Getting Back to the Ancient Church (Reprise)

The Cripplegate ^ | October 14, 2014 | Nathan Busenitz

[CynicalBear]

So we really won’t be raised? It will only be a likeness?

[CynicalBear]

>>If it does not symbolize blood, then what does it symbolize?<<

Where did I ever say it "symbolized" blood? Christ said it was a remembrance of His shed blood. He didn't say it was in reality His physical shed blood.

Now, you still haven't answered by question.

"Why do Catholics assign the sin of eating blood to Jesus then still try to claim He was sinless?"

[verga]

Enter Justin Martyr.

Ya know he was Catholic right?

From Wikipedia: Justin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. 100 – 165 AD), was an early Christian apologist, and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century.[2] He was martyred, alongside some of his students, and is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Anglican Church,[4] and the Eastern Orthodox Church.[5]

[don-o]

Don this article is about church services not a discussion of transubstantion.

Since Justin Martyr devoted a chapter of his Apology to the matter, and placed it in sequence with what the service was, he certainly believed it was an integral part of the service.

The author of the OP purports to "get back to the ancient church." He gets back to something; but it's not to the church that Justin Martyr was writing about.

[don-o]

Your argument is with St Paul, not me.

[RnMomof7]

No. Priesthood , no mass

[Iscool]

blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished

I have to wonder where Justin Martyr (or those before him) came up with the word or even concept of the word 'transmutation' back in the 2nd Century...

Origin of TRANSMUTATION Middle English transmutacioun, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French transmutacion, from Latin transmutation-, transmutatio, from transmutare
First Known Use: 14th century

I wonder what Justin Martyr really said, or if he said anything at all...

[don-o]

http://www.bpnews.net/38731/the-lords-supper-who-should-partake

The unleavened bread is a symbol of the perfection of the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ in His body, soul and spirit. The fruit of the vine symbolizes the substitutionary, propitiatory and covenantal blood of an innocent sacrifice, shed for the remission of the sins of the guilty

[Iscool]

Why do Catholics assign the sin of eating blood to Jesus then still try to claim He was sinless?

Obviously because the words of God, the written scriptures are of no authority nor consequence to them...They are meaningless to Catholics except where and when used by their religion...

[Iscool]

is the cup of blessing St Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 10 a participation with the blood of Christ, yes or no?

How do you participate with blood??? Is that like participating with a car when you drive it???

[CynicalBear]

Why do you always change my comments? I said where did I ever say it "symbolized" blood. I didn't ask what Baptists believe. I'm not a Baptist so why the diversion?

If the Jesus you serve sinned by eating blood while being subject to the Old Testament laws there's a problem.

[don-o]

I wonder what Justin Martyr really said, or if he said anything at all...

Well, the author of the article thought he had something to say when he was selectively snipping in support of his own position.

But, there is always the option of stopping up ones ears and declaring, "I cant's hear you."

[CynicalBear]

>>They are meaningless to Catholics except where and when used by their religion...<<

It ends up being "another gospel".

[CynicalBear]

>>No. Priesthood , no mass<<

And the "priests" they claim don't even qualify to be an "elder" in the New Testament church.

[don-o]

I'm not a Baptist so why the diversion?

It's no diversion. It is an example of how sola scriptura engenders confusion. You say the SBC is wrong; yet you both CB and the SBC claim the Bible as ultimate and sole authority.

[af_vet_1981]

And it’s actually right there where the OP gets his snips. Leaves out this whole section. Now, why in the world do you suppose this whole section is IGNORED?? CHAPTER LXVI — OF THE EUCHARIST. And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

You have impeached the OP's witness and crippled his argument by pointing to the glaring omission. Justin Martyr is a compelling witness for one holy catholic church. It was not lost on me the churches were organized by parishes, so to speak.

[CynicalBear]

>>It's no diversion.<<

Of course it's diversion. I'm talking about what scripture says not what the Baptists say scripture says. God said in scripture not to eat blood. Eating blood would have been a sin against that command. It also says Jesus never sinned. If the Jesus you serve ate blood He would be a sinner.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

lol, now you area a Greek scholar?

study harder my friend.......

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Obviously because the words of God, the written scriptures are of no authority nor consequence to them...They are meaningless to Catholics except where and when used by their religion

---

where in the Scriptures does it say that drinking the blood of Christ is a sin??

chapter and verse please

[CynicalBear]

You didn’t answer my question. Did you literally suffer with Christ?