s supper. This is not a time for introspection, or psychological excesses. How do we know?
He said Himself, ‘Do this in remembrance of ME’, not in self-inflicted mental torture or psychological masochism, remembering YOURSELF, and not HIM as instructed.
However, the above-quoted words are very severe, apparently, and deserve a careful piece of study.
What is the Context?
11. 17 ¶ Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
So what was the cause of these particular divisions? He tells us.
There are ‘heresies’ here! What? Doctrinal heresies? No, certainly not. So what then?
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Some were stuffing themselves with food – because they were rich and could afford to bring a lot of food and alcohol
And some were going hungry while the others were gorging themselves!
Small wonder there were ‘divisions’! Resentment among the poorer ones must have been rampant and vocal.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Note the class distinction that existed:
1 Some had houses to eat in
2 Others had none, and were probably the slaves of the houseowners.
The slaves, if there were such, brought the food, laid it on for their masters, and then had to stand around with the other poor, while the houseowners gorged themselves and became drunk on the wine the slaves had brought.
It was a shameful situation. He goes on. Jesus wasn’t like that.
23 … That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Note well, he means, Jesus took HIS bread, HIS body, and passed it round to ALL the disciples present at the Lord’s Table. They ALL shared His largesse, unselfishly distributed.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
He shared out His wine, too, to ALL OF THEM, rich (like Matthew, James, John), and poor (like the others), telling ALL of them to drink of the cup.
That’s your example, Paul says.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
If you rich hogs are scoffing it all, then the poor unfortunates who don’t get a look in, CANNOT, and DO NOT, ‘shew the Lord’s death – and it’s because of you rich men and women.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [Please see footnote here].
The Greek word, anaxiws is used in the LXX in one very apposite place:
De 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
That son was worthy of death:
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I very much doubt if that law was ever invoked, but the relevance to 1 Cor 11 is extraordinary.
Here were gluttons and drunkards at the Lord’s table, feasting gorgeously, like the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, while their poorer brethren starved, and maybe went out to steal in order to stay alive.
They, the rich, were worthy of death: and were eating and drinking damnation to themselves. Hence the very apposite and pointed remarks:
29 For he that eateth and drinketh [to excess at the Lord’s supper], eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body.
‘Discern not’ here refers to 'failing to see' thathe is destroying the Lord’s body: the church, and that, says Jesus, is worthy of death:
'Mr 9:42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."ESV
From the above, it is now obvious that when he said ‘let a man examine himself’, he means ‘in respect of this matter’, not a major psychological overhaul and masochistic self-flagellation.
Footnote
The words 'guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' are tragically reminiscent of the following passage
from Heb 10:
29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, [clearly his BODY] and hath counted the blood [clearly HIS blood] of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What does that mean?
Again, the context of Hebrews as a a whole, and ch 10 in particular, clarifies the whole thing.
They were NOT to return to the Law of Moses. Doing so, (forsaking the assembling of themselves together - note the strength of the word 'forsaking') meant trampling the body of Christ (His sacrifice) underfoot, and despising the blood of the covenant, counting it an unholy thing.
In sum, it refers to the abandonment of Christ, forsaking the Lord's Supper, for other things.
So here, in 1 Cor 11, use of the words 'guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' refers to the evil practice which is being condemned here, resulting in
a. the poor being unable to break the bread and drink the wine - because they didn't have any
b. the rich being guilty of causing many of them to leave Christ as a direct result of the shame and embarrassment they must have felt.
It's not a nice picture at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
To the both of you which is apporiate?
"Oh God I am so happy and glad that Jesus your only begotten son was crucified in my place and expiated all my sins when his life was taken by bloodshed and I celebrate his death before you." or
"Oh God I am truly sorry your only begotten son Jesus lost his life by bloodshed when he was crucified." for God has made this promise only to Him:
"And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Are either of you outside of the classification of 'each man, too'? Which confession is wrong? Regarding that if you even approve of the death of one of God's prophets whose life has been lost by bloodshed you are guilty. And God says "The guilty shall not go unpunished."
"Oh God I am so happy and glad that Jesus your only begotten son was crucified in my place and expiated all my sins when his life was taken by bloodshed and I celebrate his death before you." or
"Oh God I am truly sorry your only begotten son Jesus lost his life by bloodshed when he was crucified." for God has made this promise only to Him:
"And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Are either of you outside of the classification of 'each man, too'? Which confession is wrong? Regarding that if you even approve of the death of one of God's prophets whose life has been lost by bloodshed you are guilty. And God says "The guilty shall not go unpunished."
A
Asyncritus
Guest
I don't think either of those options remotely resembles the actual passage where we started.
I personally am very thankful
a. That He did what He did and
b. That God permitted it to happen for our sakes.
I think that this option is particularly disturbing:
It's valuable to note Peter's words:
Ac 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
He does not say we have been the murderers - as you are attempting to make out. He was there. He denied Jesus very loudly and publicly - but does NOT include himself or any one of the other disciples (of whom there were thousands at this point) in the designation of 'murderers'.
Here's the Law of Moses on a similar note:
2Ki 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Jesus says much the same:
Mt 23.33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgement of hell?
34 ¶ Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
Note the reason WHY all this would happen to them: because they would murder and evilly entreat the Lord's disciples.
I don't believe any of the three of us has ever done anything of the kind and that guilt does not apply to us.
The Catholic church has done so, however, and it would make me very jumpy indeed to read those words if I were a Catholic.
Be that as it may, what do you think of the exposition above?
I personally am very thankful
a. That He did what He did and
b. That God permitted it to happen for our sakes.
I think that this option is particularly disturbing:
You are disregarding the context of those words entirely, and endeavouring to lay blame at innocent doors. Here's the actual quote: Gen 9:
This deals with murder and murderers.
It's valuable to note Peter's words:
Ac 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
He does not say we have been the murderers - as you are attempting to make out. He was there. He denied Jesus very loudly and publicly - but does NOT include himself or any one of the other disciples (of whom there were thousands at this point) in the designation of 'murderers'.
Here's the Law of Moses on a similar note:
2Ki 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Jesus says much the same:
Mt 23.33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgement of hell?
34 ¶ Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
Note the reason WHY all this would happen to them: because they would murder and evilly entreat the Lord's disciples.
I don't believe any of the three of us has ever done anything of the kind and that guilt does not apply to us.
The Catholic church has done so, however, and it would make me very jumpy indeed to read those words if I were a Catholic.
Be that as it may, what do you think of the exposition above?
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
The life of Jesus was not taken, he gave it freely.
John 6: 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Before Pilate, Jesus states, John 18:37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
John 15:
13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
While we remember the horrible death Jesus died, and we are reminded of how sinful man can be, we also can rejoice in the resurrection of Christ.
Christ's body was not taken, it was given.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
So here now we have a man who is outside of the classification of 'each man,too, that God has put him in? When you hook the negative to the positive and the positive to the negative in a DC circuit, Bolts, what happens?
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Well, if you put a light bulb in the middle of the circut, you get light
(That's called a controlled ground lol!)
Ok, so please, step it out for me would ya?
By the way, I do appreciate your demeanor. It's a pleasure to have this discussion with you.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
Well, if you put a light bulb in the middle of the circut, you get light
(That's called a controlled ground lol!)
Ok, so please, step it out for me would ya?
By the way, I do appreciate your demeanor. It's a pleasure to have this discussion with you.
"Please be paient with me while I wrap my mind around, etc." is the type of line I thought it is, untrue. You really have no intention of such.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
No I am not. You were not even there, were you?
No of course not. Please don't get me wrong i simply wish to know what you mean by:
However it is a negative consequence for the person who does participate if their conjecture about Jesus' crucifixion is not correct.
I sincerely want to know. What is your conjecture about Jesus' crucifixion?
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Theodore,
If I have come across as brash, please forgive me and I'll try harder to show respect for you.
I do want to understand your point of view. Does this mean that I'll agree with everything? Maybe not, but I'm sure we'll find common ground along the way and I'm sure we will both learn a little more along the way.
I've done much study on the Lord's Supper, so yes, I do come in with a particular view. But I am not above understanding a bit more.
http://www.christianforums.net/f34/lords-supper-16292/
Take a look at the thread above and you'll see my view. And like I said, I'm still learning and yes, I am trying to understand your perspective.
I thought it was well done and thought provoking. It is a rather scary thing dealing with the cup of blood because there is judgment there. For that reason I think "in memory of Him" has much to do with what you take away from the cross. To know what kind of Love is witnessed to there and why it occurred so that I may know why and how I must bear my own cross. His Spirit is identified there in manifold ways. No wonder we must examine ourselves, since we reveal who we are before heaven and give testimony against ourselves if we take lightly the magnitude of this sacrifice made for the sake of a New covenant between God and man and each other as one body.
Last edited by a moderator:
Theodore A. Jones
Member
- Aug 14, 2011
- 175
- 0
Unless you reverse the polarity there cannot be any agreement with me.
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
If this is the conclusion you have drawn, then it is your conclusion, and does not make it true to anyone but yourself.
Grace and Peace.
Jeff