Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is what Matt 26:29 says , that I will NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and means that Jesus will NEVER drink it a NEW with YOU in my Fathers Kingdom and that will be in the 1000 N NYEAR REIGN of Christ .Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?
Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?
I believe Jesus is the gate, John 10:7 "Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.", but do not believe Jesus is literal a gate.Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?
I failed English in High School, yet even I can tell that you are claiming equivalence between two very different types of speech.I believe Jesus is the gate, John 10:7 "Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.", but do not believe Jesus is literal a gate.
I believe it. See This is my body or represents my body?.Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body?
Jesus says in Matt. 26:29 (NIV)I do believe that Jesus is the gate. Is that not what he said? I see nothing of "literal gate" in the passage, do you?
I see no "literal" in any of these passages, but I do see it in your explanations and polemics. Jesus, unlike your posts, said "this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins." And not to belabour the point, you will see that use in three of the gospels and in 1 Corinthians. So, please, let's not play around with "literal". Jesus said it it is his blood and that settles the issue.to Christ it was still wine and not His blood. I see nothing of it becoming literal blood.
It may have been better to translate as "Do this with me together with you as often as you do it" since the Lord's intention is to teach them that he is present with them every time they take bread & wine and bless it as the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is not a commemoration like we'd have at an annual dinner in commemoration of those who died in a war, accident, or other event that we want to remember. It is a re-enactment where heaven comes to Earth in the sanctuary of the altar and we participate in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by receiving life from his broken body and shed blood; it is the meat and drink of the Lamb's supper in heaven to which the faithful are invited by the Lord, the wedding feast he spoke about.At the end of the Passover meal, the old man would say 'Tonight we have come out of Egypt'. This was not so much about remembering as about the historic story being real in the present. The word they used to describe this was anamnesis. If you look at the Institution narratives in Greek, you see that this is the word that Jesus used. I feel we have eroded some of the force and power of this by translating this as 'in remembrance or 'as my memorial'.
It may have been better to translate as "Do this with me together with you as often as you do it" since the Lord's intention is to teach them that he is present with them every time they take bread & wine and bless it as the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is not a commemoration like we'd have at an annual dinner in commemoration of those who died in a war, accident, or other event that we want to remember. It is a re-enactment where heaven comes to Earth in the sanctuary of the altar and we participate in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by receiving life from his broken body and shed blood; it is the meat and drink of the Lamb's supper in heaven to which the faithful are invited by the Lord, the wedding feast he spoke about.
Catholic usage is "unbloody sacrifice" and has been for a long time. I cannot speak for Lutheran usage. The notion that the Lord's supper is the Lamb's supper and the wedding feast of the Lamb/Son of God is also fairly long standing Catholic usage. There is, however, emphasis on the crucifixion because of its role in redemption theology and also in practical devotions. The stations of the cross come to mind, and the rosary mysteries include a set for the sorrowful mysteries. But the resurrection is not neglected, and is it not true of Orthodoxy too, that the crucifixion plays a significant role in their theology of redemption and in their practical devotions? Again I cannot speak for Lutherans.I think the eastern theologies have a better understanding of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, as the West focuses so heavily on the Crucifixion as a kind of brutal punishment for sin that it often overpowers the Resurrection. The Lord's Supper is called "logical" and an "unbloody sacrifice" in the eastern liturgies for a reason. This is not something that is about blood magic rituals or anything like that, as old sacrifices were, but about bringing ourselves as living sacrifices joined to Christ.
Catholic usage is "unbloody sacrifice" and has been for a long time. I cannot speak for Lutheran usage. The notion that the Lord's supper is the Lamb's supper and the wedding feast of the Lamb/Son of God is also fairly long standing Catholic usage. There is, however, emphasis on the crucifixion because of its role in redemption theology and also in practical devotions. The stations of the cross come to mind, and the rosary mysteries include a set for the sorrowful mysteries. But the resurrection is not neglected, and is it not true of Orthodoxy too, that the crucifixion plays a significant role in their theology of redemption and in their practical devotions? Again I cannot speak for Lutherans.
In Orthodox icons of the crucifixion, Christ is standing on the cross despite being dead, instead of hanging limply from the cross. This is to signify that death has no power over Him, and indeed He is victorious over death.
No. It's a symbolic ritual, like all the rituals in Leviticus. We eat and drink in remembrance of the Lord, for he is YHWH Jireh, our Provider. If you have ever spent time and effort in the kitchen to prepare a meal, you'll understand.Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?
No. It's a symbolic ritual, like all the rituals in Leviticus. We eat and drink in remembrance of the Lord, for he is YHWH Jireh, our Provider. If you have ever spent time and effort in the kitchen to prepare a meal, you'll understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?