Hugo Chavez died 'in the bosom of the Church': Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Catholic news agency ^ | Mar 6, 2013 | Catholic news agency

[daniel1212]

Caracas, Venezuela, Mar 6, 2013 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- A source in Venezuela has revealed to CNA that President Hugo Chavez died “in bosom of the Church” and received spiritual direction and the sacraments in his last days.

In announcing Chavez’s death to the nation on March 5, Vice President Nicolas Maduro said the Venezuelan leader died “clinging to Christ.” The source in Venezuela told CNA that during the last weeks of his life, Chavez requested spiritual direction and asked to receive the sacraments.

Ever since he assumed power in 1999, Chavez butted heads continuously with the Catholic Church over statements by the bishops warning of the risks and excesses of his Socialist agenda. In 2002, Chavez accused the Venezuelan bishops of being a “tumor” for his revolutionary goals and demanded that the Vatican not intervene in the internal affairs of the country.

In recent years, Chavez occasionally took part in the religious services of distinct denominations, but he surprised the press in April 2012 when he showed up at a Catholic church in his hometown of Barinas to attend Holy Week services. He wore a rosary around his neck and prayed for strength to fight his illness. Last July, Chavez made public his request to meet with the Catholic bishops.

After Chavez’s death, the Archdiocese of Caracas, led by Cardinal Jorge Urosa who is currently in Rome for the conclave, sent its condolences

The secretary general of the Bishops’ Conference of Venezuela, Bishop Jesus Gonzalez de Zarate, called for national unity. “At this time let us all put forth our best sentiments,” he said during an interview on Venezuelan television. “Death is not the end of our life,” he added. “Death only opens the way to a life of complete happiness, at the side of God our Father.”

[Jvette]

****The verse about *If you love me, you will obey my commandments* is not a command but rather Him explaining what the natural outworking of loving Him will be.****

Ah, so when He says, “You are my friends, if you keep my commands.” means what exactly? What happens if you don’t keep His commands? Does that mean you are not His friend? And what does that mean?

This is what is meant by presumption, presuming that one has no role in their own salvation. St. Paul says in his letter to the Phillipians, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. That doesn’t mean we are constantly afraid and shaking in our boots. Rather, it means we are to be always mindful of God’s power and love and our duty to do all that we can to live His word, repent of our sins, and work for His kingdom on earth.

Salvation is surely freely given by God, but we must do something. We must believe, we must love, we must act out of love and we must repent.

It’s like our physical life. We know that God sustains all life and without that Him, everything would cease to exist. Yet, don’t I have to eat? Don’t I have to drink? Don’t I have to be active to maintain my body? Don’t I have to marry and bear children for life to continue?

It is the same with my soul. Don’t I have to believe? And in believing, what do I do? I love. And in loving, what do I do? I act. If I do not do these things, do I truly believe or love?

We do not do good works out of fear, but out of love and compassion and gratitude because we know the incredible gift we have received. If we do not do good works, are we not rejecting God’s own good works done for us?

***If someone has to plan them and keeps tally, then it’s unlikely that they are the true fruit of a truly changed life***

Planning and keeping a tally? Not at all. But, it is not always easy to be good and do good. To be charitable and kind and loving and forgiving and it takes a conscience effort to do and be all those things for others.

It is for good works that God has prepared us as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2, we are saved by grace and not by our works, but it is for good works that we have been saved.

St. Paul also speaks in 1Corinthians, chapters 9 and 10 of the importance of always being vigilant in our faith and in our actions. He speaks of his own life and how he must live so that he can be a blessing to others and so that he will not be castaway. He ends this with the admonishment that one who thinks he is standing firm should pay attention to what he is saying, lest he should fall.

Castaway from what? Fall from what?

St. Peter tells us that the devil seeks to devour souls and St. Paul tells we must put on the armor of God because we battle all the time with forces that seek to rob us of our inheritance.

The message of the cross is love and there is a reason it is a cross because it represents our relationship with God in the vertical beam and our relationship with each other in the horizontal beam, just as Christ is both divine and human.

[daniel1212]

Glory to God for what truth that edifies.

[daniel1212]

ohn 6 is also not talking about the Last Supper since it is not occurring in Jerusalem and it is not the 14th of Nissan

Hey, even a retired pope believes that "John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal." http://catholiclane.com/dating-the-last-supper-excerpt-from-jesus-of-nazareth-part-2-by-joseph-ratzinger

But what day the Lord was crucified for our sins is a much contested point i am not into. That He was and rose is the main thing.

[Elsie]

Hey, even a retired pope believes that "John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal."

---

Yeah; these guys messed it up somehow...

 

Luke 22:8
Jesus sent Peter and John ahead and said, "Go and prepare the Passover meal, so we can eat it together."

Matthew 26:17
On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to prepare the Passover meal for you?"

 

Mark 14:12-16

² On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

¹³ So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. ¹⁴ Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ¹⁵ He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”

¹⁶ The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

[Jvette]

****God and Jesus give us grace. Period. The Catholic idea that grace comes through physical elements has zero Scriptural support. It limits God’s acting in the life of the believer.

What gives us life is the Spirit.****

Exactly, it is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit from which all grace flows, but it is not a “Catholic” idea that grace comes through physical elements, it is God’s. God uses the physical elements all the time. They are His creation and the ultimate of physical elements used by God to impart grace is through the person, the human, Jesus the Christ.

This aversion to the physical is nothing new, but it is an erroneous fear and understanding of the physical realm.

****So baptism saves except that it doesn’t. If baptism saves people, then God is in the business of sending His children to hell if they’re not good enough. What kind of father would send his own children to hell?****

Baptism does save, it is the washing away of sin and when we are incorporated into the body of Christ. And it is a physical sign of an inward grace, not a washing of the body but of the soul, a rebirth into the grace of God who wills that all be saved even though we know from Scripture that not all will. God the Father does not send anyone to hell, we freely accept or reject salvation by our choices.

****They cannot claim that its a gift freely given and then put conditions on it. That is not forgiveness. If there are conditions on it then it’s not a gift and it’s not freely given. It’s earned. It’s wages due for service given.****

Indeed it is a freely given gift in that God was not and is not obligated to offer it and certainly Jesus was not obligated to come as a human and offer Himself as reparation for our sins. The obligation is ours, not conditions, not strings, but duty to honor the covenant God has offered us. I will be your God and you will be my people. God never wavered on that, never went back and doesn’t even now. WE waver, we forget, we ignore, we presume, we reject and in that rejection we make our choice.

Like the story of the workers in the vineyard, God has offered us a reward freely given by Him when we have done our work. He doesn’t owe us, we owe Him and were it not for the price Jesus paid, no amount of work by us is worthy of the reward God gives. In baptism we are united with Jesus so that if we do have good works, it is Jesus working through us and it is Jesus whom God sees in us.

****So, no one can feed the poor, visit the sick and imprisoned, forgive others, cloth the naked, care for the widow and the orphan?

The question is nonsense. It doesn’t even make sense.****

The question was in response to your comment in #212 that what Catholics consider the new works that Jesus established cannot be kept either.

What are the new works which Jesus established according to Catholics? Feeding the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the imprisoned, giving drink to the thirsty, forgiveness etc....

So, these cannot be kept? No one can do them?

That is what was silly and didn’t make sense.

****Catholics love to imply that non-Catholics don’t do good works because they don’t need to for salvation****

Catholics do not infer that, nor do they believe it, in fact, when we stop talking circles around each other, our beliefs are very similar. Good works are indeed outward signs of the inward change of the heart which takes place when one comes to believe in the Lord and accepts His love and grace.

If those good works do not come it may be that the heart has not truly been changed. If that is the case, it is not that God has rejected us, it is that we have rejected Him.

[metmom]

The question was in response to your comment in #212 that what Catholics consider the new works that Jesus established cannot be kept either.

I never said that those alleged "new" works of Christ cannot be kept. I said that we cannot meet the standard of purity of heart that Christ revealed in going to the intent of the Law.

Besides, caring for the widows and orphans and the poor, is NOT a new Law. It's part of the Law that God handed down on Mt Sinai.

What Christ revealed is that it's not the outward works of the Law that matter but that it's the inward heart that counts. Lusting in the heart = adultery, even if the act is not actually carried out.

John reveals that hatred of another = murder.

No one can meet that standard of purity, even if they can exercise great outward control of the body.

So since sin is a heart issue, Jesus is revealing that and showing how impossible it is to keep.

There are going to be lots of people appealing to their works and Christ will claim that He never knew them.

Catholics can brag up their works of charity all they want, but in the end, they don't mean a thing in regard to that person's personal salvation. They don't count at all. Matter of fact, if someone is doing them to earn favor (or brownie points) that immediately disqualifies them from counting because the motive for doing them is self-serving.

[Jvette]

Everything is by grace.

When a Catholic is “required” to do good works, is doesn’t mean that there is a pro/con list going on with that person’s soul, it means that humans tend to be selfish and self centered and sometimes we do need reminding that we have so much and are expected to give as much.

There are corporal works of mercy such as feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked etc...

There are spiritual works of mercy such as praying for each other, consoling those who are afflicted, instruction of the ignorant, admonishing sinners and forgiveness.

All which are done for our brothers and sisters and which serve to deepen our faith, compassion and gratitude.

It is grace that gives us what we need to perform these works especially when we may not always feel inclined to do so.

[Elsie]

Catholics do not infer that, nor do they believe it, in fact, when we stop talking circles around each other, our beliefs are very similar.

Of course they are!

Catholics just do a lot more stuff than is needed.

[Jvette]

****Indeed, you once again have exampled a misapprehension of context, which shows the use of the use of metaphors versus literal. Jesus is not literally a transubstantiated into an animal, or literally a snake, or vine, or a sheepgate, but He is literally the Divine Son of God and the Lord. ****

But, Jesus is truly the Word of God made flesh and was truly crucified for our sins. As the Jews had to slay the spotless lamb and smear the blood on their doorposts to be freed from their slavery, so, Jesus had to be literally slain, His blood smeared on the wood of the cross for us to be freed from our sins.

And just as those very same Jews had to eat of the lamb as part of their salvation, so we must eat of Jesus, the Lamb of God for our salvation.

In John 6, Jesus uses stark and graphic language when speaking of the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. So much so that many who had been with Him left, disheartened by the hard sayings they were hearing.

Those who remained did so because they had seen the works and signs Jesus had performed and heard His message and trusted in Him. They were surely confused and concerned with such talk as they were when He spoke of His death and resurrection. We know they did not fully comprehend what He was telling them, understanding came later.

At the Last Supper, did they fully know what was going on? No, of course not, they needed the wisdom and understanding they received by the Holy Spirit. At the Last Supper, just as He had done before He is preparing them for what is to come. This is MY body, this is MY blood.

****No, because you must defend Rome, and therefor cannot even allow as a possibility any other interpretation than that which supports her.****

I allow that there are surely many meanings to be found within each passage in Scripture and do not discount what you say. I merely believe there is much more to it than the allegorical or metaphorical.

I defend my beliefs but am not defensive. I seek only to correct misconceptions and mischaracterizations I see when I see them and when I have the time.

There was a time when I did not believe but the Holy Spirit has moved in my heart to open my eyes.

****Yes, i do, i know that you evidence yourself to be a RC who must defend Rome, and therefor cannot even allow as a possibility any other interpretation than that which supports her. ****

I must only because the Church comes under attack and must be defended. I do so out of love from a grateful heart.

****Rather, it is you and fellow RCs who are relegating all evangelical Christians to be third class citizens (after the second class EOs), and cannot allow even the possibility that they could be right in anything that contradicts Rome’s official teaching. And who then protest when her arrogation is challenged and refuted*****

What you have offered does not contradict official Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The contradiction only comes when one believes it is the only interpretation or the primary interpretation and that the Catholics are wrong in theirs.

If a Christian feels himself to be a third class citizen, whatever that means, then it is a case of feeling what is lacking in themselves because no one is denied who believes.

****i appreciate the attitude, but you are belittling what we believe, and as a Catholic you presume that you are part of a superior class who by a “supernatural sense of faith” under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium “unfailingly adheres to this faith.” (CCC, 889 *****

I have not belittled what you believe in anyway. I have simply stated my belief which you reject. Again you imply a knowledge of me you do not have.

*****And thus you cannot allow even the possibility that we could be right in anything that contradicts Rome’s supreme magisterium, regardless of the weight of substantiation. *****

You can be right in your interpretation and wrong to think it contradicts Catholic teaching. As I said above, what you have offered does not contradict the Catholic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, it is merely a secondary other meaning.

***All debate is an attack on a contrary position, and thus on those who hold to it. You may want dialog, but when one cannot allow that the opposing party could be right, then it is no longer dialog .****

An attack on one’s position is different than an attack on one’s person.

[Jvette]

*****I never said that those alleged “new” works of Christ cannot be kept. *****

****The old Law couldn’t be kept, and what Catholics consider the new works that Jesus established cannot be kept either.****

Your words. Just sayin’.

****What Christ revealed is that it’s not the outward works of the Law that matter but that it’s the inward heart that counts. Lusting in the heart = adultery, even if the act is not actually carried out.*****

*****No one can meet that standard of purity, even if they can exercise great outward control of the body.*****

I agree.

That is why grace is an ongoing necessity.

*****Catholics can brag up their works of charity all they want, but in the end, they don’t mean a thing in regard to that person’s personal salvation. They don’t count at all. Matter of fact, if someone is doing them to earn favor (or brownie points) that immediately disqualifies them from counting because the motive for doing them is self-serving.****

Catholics do not brag of their works. They do them with a grateful heart, not seeking to gain points, but to live as Christ has commended them to do.

We want only for Him to live in us that we may live in Him.

[Jvette]

In my post I said that the early Church held the belief in the real presence. I consider St. Justin Martyr to be the early church.

It may not be determinative of doctrine for a nonCatholic, but in the Church the contributions of the early Church are an important part of interpreting Scripture in a similar way that the Federalist Papers are an important part of understanding the intent of the constitution.

So, I understand why a nonCatholic would discount it, but there is no denying that St. Justin was a second century Christian who wrote of the universal Church.

If you have ever read anything regarding Scripture by another Christian who has edified you in anyway about Scripture, then you have done the same as the Church does in regards to the early fathers.

In fact, doing exactly that is how Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Seventh Day Adventists and so on......all came to be.

[daniel1212]

But, Jesus is truly the Word of God made flesh and was truly crucified for our sins. As the Jews had to slay the spotless lamb and smear the blood on their doorposts to be freed from their slavery, so, Jesus had to be literally slain, His blood smeared on the wood of the cross for us to be freed from our sins.

You are not seeing the contrast. Indeed, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and was truly crucified for our sins, showing the difference btwn figurative language and literal, but he was not literally a lamb, which is an animal, nor a literal door, or a literal vine, or one who gives literal water, but by literally becoming human He was a type of these literal things which allegorically refer to Him, which did not mean she was transubstantiated into a door etc..

Likewise the Canaanites were "bread" for Israel, and Bathsheba was also allegorically referred to as little ewe lamb, but which did not mean she was transubstantiated into one. Etc. Israel was a lion, and drank blood: "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain. " (Numbers 23:24) And David's enemies came to eat his flesh, (Ps. 27:2) while Jeremiah found God's words did eat them. (Jer. 15:16)

In John 6, Jesus uses stark and graphic language when speaking of the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. So much so that many who had been with Him left, disheartened by the hard sayings they were hearing.

There is nothing in the language that would restrict it to literal eating or drinking, while the Lord also used physical language that others thought was referring to physical things, such as human birth and literal water. (Jn. 3,4)

That was His method both in separating true seekers from false, thus He often spoke in parables, and His means of leading seekers to a spiritual plane, in which the physical was a figure of the spiritual, unlike making eating literal flesh the means of attaining spiritual benefit.

The reason the Jews left was because they were carnally minded, as they came for physical food, and unlike the disciples who also found it a difficult saying, they did not wait for the spiritual explanation. And which explanation is the one that is entirely fitting with John and the Scriptures, which is that one gains life in himself by believing the gospel, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) not at the Lord's supper which is nowhere shown resulting in spiritual birth. And they live by Christ the same way He lived by the Father. (Jn. 6:57). Which was not by eating His flesh, but according to His word. (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 6:34) See post 222

One correction though is that it is unlikely that they Jews that left did so because the remained under the impression that Jesus was referring to carnal flesh, but they left because they came for the physical, and had no heart to seek the spiritual meaning. And again note the similarity here with Jn. 3+4)

As Miller writes,

Jesus' use of 'eating and drinking' herein would have been in good rabbinic style. The Jewish midrash on Ecc. 2:24 says specifically that "All references to eating and drinking in the book of Qohelet signify Torah and good works."

The rabbi's even spoke of 'eating the Messiah' when he appeared (and without any cannibalistic overtones or objections), and by that meant a sharing and enjoying of His benefits--exactly what Jesus is referring to here:

"R. Giddal said in Rab's name: The Jews are destined to eat [their fill] in the days of the Messiah.[ lit. "Israel shall eat the years of Messiah"] R. Joseph demurred: is this not obvious; who else then should eat — Hilek and Bilek? — This was said in opposition to R. Hillel, who maintained that there will be no Messiah for Israel, since they have already enjoyed him [literally, "devoured him"] during the reign of Hezekiah. [Sanh. 98b, Hillel's words repeated in 99a] more: http://christianthinktank.com/hnoblood2.html#john6

But what Rome gives them is human flesh, supposing it gives spiritual benefit, which is also a concept shared by pagans.

..there was usually the meal of mystic foods — grains of all sorts at Eleusis, bread and water in the cult of Mithra, wine (Dionysus), milk and honey (Attis), raw bull's flesh in the Orphic Dionysus-zagreus cult. Sacred formulæ were certainly imparted, of magical value. -mhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm).

In some of these secret religions "celebrants shared a communal meal in which they symbolically ate the flesh and drank the blood of their god." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#cite_note-Harris.2C_Stephen_L._p_286-82

At the Last Supper, did they fully know what was going on? No, of course not, they needed the wisdom and understanding they received by the Holy Spirit. In order for the Eucharist to benefit them, they had to believe it was the literal body of the Lord Jesus, and yet they passively consumed human flesh and blood, in stark contrast to the questioning they exampled in at other times when faced with less puzzling things, and which questioning they had just engaged in, at the last supper, and the protesting Peter later showed when faced with Jesus washing his feet, (Jn. 13) and eating non-kosker food. (Acts 10)

At the Last Supper, just as He had done before He is preparing them for what is to come. This is MY body, this is MY blood.

And Canaanites were called bread, and David called water blood of men, and numerous other examples in Scripture plus rabbinic language make this perfectly understandable as metaphor, and thus the apostles silence at what would be a most radical and novel act.

I allow that there are surely many meanings to be found within each passage in Scripture and do not discount what you say. I merely believe there is much more to it than the allegorical or metaphorical....What you have offered does not contradict official Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

I cannot concur that you merely believe there is much more to it than the allegorical or metaphorical, and that have offered does not contradict official Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It most assuredly does, as it contradict the literal interpretation.

You can be right in your interpretation and wrong to think it contradicts Catholic teaching.

I believe i am right regarding this and it does contradicts Catholic teaching, and thus as a defender of Rome you cannot allow my rejection of the literal interpretation, even as a possibility.

An attack on one’s position is different than an attack on one’s person.

As seen in Scripture, there is a crossover. On FR there are parameters. Stating what a Catholic is bound to do is not mind reading or calling them a liar, or making the argument really about the person rather than the issue.

[CynicalBear]

Well done daniel. It’s sad to watch the deception the RCC perpetrates on it’s followers.

[Lera]

But what day the Lord was crucified for our sins is a much contested point i am not into. That He was and rose is the main thing.

This is not about a legality on when and when not to do anything nor how often to do it as we are not told to do it on just one day a year. Jesus was fulfilling the Biblical Feast . Jesus was crucified on the Passover and rose on First Fruits.(First Fruits is a picture and points to resurrection so much so that they STOPPED celebrating it)

On Passover the the Jews are remembering their escape from Egypt and looking forward to the coming of Messiah.(that is why they set a cup for Elijah)
For us it is a remembrance also of what he has done for us. He has brought us out of Egypt by being born again (Egypt is a picture of the world ) and we look forward to his coming for us and the Wedding Feast .

Luke 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Picture this , everyone reclining at the Last Supper is Jewish and understands Jewish customs of the day . At a Passover meal three pieces of unleavened bread are taken out and placed into a little bag with three pockets . The middle piece of matza is taken out of that bag and BROKEN wrapped in a linen cloth and hidden away . That broken piece of bread is later brought out to be enjoyed as if were the most delicious thing ever .

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


Do you see the symbolism now ?- the three in one - the middle bread broken and hidden away later to be brought out and enjoyed .

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (the cup after supper is the CUP OF BLESSING in the Passover Meal )

This post was not about legalism , it's about what someone who was Jewish and sitting at that table would have understood at the time and how the meal pointed to HIM.:)

[BlueDragon]

Not at all and a not unusual misunderstanding of Scripture and Catholic doctrine.

No misunderstandings here on my own part...it is a vain conceit to assume so. Then again I was admittedly speaking towards how the [ahem] gospel was much presented by the RCC in the Dark Ages. We've all come a ways since then.

But the rest of what follows in your reply is a well crafted deflection away from what I was talking about, with a sort of explanatory approach towards the Word one can find in most any Baptist church.

Days ago I had written a reply going into detail regarding what I was talking about in regards to the relationship between faith and works (and that which you claim is some misunderstanding on my part). I'll not rewrite it for the time being, yet will likely return to the theme at some future time. God willing.

Not by works, but (good) works will follow, for they must. It's an order of operations sort of thing.

[BlueDragon]

At a Passover meal three pieces of unleavened bread are taken out and placed into a little bag with three pockets . The middle piece of matza is taken out of that bag and BROKEN wrapped in a linen cloth and hidden away . That broken piece of bread is later brought out to be enjoyed as if were the most delicious thing ever .

Fascinating. The symbolism is rich. Christ foretold and [much] explained among them, to this very day (if such ritual practice continues).

The googlesterium (as I waddled through) yielded in this order :

http://hadavar.org/drupal/book/export/html/217 having section headings following introductory note; Messianic Significance, Search for the Leaven (Hmetz), Cup of Elijah, Matzah, The Breaking of the Middle Matzo, Passover Seder Plate

second link visited, calling itself "bible truth" has among other information of interest, such as Matzoh has stripes, has holes, has no leaven, is this discussion;

But why isn't the sacrificed lamb still used? And how did matzohs come to prominence? Deuteronomy 12:11-14 says that people were not to offer sacrifices except at the location that God chose. Other scriptures make it clear that He chose the Temple site on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. When the Roman army, under Titus, destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, there was no more acceptable place for sacrifice of the lamb. That's why today's Passover meals don't include the meat of a lamb, merely a symbolic shank bone. The rabbis, in the second century A.D., instituted the use of matzohs to represent the sacrificed lamb. That practice still holds.

Now we can see why the middle matzoh is broken during the Passover, then hidden or buried. Jesus's body was broken for us, He died, and was buried. But He didn't stay dead -- He came back to life, came out of the tomb! That is represented by bringing out that matzoh later in the ceremony. It is then broken into pieces, and passed out to each person. And this is the exact spot during the Last Supper, when Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you."

Third, a link to http://www.amazon.com/Passover-Matzah-Holder-Pockets-Colored/dp/B004RJTP1A

Briefly visiting a page offering linen passover sets for sale, among them was a lucite box not having three compartments, but with the word "Shmurah" engraved on it's side...which a bit more searching yielded info that the word means "watched" or "guarded" http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1851/jewish/Shmurah-Matzah.htm

Wiki entry for Matzo contains among other links and information, mention of afikoman;

...On the one hand, matza symbolizes redemption and freedom, but it is also lechem oni, "poor man's bread." Thus it serves as a reminder to be humble, and to not forget what life was like in servitude. Also, leaven symbolizes corruption and pride as leaven "puffs up". Eating the "bread of affliction" is both a lesson in humility and an act that enhances the appreciation of freedom.

Another explanation is that matza has been used to replace the pesach, or the traditional Passover offering that was made before the destruction of the Temple. During the Seder the third time the matza is eaten it is preceded with the Sefardic rite, "zekher l’korban pesach hane’ekhal al hasova". This means "remembrance of the Passover offering, eaten while full". This last piece of the matza eaten is called afikoman and many explain it as a symbol of salvation in the future.

The Passover Seder meal is full of symbols of salvation, including the opening of the door for Elijah and the closing line, “Next year in Jerusalem,” but the use of matzah is the oldest symbol of salvation in the Seder.

Afikoman ...though all there is of much interest, the opening paragraphs;

Based on the Mishnah in Pesahim 119a, the afikoman is a substitute for the Korban Pesach, which was the last thing eaten at the Passover Seder during the eras of the First and Second Temples and during the period of the Mishkan. The Gemara states that it is forbidden to eat any other food after eating the afikoman, in order to keep the taste of matzo in our mouths.

[Lera]

oops that cup would be the Cup of Redemption.
The third cup in the Passover Meal.

[Lera]

It’s still celebrated the same way to this day.

If you have a Publix supermarket any where near you stop by it and look for a Haggadah . It is the book that is read during the Passover meal that tells the story. Publix puts one out free every year written in both Hebrew and English . You will really see the significance if you read through it .

If you have never seen a real piece of matzah you need to buy yourself a box and take a real good look at it .It’s a perfect picture .

I know that Zola Levitt did a two part show on the Passover meal many years ago . If you google Zola Levitt and Passover you should be able to find a video on it and it is really worth watching.

[Jvette]

I honestly don’t think we are are very far apart in our understanding. Good works follows a true faith, they must, as you say.

Regarding sin and salvation, I too think there is ample evidence in the NT which warns of falling away and if there is no consequence for that falling away, then why so many warnings to the believers?

You asked why did Jesus die? He died for our salvation, without Him there is no redemption and no salvation, period. The rest is up to us.

[daniel1212]

Thanks. I was not saying that was legalism, and yes, it was about Christ, and familiarity with current and past use of allegory makes it understandable as consistent with Scripture.