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
I have considered it, questioned it, denied it, and, finally, decided to accept Scripture as sufficiently accurate. Perhaps that is why I make no claim to Christian orthodoxy.
Judas? If Judas didn't partake of the Last Supper none of the Apostles did.
I'm afraid that makes no sense to me.
Absolutely false!
“In fact, the whole passage, John 6:47-59, especially in the Greek, makes it clear that Christ was being quite literal about us eating His flesh and drinking His blood.”
If it is so clear, especially in the Greek, then such a meaning, literally eating and drinking of Christ’s material organism, should be clear to all who understand and read the Greek but such is not the case as the treatment of Matthews account (26:26) shows.
In fact, translations such as Weymouth’s, Moffatt’s, Barclay’s, Schonfield’s say the bread “means” or is a symbol signifies, represents, of “my body” quoting Jesus.
Both Thayer’s Lexicon and Vine’s Dictionary say of “drinking” Christ’s blood that it refers to being saved by his death.
Bias on the part of all these people? Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.
Then how to determine the meaning, THE MEANING, not the literalness, of Jesus’ words?
By what happened subsequently. Did the bread of the Passover meal become Christ’s flesh and the Passover wine left over become Christ’s blood in the most literal way?
To justify saying “yes” it would of necessity have to, yet there is no hint that it did.
To justify saying that it did it must of necessity be shown that the bread and wine changed to flesh and blood at some point but the account gives no hint that it did.
In fact all agree that the bread and wine remained such in all perceptible characteristics so the final appeal is to “MYSTERY”, endless rationalizations, and “church fathers”.
Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39.
Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?
You can't do any of those things without changing a word here or there; adding and subtracting...Or, without going outside of the context of what was written...Just as you did with this statement...
Paul told us to follow the traditions whether written OR oral of the Apostles which had been spoken...
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Which had been taught and of course by Revelation of Jesus Christ...NOT some idea that will be invented in a thousand years to be called tradition put out by any or every religion that claims the name of Jesus
Where does it say anyone ate and drank after those words?
You have stated it correctly. Now what are these traditions?
which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Notice the order - it is key. What word? The word of the Church. Not the Word - that is Jesus, but the word. What word? Since none of the NT has been written, it is ONLY by the word of the Church teaching the new Christians. And what are they teaching them? The Faith of the Church. Where is it written down? Nowhere. It is held in the great oral tradition of the Jews, only the information is that of Christianity, not Judaism.
The NT Scripture is a result of the Church, not vice versa. If you shape your man made Church according to the translations of translations of copies of copies of Scripture, you are liable to wind up with, well, whatever Rex Humbard or Rick Warren or James Bakker or.... come up with in order to fill the tents. Or the LaZBoy Throne in the Hall of Sunday Sports Worship...
Which had been taught and of course by Revelation of Jesus Christ...NOT some idea that will be invented in a thousand years to be called tradition put out by any or every religion that claims the name of Jesus
Put 1500 years in that message, and you're several steps closer to Christianity. Congratulations, sir. In all of our verbal jousting, I never thought that you'd come out with something this close to Christianity. I congratulate you.
Except He did explain it to the Apostles.
John 6:
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
OR: I have considered it, questioned it, denied it, and, finally, decided to accept Scripture as sufficiently accurate. Perhaps that is why I make no claim to Christian orthodoxy.
Fair enough. What makes you think the Apostles misunderstood Jesus and you don't?
This passage does not speak to the Real Presence - which is spiritual nourishment, in the substance of the Holy Eucharist.
Εστιν means "represents"? LOL! In what translation?
Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?
You mean like the Bible?
Please allow me to fix that Scripture:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, even tradition we invent as required, whether by word, or our epistle.” There. That's better.
And what are they teaching them? The Faith of the Church. Where is it written down? Nowhere. It is held in the great oral tradition of the Jews, only the information is that of Christianity, not Judaism.
You don't even make it thru the 1st sentence without distorting the truth...Again...
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Epistle=written New Testament scripture...Paul indicates that parts of the written New Testament were being circulated and these traditions are being recorded into scripture...And this is confirmed by the Apostle Peter...
And since I and all other Christians were put into the Church BY GOD when we believed, as the scripture states, and membership in your requires the 'good works' of your sacraments, a year of indoctrination and approval by your clerics, it is clear that your religion is not the Church of the Bible...
Where does it say they refused?
Nope. Not on your authority. Except of course for your own personal church if you wish.
Well, actually here in Mark it does.
Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
It says *all* therefore Jesus, being with them, drank it as well.
That still leaves the questions....
If it was His blood in the cup,
Did Jesus actually drink His own blood and break the Law He said He came to fulfill?
Did the disciples drink it thinking that they were drinking blood?
If they thought it was blood, would they have drank it?
Would Jesus have commanded them to drink it in violation of the Law?
The only way this works if it was still wine and the disciples understood it to be such and the ceremony was one of remembrance, just as the Passover meal was of the first Passover.
All the other Catholics tell us that the bread and wine are literally, physically the flesh and blood of Jesus...
But how do you get spirituality transferred from your stomach to your heart/soul???
The question gets a bit silly: Did Christ enter into communion with Christ.
More than a tad moot.
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Do you get hungry again after having eaten communion? Thirsty?
Jesus said that whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will never hunger or thirst. Don’t you believe Jesus own words?
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.