Passover vs Eucharist

[Marymog]

I have made my position clear.

No....you haven’t. If you had made your position clear I wouldn’t have asked....but I digress.

 

[Marymog]

I'll tell you what he didn't mean. He didn't mean what was in the cup was actually blood.
Of course it's symbolic, so was the Passover meal. It's full of symbolism, so why would his adaption of it not be?

Hi Renniks,

The Jewish Passover meal contained actual meat of a lamb. Jesus replaced that meat with unleavened bread saying “This IS my body....”. Jesus, the lamb, replaced the actual lamb meat in the form of unleavened bread. So why would His adaptation of it not be true today but it was true 2,000 years ago?

He then said do this in remembernece of me. Do you Renniks?

Bible Study Mary

 

[Marymog]

Jesus said, WHOEVER eats the bread I will give them WILL never die

You claim in what you have said,

Jesus said whoever eats the bread that He will give MAY never die (in your words they also have to do what ever else you claim Jesus said we have to do if we really want to live forever)

These two statements are not the same and incompatible. One is an absolute YOU WILL. one is conditional YOU MAY..

I am sorry, But you have failed to convince me they are the same flesh. For the sake of some dear catholic people I have met since I arrived, I am finished with this conversation. It is just not worth destroying friendships over (I pray I have not done this already)

Hi EG,

I completely understand where/why you are getting hung up on not believing Him. You are taking that one sentence, looking at it only, and saying it is not true because “it is absolute”. Since it is an absolute statement (one will never die) and yet a person can still die His statement can’t be true. The Problem is You are not looking at OTHER things he said in His bread of life discourse AND throughout all of Scripture. It all has to be taken into context. In the bread of life discourse he ALSO said Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me.......

Is that all one needs to do to have eternal life? Come to Him and believe in him? NO, of course not. There are MANY other things we must do to have eternal life and those things are talked about thru ALL of Scripture.

That is why I gave the example that Peter must be satan because Jesus said he was. After all, it’s in the Bible and Jesus said it so it must be true ;)

I have never been mad at anyone on this forum for the things they have said. I live by my childhood saying “Sticks and stones....”.

Your friend....Mary

 

[Renniks]

Hi Renniks,

The Jewish Passover meal contained actual meat of a lamb. Jesus replaced that meat with unleavened bread saying “This IS my body....”. Jesus, the lamb, replaced the actual lamb meat in the form of unleavened bread. So why would His adaptation of it not be true today but it was true 2,000 years ago?

He then said do this in remembernece of me. Do you Renniks?

Bible Study Mary

Of course I take communion. I don't drink real blood or eat real flesh however.

 

[Philip James]

the Living Word has judged them to be unworthy. Who are we to try to interfere?

Hello Grailhunter,

Hmm, i think we need to be careful with statements like that.
I would suggest that Jesus, by His willing submission to His passion, demonstrated that we are all 'worthy' of His love.
As for 'interfering', are we not called to invite them to the feast?

I understand your sentiment, just reminding us that He died for them as well as us. We do not know whether or not our Father will use our words to draw them to the Cup of Salvation.

Peace be with you!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hi EG,

I completely understand where/why you are getting hung up on not believing Him. You are taking that one sentence, looking at it only, and saying it is not true because “it is absolute”. Since it is an absolute statement (one will never die) and yet a person can still die His statement can’t be true. The Problem is You are not looking at OTHER things he said in His bread of life discourse AND throughout all of Scripture. It all has to be taken into context. In the bread of life discourse he ALSO said Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me.......

Is that all one needs to do to have eternal life? Come to Him and believe in him? NO, of course not. There are MANY other things we must do to have eternal life and those things are talked about thru ALL of Scripture.

That is why I gave the example that Peter must be satan because Jesus said he was. After all, it’s in the Bible and Jesus said it so it must be true ;)

I have never been mad at anyone on this forum for the things they have said. I live by my childhood saying “Sticks and stones....”.

Your friend....Mary

Just for verification purposes

You are mistaken

It is not one sentence, you have not been paying attention very well

27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

This food. UNLIKE the food they wanted, Endures forever. it does not die. That is absolute

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. .

Again Absolutes.
1. Never (not may never) hunger,
2. Will Never (not may never) thirst

And he equates the bread of heaven and receiving it as coming to him, in faith Which already shows, it is not the lords supper as to how we receive the bread or the cup. But it is coming to him in faith.

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe

These are the people who have not eaten the bread. They are those who DO NOT BELIEVE

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here again, Absolutes. And again, It is not the lords supper. It is coming to Christ. What are the absolutes in this secion?

1. He will (not may) never cast out
2. He will (not may) never lose them
3. His will is he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day
4. His will is that through offering the bread they may have eternal (not conditional) life

45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Once again, Context is being taught by God, in hearing and learning from he father, Not partaking of the lords supper.

And once again Absolutes

1. Belief = eternal (not conditional) life
2. Whoever eats, WILL NEVER (not may never) DIE
3. Whoever eats, WILL (not may) LIVE FOREVER

After quarreling Jesus changes his tactic.

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Here, Jesus stops using bread as resembling coming to him or having faith in him, Instead he uses flesh and blood (speaking of the cross) But yet the SAME ABSOLUTES are in acted

1. If you do not eat. You are dead
2. If you do eat. You HAVE (not might have) eternal (not conditional) Life
3. Again the promise, HE WILL (not might) Raise you on the last day
4. And again, Whoever eats WILL (not might) Live forever

62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Once again, Reverting to his message in the beginning. He equates the bread to the words he came to speak, which is what he wanted them to come to him for in the firt place. not looking for a handout. And eating he equates to having faith, which will produce life and ALL of the ABSOLUTES he gave in this whole passage

So lets revisit the absolutes

Concerning eating the bread from heaven:

vs 35:
1. Never (not may never) hunger,
2. Will Never (not may never) thirst

Vs 37 - 40
1. He will (not may) never cast out
2. He will (not may) never lose them
3. His will is he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day
4. His will is that through offering the bread they may have eternal (not conditional) life

vs 45- 51
1. Belief = eternal (not conditional) life
2. Whoever eats, WILL NEVER (not may never) DIE
3. Whoever eats, WILL (not may) LIVE FOREVER

concerning flesh and blood

vs 53- 58
1. If you do not eat. You are dead
2. If you do eat. You HAVE (not might have) eternal (not conditional) Life
3. Again the promise, HE WILL (not might) Raise you on the last day
4. And again, Whoever eats WILL (not might) Live forever

maybe instead of just assuming things, it would help for you to actually sit and listen to what a person has said to you, In our conversations I have shown you these absolutes over and over, yet even after all this. You say I form my belief on one absolute in one sentence.

Why do you think I said I am done with this, because there is no reason to go on. After a few days of talking, You STILL prove you have not heard much of what I said. I am going to suggest you study John 6 again, If you never come to see it as I do. That fine, I am not demanding you see it my way. But maybe after opening up in deep study you may see WHAT I am saying.


May God bless you

 

[Grailhunter]

Hello Grailhunter,

Hmm, i think we need to be careful with statements like that.
I would suggest that Jesus, by His willing submission to His passion, demonstrated that we are all 'worthy' of His love.
As for 'interfering', are we not called to invite them to the feast?

I understand your sentiment, just reminding us that He died for them as well as us. We do not know whether or not our Father will use our words to draw them to the Cup of Salvation.

Peace be with you!

Philip James....I know you...my pleasure
Not that any of this has to do with you.
Some build religious beliefs on the smallest and most vague scriptures.
This topic has much more than most. It is a full page....detailed description....we get to see the reaction of His disciples and Apostles....He tells them to do it, and then tells them what is going to happen if they do not.....He gives them no choice...then He does it...With the words that He described earlier....This is my blood.

If they cannot understand this scripture, how can they get the meaning of any scripture.
Not that I am saying you do not understand. But I still say the unworthy will not find the truth. If you do not have a believing spirit you will only believe what you want....if you have a condemning spirit the scriptures will lead you to condemning scriptures....you want to judge....the scriptures will give you ammunition....if you are not worthy they will let you piles hot coals on top of your own head.

Determination of salvation is above my pay grade....but Christ said, if you do not believe you are already condemned. This topic sets up an interesting condition....The Bread and Wine ritual does not save anyone. But what condition are you in if you are saved....but have no life in you and He does not raise you on the last day?

 

[Marymog]

Of course I take communion. I don't drink real blood or eat real flesh however.

Thank you Renniks.

You and your church are carrying on a 2,000 year old practice. Sadly some denominations have done away with it. Historically we know from the first century to today Christianity has taught that communion is what Jesus said it is; His body/blood.

When Jesus gave the Apostles the bread/wine he said this IS my body/blood...do this in remembrance of me. So it seems you are following part of what he said. You are doing it in remembrance of Him. But you don't believe or follow the part where he said it IS his body/blood. So I wonder:

When you take communion do you just pretend it is His body/blood? Is that how it works in your church?

Curious

 

[Marymog]

Just for verification purposes

You are mistaken

It is not one sentence, you have not been paying attention very well

27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

This food. UNLIKE the food they wanted, Endures forever. it does not die. That is absolute

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. .

Again Absolutes.
1. Never (not may never) hunger,
2. Will Never (not may never) thirst

And he equates the bread of heaven and receiving it as coming to him, in faith Which already shows, it is not the lords supper as to how we receive the bread or the cup. But it is coming to him in faith.

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe

These are the people who have not eaten the bread. They are those who DO NOT BELIEVE

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here again, Absolutes. And again, It is not the lords supper. It is coming to Christ. What are the absolutes in this secion?

1. He will (not may) never cast out
2. He will (not may) never lose them
3. His will is he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day
4. His will is that through offering the bread they may have eternal (not conditional) life

45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Once again, Context is being taught by God, in hearing and learning from he father, Not partaking of the lords supper.

And once again Absolutes

1. Belief = eternal (not conditional) life
2. Whoever eats, WILL NEVER (not may never) DIE
3. Whoever eats, WILL (not may) LIVE FOREVER

After quarreling Jesus changes his tactic.

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Here, Jesus stops using bread as resembling coming to him or having faith in him, Instead he uses flesh and blood (speaking of the cross) But yet the SAME ABSOLUTES are in acted

1. If you do not eat. You are dead
2. If you do eat. You HAVE (not might have) eternal (not conditional) Life
3. Again the promise, HE WILL (not might) Raise you on the last day
4. And again, Whoever eats WILL (not might) Live forever

62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Once again, Reverting to his message in the beginning. He equates the bread to the words he came to speak, which is what he wanted them to come to him for in the firt place. not looking for a handout. And eating he equates to having faith, which will produce life and ALL of the ABSOLUTES he gave in this whole passage

So lets revisit the absolutes

Concerning eating the bread from heaven:

vs 35:
1. Never (not may never) hunger,
2. Will Never (not may never) thirst

Vs 37 - 40
1. He will (not may) never cast out
2. He will (not may) never lose them
3. His will is he WILL (not might) raise them on the last day
4. His will is that through offering the bread they may have eternal (not conditional) life

vs 45- 51
1. Belief = eternal (not conditional) life
2. Whoever eats, WILL NEVER (not may never) DIE
3. Whoever eats, WILL (not may) LIVE FOREVER

concerning flesh and blood

vs 53- 58
1. If you do not eat. You are dead
2. If you do eat. You HAVE (not might have) eternal (not conditional) Life
3. Again the promise, HE WILL (not might) Raise you on the last day
4. And again, Whoever eats WILL (not might) Live forever

maybe instead of just assuming things, it would help for you to actually sit and listen to what a person has said to you, In our conversations I have shown you these absolutes over and over, yet even after all this. You say I form my belief on one absolute in one sentence.

Why do you think I said I am done with this, because there is no reason to go on. After a few days of talking, You STILL prove you have not heard much of what I said. I am going to suggest you study John 6 again, If you never come to see it as I do. That fine, I am not demanding you see it my way. But maybe after opening up in deep study you may see WHAT I am saying.


May God bless you

You can right 1,000 more words and it doesn't change the fact that He said it IS his body/blood and we must eat/drink it. His statement has NOTHING to do with the bizarre teaching of gnawing and chewing on Scripture. Another member on this forum said the same thing and he wouldn't tell me from what man he learned that. I guess he is embarrassed just like you are since you refused to tell me what man you learned it from. Sadly, you have proven you have not heard much of what Jesus said, Paul said and Ignatius has said. Instead you listen to what other men have told you. Men of which you are to embarrassed to tell me about.

I am going to suggest you study John 6 and your 1st century Christian history again. If you never come to see it as Christianity has taught it for 2,000 years that's fine. But maybe after opening up in deep study you may see what Jesus was really saying instead of what you believe he was saying. Stop reading Protestant history and relying on Protestant men and read Christian history instead is what I am suggesting....

May God bless you also.....respectfully, Mary

 

[Renniks]

When you take communion do you just pretend it is His body/blood? Is that how it works in your church?

We all know it's grape juice and bread. I'm pretty sure the disciples knew it was wine and bread too. Meat and blood have a far different taste.
We do it in remembrance of him, just as he said.
Are you trying to tell me that you think literal transubstantiation actually takes place?

 

[Marymog]

We all know it's grape juice and bread. I'm pretty sure the disciples knew it was wine and bread too. Meat and blood have a far different taste.
We do it in remembrance of him, just as he said.
Are you trying to tell me that you think literal transubstantiation actually takes place?

Hi Renniks,

Now I am even more confused. Scripture says Jesus used wine and every historical Christian document we have says wine was used and has been used for 2,000 years. Your church doesn't even use wine? If your church is using grape juice they are failing to follow Christ's example.

In summary your church is teaching you it is NOT His body/blood even though he said it IS his body/blood AND Your church is also failing to follow the example set forth by Christ and the Apostles when you use grape juice instead of wine!!

Yes, I believe what The Church has been teaching for 2,000 years which matches up with what Jesus (and Paul said in 1 Cor. 10:16) said; I believe it IS his body/blood. Why don't you believe what He said?

I can give you Scripture and 1st century teachings of Christianity to back up what I believe. What century did your belief become popular?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Renniks]

Hi Renniks,

Now I am even more confused. Scripture says Jesus used wine and every historical Christian document we have says wine was used and has been used for 2,000 years. Your church doesn't even use wine? If your church is using grape juice they are failing to follow Christ's example.

In summary your church is teaching you it is NOT His body/blood even though he said it IS his body/blood AND Your church is also failing to follow the example set forth by Christ and the Apostles when you use grape juice instead of wine!!

Yes, I believe what The Church has been teaching for 2,000 years which matches up with what Jesus (and Paul said in 1 Cor. 10:16) said; I believe it IS his body/blood. Why don't you believe what He said?

I can give you Scripture and 1st century teachings of Christianity to back up what I believe. What century did your belief become popular?

Respectfully, Mary

What's the difference between grape juice and wine? Just a little aging. In fact, a lot of what they called wine was probably not hardly even fermented. Now I'm confused. You say Jesus used wine, but you just said it was blood. I know what blood tastes like. Grape juice isn't blood. Wine isn't blood.
I don't know why you want to believe it's literally blood.
When Jesus said we must drink his blood to be his, no one picked up a knife and slashed his vein. When he said " eat my flesh" no one asked for a drumstick or a finger to knaw on.
Obviously he was using symbolic language which he did pretty much constantly in all his teachings.

 

[Philip James]

Philip James....I know you...my pleasure

Thank you. The pleasure is mine, i'm sure :)

if you have a condemning spirit

That is the very spirit that I am warning us of here. For who hasnt asked the Lord, 'shall i call down fire on them?'

But having myself learned the patience and long suffering of My Lord for me I can naught but implore Him:
For the sake of 50 will you not stay your hand?
For 20?
For 10?

Lord, bear with us, but a little longer , we pray, that you might heal us Lord and we might be healed...

. This topic sets up an interesting condition....The Bread and Wine ritual does not save anyone. But what condition are you in if you are saved....but have no life in you and He does not raise you on the last day?

I think you have more than one debate in that statement ;)
And yes it would be interesting!

Peace be with you!

 

[Marymog]

What's the difference between grape juice and wine? Just a little aging. In fact, a lot of what they called wine was probably not hardly even fermented.

Hi Renniks,

Some churches serve grape juice instead of wine for communion saying Jesus didn’t drink wine or wine wasn’t prevalent back then or it wasn’t a strong wine (low in alcohol content). According to scripture Jesus was accused of being a drunkard (Mathew 11:19) In Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit came upon the believers and they began to speak in different tongues the crowds (non believers) thought they were drunk. Peter stood up and said they weren’t drunk for it is only nine in the morning. Thru history books we know that public drunkenness and wine making was very prevalent during Jesus time. In 92 AD, Roman Emperor Domitian issued an edict that not only banned new vineyards in Rome but ordered the uprooting of half of the vineyards in Roman provinces.

Drinking grape juice instead of wine for communion started in the United States in the late 1800’s when the anti-alcohol movement became big with the Baptist and Presbyterians. Drinking grape juice is an American tradition that is not based on scripture or history.

Those are the historical facts about grape juice vs wine. Would you care to dive into Scripture why wine is necessary?

Historical Mary

 

[Renniks]

Hi Renniks,

Some churches serve grape juice instead of wine for communion saying Jesus didn’t drink wine or wine wasn’t prevalent back then or it wasn’t a strong wine (low in alcohol content). According to scripture Jesus was accused of being a drunkard (Mathew 11:19) In Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit came upon the believers and they began to speak in different tongues the crowds (non believers) thought they were drunk. Peter stood up and said they weren’t drunk for it is only nine in the morning. Thru history books we know that public drunkenness and wine making was very prevalent during Jesus time. In 92 AD, Roman Emperor Domitian issued an edict that not only banned new vineyards in Rome but ordered the uprooting of half of the vineyards in Roman provinces.

Drinking grape juice instead of wine for communion started in the United States in the late 1800’s when the anti-alcohol movement became big with the Baptist and Presbyterians. Drinking grape juice is an American tradition that is not based on scripture or history.

Those are the historical facts about grape juice vs wine. Would you care to dive into Scripture why wine is necessary?

Historical Mary

I'm not concerned at all about how much the wine was fermented. It's a non issue.
The point is, it's not literal blood.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Your church is also failing to follow the example set forth by Christ and the
Apostles when you use grape juice instead of wine!!

The cup that Jesus blessed the night of his last supper contained a
nondescript beverage that he defined as "fruit of the vine".

I'll concede that his fruit of the vine likely consisted of something made from
grapes, but the definition could just as easily pertain to vinegar and grape
juice.

I think we can safely rule out grape juice because back then it could only be
obtained during harvest when the grapes are freshly pressed. Christ's last
supper was eaten in Spring, which was too early for grape harvest.

Back in his day, prior to the invention of bottling processes, it was nigh
impossible to prevent organic juices from eventually turning to the point
where they were not all that savory; hence the expressions old wine and
new wine. (cf. John 2:9-10)

Anyway, it's very likely the Lord's cup contained fermented juice; but the
Bible doesn't actually say so; we sort of have to sleuth it.

Also, the bread he blessed isn't actually stated to be made from unleavened
dough. The Greek word is artos instead of azumos, but we know from the
twelfth chapter of Exodus that his bread was unleavened; and that Jesus and
his men were all hard-core Orthodox Jews who would never in a million
years eat leavened bread during a feast so important to their ethnic identity
as Passover. Again; we sort of have to sleuth it.

Now; if we are going to split hairs over this issue, then we must insist that
The Church is very wrong in giving congregations bread in the form of a
processed wafer when it's supposed to be helpings of bread from a loaf
recently torn apart. Wafers miss the point.

● 1Cor 11:23-24 . . I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and
when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: This is my body which is
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

Broken bread reminds the congregation that Jesus' body was very nearly
destroyed during his crucifixion.

● Isa 52:14 . . Many were appalled at him-- his appearance was so
disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond human
likeness--

When the three hours of darkness lifted that day, the man who emerged was
so badly disfigured that even his own mother wouldn't have recognized him
had she not been there and seen the whole thing for herself.

What's even more shocking is that the Romans aren't to blame for doing
that to Christ; no, they had their fun and nailed him up there, but it was God
who put on the finishing touches; his own Father is to blame for the extreme
severity of Jesus' injuries.

● Luke 23:47 . .The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and
said: Surely this was a righteous man.

The centurion had likely presided over lots of crucifixions, but you can bet
your bottom dollar never over one like that before.

● Luke 23:48-49 . . When all the people who had gathered to witness this
sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.

No surprise. It's a wonder anybody could catch their breath after an event
like that.
_

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you. The pleasure is mine, i'm sure :)


That is the very spirit that I am warning us of here. For who hasnt asked the Lord, 'shall i call down fire on them?'

But having myself learned the patience and long suffering of My Lord for me I can naught but implore Him:
For the sake of 50 will you not stay your hand?
For 20?
For 10?

Lord, bear with us, but a little longer , we pray, that you might heal us Lord and we might be healed...



I think you have more than one debate in that statement ;)
And yes it would be interesting!

Peace be with you!

But having myself learned the patience and long suffering of My Lord

You funny! Do me a favor and pray to the Lord for patience. Get down off that soup box or I am going to wrestle you off of it! All do respect! lol

I think you have more than one debate in that statement ;)
And yes it would be interesting!

Exactly….


Now seriously…in 100 words or less explain to me how you have one book and somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 interpretations. Then explain to me how that is a good thing. If it was a traffic manual it would not be safe to drive on the roads. lol Seriously there “are” some reasons for this. We can name a few off the top of our heads…but what I said about the Living Word of God is true…one of the miracles of the scriptures….it may be physiologically functional, it maybe divine….but it is true. The character that you have may determine how you interpret the scriptures. If your spiritual scope is limited you may have trouble in understanding and belief. I can call it unworthy, some may call it a compromised character, a product of their environment, a hard heart, whatever politically correct thing you want to call it. You have people here that give God all the characteristic of Satan. Nothing should surprise you!

Bottom line, there is a lot of things about "you" that will determine "your" perspective and understanding of the scriptures.

 

[marksman]

No....you haven’t. If you had made your position clear I wouldn’t have asked....but I digress.

Nothing new.

 

[Marymog]

I'm not concerned at all about how much the wine was fermented. It's a non issue.
The point is, it's not literal blood.

Ok....thank you. I assumed you wanted to know the history of the ‘grape juice’ replacing wine in Christianity. If it doesn’t concern you at all that your Church is following a 19th century tradition instead of Scripture then that is your choice.

I get it. It makes no sense to me either. When we drink the wine in remembrance of Him it does not taste like blood or look like blood. Truly a miracle that only God can perform.

When Jesus told the Apostles “This IS my blood....” what did he mean? It was a symbol of his blood?

Mary

 

[Renniks]

Ok....thank you. I assumed you wanted to know the history of the ‘grape juice’ replacing wine in Christianity. If it doesn’t concern you at all that your Church is following a 19th century tradition instead of Scripture then that is your choice.

I get it. It makes no sense to me either. When we drink the wine in remembrance of Him it does not taste like blood or look like blood. Truly a miracle that only God can perform.

When Jesus told the Apostles “This IS my blood....” what did he mean? It was a symbol of his blood?

Mary

Of course it was and is a symbol. Now if you mean to say only that Christ is present in the Eucharist I won't argue. But we probably mean different things by that. His presence doesn't require the wine to be actual blood or the bread actual flesh.