H
hansard
Guest
There must be some theology or Church teaching on this, so this might be over with fairly quickly.
Jesus said:
*“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” *
Matt 26:28-29 (also Mark 24:25) NIV
Thus, Jesus instituted arguably the most important ceremony undertaken by the Church.
My question is: why would he declare the wine to be “[his] blood of the covenant” and then, almost immediately, declare it to be “fruit of the vine”, apparently negating, or at least casting doubt on, what he had just said?
Just wondering. I confess that I haven’t checked any sources of information as yet.
Jesus said:
*“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” *
Matt 26:28-29 (also Mark 24:25) NIV
Thus, Jesus instituted arguably the most important ceremony undertaken by the Church.
My question is: why would he declare the wine to be “[his] blood of the covenant” and then, almost immediately, declare it to be “fruit of the vine”, apparently negating, or at least casting doubt on, what he had just said?
Just wondering. I confess that I haven’t checked any sources of information as yet.