Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Where are you getting that from?
I sincerely doubt, my friend, that anyone here would mistake you for a dilettante scribbler!
"...Gray Beards of Greek (like yourself)"
I was once a veritable Greek God, but now...well...(deep sigh)
No, I question it because the eating of blood is strictly forbidden in Scripture by God and that is one of the few commands reiterated in the Council of Jerusalem to non-Jewish believers.
I question it because in Acts 10 Peter himself said that he had never eaten anything unclean and partaking of blood would have made him unclean for the Passover.
Furthermore, Jesus could not have eaten blood as that would have rendered Him ineligible to be the spotless lamb of God, the perfect sinless sacrifice as eating blood broke the Law, which He never did. He came to fulfill the Law, not to break it. If the cup He partook of was blood, He would have defiled Himself.
Not to mention that He called the cup *the fruit of the vine* in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22.
Snippet city.
Thanks dear friend,you beat me to the correct Scriptures.
We hope that God answers our prayers for the good of others for sure;)
So, you are saying then that Jesus broke the Law by eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood BEFORE dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins?
How does that work?
Are you sure you were Catholic once? Catechized?
That I tend to agree with broadly...but it's not really my problem, yet.
The words are self-cotradictory. How do you know old "John" wasn't writing from faulty memory, 50-60 years later?
So, when Jesus speaks about being the "bread of life", the "water of life" and his blood the "New Covenant", why is he suddenly speaking of literally drinking him or eating him?
Because he says "For My flesh is true(ly) food, and My blood is true(ly) drink". [Jn. 6:55]
He obviously, to me, is speaking metaphorically and when we believe in him, receive him, trust in him, have faith in him, we are partaking of him and in return we have eternal life
Assuming that's what he said, he is not speaking metaphorically when he says "true(ly)." There is nothing metaphorical about ἀληθῶς whatsoever, bb.
He "borrowed" them only to sell them to the Russian Czar, only so the non-believing Bolsheviks would sell them to the British. You are giving Tischendorff way too much credit.
Falling back on the old default knee jerk response, eh?
You don't really have a good answer then, do you?
I couldn’t believe you didn’t already know the answer. It “work” like this, from the Gospels, Epistles, and the Eucharist:
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for many
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.
Because he says "For My flesh is true(ly) food, and My blood is true(ly) drink". [Jn. 6:55]
Assuming that's what he said, he is not speaking metaphorically when he says "true(ly)." There is nothing metaphorical about ἀληθῶς whatsoever, bb.
So, let's see if we have this straight here.......
In the first quote, you put the name John in quotes, as if you're not even sure that it was he who wrote the book of John, and then you question whether the memory of someone you seem to be not sure even existed is accurate or not.
In the second quote, you refer to the passage written by someone whose existence and recall you are questioning being taken literally of necessity.
In your third quote, you speculate that someone whose existence and recall you questioned in your first quote was speaking metaphorically or literally.
You are too funny.
Do you also argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
That is most interesting, considering that a learned and observant Jew, such as Jesus, would have never done that! Rather than the Written Torah, he would have referred to the Oral Torah.
"Christians are like the heathen in this tractate. They want to accept the Written Torah that was packaged into their Christian Bible, but yet they reject the entire historical context that surrounds it. And we all know that something can’t be understood outside of its context." [Oral Torah]
There are numerous examples why this is so. Of course, the Christian books were written by Christians activists who, in order to promote their own interpretation of the Torah that would be "harmonized" with the New Testament, also promoted the idea that the Oral Torah was a Jewish invention.
Since Christ was or would not have been a Sadducee, he would have accepted the Oral Torah, lake the rest, rather than appeal to the Written Torah or the writings (scriptures) to "validate" himself. In other words, the Gospels and the NT were written for a specific consumption, mostly Greeks and Romans, who knew little or nothing of Judaism.
A simple *yes* or *no* will do.
“How does that work?” requires more than yes or no.
And your question seems more rhetorical than interrogatory. A statement requiring no answer would serve the same purpose.
In post 6,075 I reposted the question which needed a simple yes or no.
Why are you not responding to what I asked and instead responding to the one I didn’t mention?
I’ll try again and give you another chance.
This requires only a yes or no.
Here goes......
“So, you are saying then that Jesus broke the Law by eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood BEFORE dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins?”
Then we can address the second question which is not going to be so easy to answer.
The "Book" (Gospel) of John is a heavily interpolated book suggesting more than one author.
and then you question whether the memory of someone you seem to be not sure even existed is accurate or not.
The author(s) obviously existed because human being(s) wrote the "Book of John" as you call it. Questioning the accuracy of their memory (if they were even writing from memory!) after 50-60 years after the event is perfectly legitimate for two reasons: (1) human memory has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate and (2) ancient writers would "quote" an individual as the author imagined a person would have spoken, and not necessarily as a verbatim quote.
In the second quote, you refer to the passage written by someone whose existence and recall you are questioning being taken literally of necessity.
I never said the author(s) didn't exist. I use "John" in quotes because there is evidence of more than one author, just as is the case with Isaiah, and Moses, etc.
In your third quote, you speculate that someone whose existence and recall you questioned in your first quote was speaking metaphorically or literally.
I was simply pointing to boatbums, who believes that "John's" Gospel is an accurate recollection of Jesus' own words, that the word αληθως (truly, or true) would not be understood metaphorically.
You are too funny.
No, I think you are. :)
Taste your own medicine.
I love Fr. Schmemann’s public statement after Vatican II (as you know he was an invited observer representing the Orthodox). Paraphrasing: “I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Coeternal Trinity that I am NOT a Roman Catholic.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.