Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies. Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching. Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys?
Thanks for proving yet more ignorance John. Catholics don’t worship a "church" Catholics worship Jesus Christ. Let’s not forget another nice fact – LESS THAN 2% of priests were accused of any wrongdoing.
Response:
I do not worship a church. And the RCC is not the Church, merely one of a number of catholic rites and one which is in some need of guidance and correction.
It needed much more than that when it was burning innocent human beings alive in public squares. It was once one of the world’s foremost terrorist organizations, historical records are very clear on this. But you stand outside the Church altogether, slamming all of it by taking issue, not only with the immorality of the Roman clergy but with the actual deposit of faith.
All of it vague and subject to interpretation, resulting in the sort of endless squabbling we see going on here. How do you think you clowns appear to outsiders? First of all, the RCC is not a pedophile cult.
It’s an established fact that the RCC priesthood is infested with closet gays and pedophiles, and the leadership refused to take action on any of it. The RCC has been full of criminals throughout history, and it’s still partially that way today, only this time, its the very lowest, the filthiest type of criminals – criminals who must be housed separately from regular incarcerated street thugs, because not even thugs would tolerate them in their midst. It is a branch of God’s Church which has happened to fall prey to some rather nasty people due to administrative errors on the part of its leaders.
Administrative errors my ass! Harboring criminals of the lowest caliber is an administrative error? But that does not give YOU the excuse to trash the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith and then call that parody of holiness you espouse, the only real thing.
Doctrines and traditions, cult crap of the highest order. So every time someone believes one of your lies, that’s one more hot coal in your part of the lake of fire!
You’re all full of shite, the lot of you! Hot coals indeed! That would be appropriate for one of your pedophile priests, a hot coal up the butt! Now that would be justice!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law… Christ came and fulfilled the PENALTY of the law. He also canceled the Old Law. Jesus then gave us a whole new set, and a few (9 of the 10 Commandments) from the Old Testament (tithing) were renewed.
Then your complaint about blood is quite ignorant, if Jesus canceled the Old Law – the forbidding to drink blood was an aspect of the Old Law.
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?
That’s something *you* have to resolve. We don’t care. Jesus is God. Jesus told us to do it, so we do. This practice has been confirmed from the earliest days of Christendom by men much closer to the Old Law and Jesus, and the Jewish culture than we: 1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 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." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. St. Ignatius of Antioch – who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, A.D. 110: "those who hold heterodox opinions … abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the Romans 6:2; 7:1). St. Justin Martyr, A.D. 150: "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20). Origen: A.D. 244 "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem: 4th century: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4, 22:9). Theodore of Mopsuestia, 5th Century: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood’, but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1). BAM
Response:
You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys? Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult)
Yes, I think Jesus said something to the effect that it were better that a millstone be wrapped about the offenders necks and they be dumped in the ocean, or something such. I’d like to see the RCC purchase some millstones (we still have a lot of them around down here in the southern US) and drown a few bishops. That might be scriptural, would it not? But no, everyone else gets punished, not them!
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.:
We have here some very old rites of canibalism, anchored in the pagan past, along with ritual sacrifice. Nothing new. Some ancient tribesmen practiced canibalism, thinking that they would then have for themselves the powers or abilities of the person they’re chowing down on. A few unfortunate African colonialists found this out first hand. 2 Kings 2:23-25 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!" Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them. From there Elisha went to Mount Carmel and finally returned to Samaria. (Moral of the story: Do not mess with a man of God)
Yeah, boys messing around with priests can find themselves at the very least raped, and at worst, eaten by bears.
Response:
Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them.
To a Christian, literally anything is possible, no matter how far-fetched it may seem. Cult members in general are not limited by reality.
Response:
Flame on, brothers in Christ! You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son. The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies. I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions!
As us heathens take great delight when Christians fight among themselves. The churches started in contentions and schisms, and it’s been that way ever since!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. Have you stopped beating your wife? Note all t hat Dave O is quite capable of "quips" that amuse him and no one else, but nothing of substance to say, as usual.
You asked a silly question. What did you expect, a Brittanica article? — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies. Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching. Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys?
I do not worship a church. And the RCC is not the Church, merely one of a number of catholic rites and one which is in some need of guidance and correction. But you stand outside the Church altogether, slamming all of it by taking issue, not only with the immorality of the Roman clergy but with the actual deposit of faith. Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt
Look at what is talking, antichrist! children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult)
First of all, the RCC is not a pedophile cult. It is a branch of God’s Church which has happened to fall prey to some rather nasty people due to administrative errors on the part of its leaders. But that does not give YOU the excuse to trash the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith and then call that parody of holiness you espouse, the only real thing. When you learn to distinguish truth from propaganda and to deal in reason instead of childish appeals to emotions, you may actually be ready to repent your sins against God and against man and come to the cross. But in the meantime, the only person you are deceiving is yourself. So every time someone believes one of your lies, that’s one more hot coal in your part of the lake of fire! — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Note all t hat Dave O is quite capable of "quips" that amuse him and no one else, but nothing of substance to say, as usual. John W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law…
Christ came and fulfilled the PENALTY of the law. He also canceled the Old Law. Jesus then gave us a whole new set, and a few (9 of the 10 Commandments) from the Old Testament (tithing) were renewed. One of the Old Testament laws that was revived in the New was the prohibition of eating /drinking blood. No way would the New Testament re-iterate the prohibition of earing/drinking blood, and then Jesus break the new law. And do not say it wasn’t in force before Paul wrote about it. There is no linear time in God’s mind. It’s all a continuum. Just as the Old Testament Jews who were "born again" pre-Christ were NOT saved by rejecting the idea of the coming Messiah. They were saved by believing in the FUTURE Coming. Jesus didn’t give us the command to not eat blood TWICE, then force the disciples (us) to "make an exception." It didn’t happen. And bear in mind that the "church" that teaches this "exception" to God’s laws disregards God’s laws left and right. The blood feast is not the ONLY exception to God’s laws they teach. They worship idols, they create gods and goddesses out of people, they sell forgiveness. God bless, John W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies. Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching. Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters.
You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys? Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult) John W You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son. The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies. I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions!
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. 1 Cor 11:26-30 … sinning against the body and blood. Jn 6:32-58 … long discourse on Eucharist. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 … Melchizedek. Acts 2:42 … breaking of bread. Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 … symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.:
So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Ciao, Falcon — To reply via email remove "7" from address 2 Kings 2:23-25 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!" Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them. From there Elisha went to Mount Carmel and finally returned to Samaria. (Moral of the story: Do not mess with a man of God)
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood.
Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!
Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? — "We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001 to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org –Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843 quoted in Carl Sagan’s _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0×5C66F737
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? — "We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001 to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org –Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843 quoted in Carl Sagan’s _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0×5C66F737
You are obviously missing the point… galia
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. 1 Cor 11:26-30 … sinning against the body and blood. Jn 6:32-58 … long discourse on Eucharist. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 … Melchizedek. Acts 2:42 … breaking of bread. Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 … symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.
There is no Eucharist and you do not practice the last supper (Seder) as Jesus commanded, so what is your point?
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?
I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. John W Ciao, Falcon
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way?
If one is capable of doing a systematic theology and some exegesis (to be sure you are digging out any hidden meaning), as is done with ALL doctrine/theology, it becomes obvious that the Lord’s Supper, as the Seder it consisted of, was symbolic. The Old Testament Seder was symbolic, and the New Testament Seder was as well. In fact, if you really study the Seder meal (too many; with opinions haven’t bothered) the symbolism becomes more and more clear. Those who insist on taking the LITERAL interpretation at this juncture, forget one thing. In this case, the literal makes no sense. They NEVER LITERALLY ate His flesh, or drank His blood. If they never LITERALLY did that, the Seder MUST have been symbolic. When one examines the symbolism, the wine that had meant "deliverance" or "passover" was now the blood of the Paschal Lamb. The pierced, burned bread that HAD represented the Exodus (liberation) now represented His body, given for our liberation from sin/sickness. How many pieces of bread are in the sack used for the Seder meal are also symbolic. John W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?
Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law…
Response:
The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles.
Have you stopped beating your wife? — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!
You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies. Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching. Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son. The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies. I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions! — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? If one is capable of doing a systematic theology and some exegesis (to be sure you are digging out any hidden meaning), as is done with ALL doctrine/theology, it becomes obvious that the Lord’s Supper, as the Seder it consisted of, was symbolic.
There are certainly levels on which it may be considered symbolic, but the actual doctrine of transubstantiation is not cancelled by that fact. The Old Testament Seder was symbolic, and the New Testament Seder was as well.
Except this is the blood of the New Covenant and you would do well to recognize it. But I have the feeling that you are too far gone into deviltry to be of much use to God. In fact, if you really study the Seder meal (too many; with opinions haven’t bothered) the symbolism becomes more and more clear. Those who insist on taking the LITERAL interpretation at this juncture, forget one thing. In this case, the literal makes no sense. They NEVER LITERALLY ate His flesh, or drank His blood. If they never LITERALLY did that, the Seder MUST have been symbolic. When one examines the symbolism, the wine that had meant "deliverance" or "passover" was now the blood of the Paschal Lamb.
So we’re back to YOU (and your spiritual mentors who are all in total rebellion against any part of the Church) making up doctrine to suit yourselves (or maybe some devil you worship?). The pierced, burned bread that HAD represented the Exodus (liberation) now represented His body, given for our liberation from sin/sickness. How many pieces of bread are in the sack used for the Seder meal are also symbolic.
That’s nice. Are you now telling us we should all be Jewish? No, I suspect you just want to peddle your own private "gospel." — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.