Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Jvette
I don't need to delve deeply into what you linked as I have the plain word of Scripture to tell me all I need to know about the Eucharist.

Indeed, you must not delve deeply but maintain a very superficial view of Biblical language on eating if you texts maintain such must be literal. Which again, to be consistent in your literalism, means David poured out water made blood, and Jesus lived by eating the Father's flesh, and souls were dead until they consumed the corporeal body of Christ,

38 posted on 12/29/2012 6:52:34 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

Not superficial at all.

The OT is not the NT and what happened in the OT is but a foretaste of what was to come in Jesus.

The Word did indeed exist from all eternity, but the flesh of Jesus did not exist until His conception.

Also, Jesus never says He eats of the Father’s flesh. That would be impossible as the Father has no flesh. What He said was that He had meat you know not of. Or in the KJV version, food to eat that you know not of.

Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.

Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church.


43 posted on 12/29/2012 7:50:21 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson