the Lord's supper in the gospels

[francisdesales]

I did not say the church is the blood of Christ. I'm not sure where you get such ideas. I do know that the bread and wine are not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. You can claim He's the door, too, but that doesn't mean He's a door.

You have not made a single valid point to prove anything.

Does Jesus ever point to a door and say, "this door is my body"?
He does with the Bread and the Wine...

Believe the words of Jesus - or not.

 

[MMarc]

I did not say the church is the blood of Christ. I'm not sure where you get such ideas. I do know that the bread and wine are not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. You can claim He's the door, too, but that doesn't mean He's a door.

You have not made a single valid point to prove anything.

Does Jesus ever point to a door and say, "this door is my body"?
He does with the Bread and the Wine...

Believe the words of Jesus - or not.

So Joe according to you, you drink physical blood and physical flesh?

You should check share in a Christian or Messianic supper which recounts all the food served at Passover it's called the Hagadah, I learned so much when I partake of this feast.

It teaches that everything points to Jesus. We actually drink real red wine and Hebrew bread, just like Jesus and the apostles did, when Jesus saved the world.

Easter means goddess of the East. In the bible the land of the East is Babylon. So ask you priest to call it resurrection day instead or Firstfruit (Lev 23) which is the actual day of our Lord's resurrection.

Of course if the majistrarium agrees with the Almighty.

 

[francisdesales]

So Joe according to you, you drink physical blood and physical flesh?

I have said already that I drink SACRAMENTAL blood and flesh. It appears as bread and is not carnal flesh and blood. What is interesting is that the Romans also are confused when they hear what Christians are doing at their Eucharistic feast.

It appears as bread but is flesh. It tastes like wine but it is blood. This is an act of faith. Are you aware of any Eucharistic miracles? Some very interesting reading...

You should check share in a Christian or Messianic supper which recounts all the food served at Passover it's called the Hagadah, I learned so much when I partake of this feast.

I've eaten a Seder meal before, yes, it is interesting.

Didn't care for the food, though!

It teaches that everything points to Jesus. We actually drink real red wine and Hebrew bread, just like Jesus and the apostles did, when Jesus saved the world.

Easter means goddess of the East. In the bible the land of the East is Babylon. So ask you priest to call it resurrection day instead or Firstfruit (Lev 23) which is the actual day of our Lord's resurrection.

Of course if the majistrarium agrees with the Almighty.

Resurrection Day is a better name for it, I admit. The term has caught on through many years of use, and I can assure you there are no pagan overtones when we celebrate Easter Sunday. So I personally am not scandalized with the term.

 

[glorydaz]

So Joe according to you, you drink physical blood and physical flesh?

I have said already that I drink SACRAMENTAL blood and flesh. It appears as bread and is not carnal flesh and blood. What is interesting is that the Romans also are confused when they hear what Christians are doing at their Eucharistic feast.

It appears as bread but is flesh. It tastes like wine but it is blood. This is an act of faith. Are you aware of any Eucharistic miracles? Some very interesting reading...

You should check share in a Christian or Messianic supper which recounts all the food served at Passover it's called the Hagadah, I learned so much when I partake of this feast.

I've eaten a Seder meal before, yes, it is interesting.

Didn't care for the food, though!

It teaches that everything points to Jesus. We actually drink real red wine and Hebrew bread, just like Jesus and the apostles did, when Jesus saved the world.

Easter means goddess of the East. In the bible the land of the East is Babylon. So ask you priest to call it resurrection day instead or Firstfruit (Lev 23) which is the actual day of our Lord's resurrection.

Of course if the majistrarium agrees with the Almighty.

Resurrection Day is a better name for it, I admit. The term has caught on through many years of use, and I can assure you there are no pagan overtones when we celebrate Easter Sunday. So I personally am not scandalized with the term.

Hey, Joe...you've attributed posts to me that weren't mine. :help

I see what happened...MMarc ran his post into mine. Maybe you could fix that for me....

 

[Mysteryman]

Jesus turned water to wine. But he never turned wine into blood !

You can not take the words of Jesus literally ! This would be foolish in doing so. In fact, when he took the cup , he blessed it and passed it around. The cup returned back to him empty, and then he said - "this is my blood which is shed for many"

What he told the disciples at the last supper was to drink all of it - > Matt. 26:27 , then in verse 28 he said - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" < The cup was empty !

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus turned water to wine. But he never turned wine into blood !

Sure He did. The Last Supper, He called the wine in the cup He was holding "my blood".

You can not take the words of Jesus literally ! This would be foolish in doing so.

That sounds something like what the devil would say, quite frankly. I choose to take Him at His word, even if YOU don't get it.

In fact, when he took the cup , he blessed it and passed it around. The cup returned back to him empty, and then he said - "this is my blood which is shed for many"

Wrong. He said those words AS He was passing it around. What would be the point of saying "this is my blood" with nothing to show as "this". You are jumping through hoops, desperately denying the Words of God Himself, to suit your fleshy mind that cannot, will not, understand things of the Spirit.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:20

Obviously, Jesus was not offering a new testament with an empty cup!!! This would make the new testament empty...

 

[Mysteryman]

quote francis: "Wrong. He said those words AS He was passing it around. What would be the point of saying "this is my blood" with nothing to show as "this".


Hi

No, I am sure I am correct on this one ! It never states that while he was passing it around then he spoke these words.

It clearly tells us that he told them to drink all of it, and then he spoke the words in Matt. 26:28 -- The cup was empty, because he was talking about his shed blood !

 

[francisdesales]

quote francis: "Wrong. He said those words AS He was passing it around. What would be the point of saying "this is my blood" with nothing to show as "this".

Hi

No, I am sure I am correct on this one ! It never states that while he was passing it around then he spoke these words.

It certainly does not state that Jesus is making a New Covenant with an empty cup...!!! Why the propensity to add what is not there??? Luke states "SAYING". There is no "pass the cup around" and THEN state those words. This makes no sense, as an empty cup does not signify what Christ would do!!!! :biglol

I'm certain you are wrong.

There WAS no shed blood when He said those words, so you are again confused on chronology.

 

[Mysteryman]

quote francis: "Wrong. He said those words AS He was passing it around. What would be the point of saying "this is my blood" with nothing to show as "this".

Hi

No, I am sure I am correct on this one ! It never states that while he was passing it around then he spoke these words.

It certainly does not state that Jesus is making a New Covenant with an empty cup...!!! Why the propensity to add what is not there??? Luke states "SAYING". There is no "pass the cup around" and THEN state those words. This makes no sense, as an empty cup does not signify what Christ would do!!!! :biglol

I'm certain you are wrong.

There WAS no shed blood when He said those words, so you are again confused on chronology.

So you don't believe that he shed his entire blood for us ?

 

[francisdesales]

So you don't believe that he shed his entire blood for us ?

An empty cup does not symbolize that. He said "this is the cup of the New Covenant". If it is empty, there is no covenant, for without blood, there is no covenant, correct???? Thus, there MUST have been REAL blood in the cup, as Christ SAID there was. Remember, He says these things BEFORE HE shed His blood!!!

Regards

 

[Mysteryman]

So you don't believe that he shed his entire blood for us ?

An empty cup does not symbolize that. He said "this is the cup of the New Covenant". If it is empty, there is no covenant, for without blood, there is no covenant, correct???? Thus, there MUST have been REAL blood in the cup, as Christ SAID there was. Remember, He says these things BEFORE HE shed His blood!!!

Regards

Hi

This is all starting to sound very barbaric in your wording/explanation here. You are saying that they drank real blood ?

An empty cup most definitely symbolizes his shed blood !

On the Passover, they didn't drink the blood, they put the blood on the two side posts and on the post above the door. Exodus 12:7 and verses 12 and 13

 

[Mysteryman]

Leviticus 7:26 and 27 - "Moreover , ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or beast, in any of your dwellings" --- "Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people"

 

[francisdesales]

Hi

This is all starting to sound very barbaric in your wording/explanation here. You are saying that they drank real blood ?

It was real, but it was in the form of bread and wine...
God also took on the form of a bush and bade Moses to remove his shoes, as being near to God was Holy.

An empty cup most definitely symbolizes his shed blood !

You are confused.

The cup is not the sign. The BLOOD is the sign that seals the Covenant. An empty cup is pointless in sealing a covenant that requires BLOOD!

To put it another way, was the hyssop that Moses used also a symbol of the shed blood? Or did Moses use REAL BLOOD to seal the Covenant?

Why would Christ not use real blood - oh, He did, that is exactly what He said...

The issue here is lack of faith in the clear words of Christ. You rationalize that because "i don't get it", it must not be so...

Listen to Peter, and just say "Lord, you have the Words of Eternal Life"

Believe and understanding will come.

 

[francisdesales]

Leviticus 7:26 and 27 - "Moreover , ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or beast, in any of your dwellings" --- "Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people"

Explain to us why Jews were not allowed to drink blood and maybe this will begin to sink in...

 

[MMarc]

Jesus turned water to wine. But he never turned wine into blood !

Sure He did. The Last Supper, He called the wine in the cup He was holding "my blood".

You can not take the words of Jesus literally ! This would be foolish in doing so.

That sounds something like what the devil would say, quite frankly. I choose to take Him at His word, even if YOU don't get it.

In fact, when he took the cup , he blessed it and passed it around. The cup returned back to him empty, and then he said - "this is my blood which is shed for many"

Wrong. He said those words AS He was passing it around. What would be the point of saying "this is my blood" with nothing to show as "this". You are jumping through hoops, desperately denying the Words of God Himself, to suit your fleshy mind that cannot, will not, understand things of the Spirit.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:20

Obviously, Jesus was not offering a new testament with an empty cup!!! This would make the new testament empty...

So when Jesus broke the bread and said eat for this is my body, if I follow your logic, the bread turned into real physical flesh? Ok.....

Slowly backing away... :D

 

[chestertonrules]

[
So when Jesus broke the bread and said eat for this is my body, if I follow your logic, the bread turned into real physical flesh? Ok.....

Slowly backing away... :D

It turned into his body. His body is both spiritual and physical.

Here's what Augustine said:

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

This is all starting to sound very barbaric in your wording/explanation here. You are saying that they drank real blood ?

It was real, but it was in the form of bread and wine...
God also took on the form of a bush and bade Moses to remove his shoes, as being near to God was Holy.

An empty cup most definitely symbolizes his shed blood !

You are confused.

The cup is not the sign. The BLOOD is the sign that seals the Covenant. An empty cup is pointless in sealing a covenant that requires BLOOD!

To put it another way, was the hyssop that Moses used also a symbol of the shed blood? Or did Moses use REAL BLOOD to seal the Covenant?

Why would Christ not use real blood - oh, He did, that is exactly what He said...

The issue here is lack of faith in the clear words of Christ. You rationalize that because "i don't get it", it must not be so...

Listen to Peter, and just say "Lord, you have the Words of Eternal Life"

Believe and understanding will come.

Hi

--------------------------------------------- :rolling ---------------------------------------------------

:help :verysad :help :mad :help :help

 

[LaCrum]

An empty cup does not symbolize that. He said "this is the cup of the New Covenant". If it is empty, there is no covenant, for without blood, there is no covenant, correct???? Thus, there MUST have been REAL blood in the cup, as Christ SAID there was. Remember, He says these things BEFORE HE shed His blood!!!

So apparently then God is not the same yesterday, today and forever?

Genesis 9:4

Leviticus 17:10-14

1 Samuel 14

 

[francisdesales]

So apparently then God is not the same yesterday, today and forever?

Genesis 9:4

Leviticus 17:10-14

1 Samuel 14

I am not sure I understand your point. We are speaking of the contents of the cup, and whether this cup was empty, as the basis for forming a NEW Covenant...

Since Covenants require blood, the cup could not be empty, nor could it be "fake" blood, as that speaks of a fake covenant. The focus is SUPPOSED to be on the BLOOD, not the hyssop, not the cup.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Hi

--------------------------------------------- :rolling ---------------------------------------------------

:help :verysad :help :mad :help :help

I see where your "argument" has gone. Perhaps you have realized the lunacy of suggesting that God form a Covenant with an empty cup. Next, you'll be telling me that the Mosaic Covenant used the hyssop to form the covenant, and all of this talk about blood is too disgusting for you, so you procalim from on high that God didn't mean that, and that the translators got it all wrong again...