I think the bread represented purity, which is now achieved thru the Sacrifice, once and for all finished, only the pure Bread and wine remaing.
More than that! Purity in the flesh! The Lamb without blemish.rcwitness:
I think the bread represented purity, which is now achieved thru the Sacrifice, once and for all finished, only the pure Bread and wine remaing.
Force who to do what? Who “capitulated”?
This is the great disconnect for us. Either He gave a symbolic body on the cross, or when He said "this is my Body, he meant what he said.
Actually John 19:29 uses the Gk. word for vinegar. I am not sure that qualifies as the same “fruit of the vine” that was consumed at the Last Supper. What was “finished” was the cup of his suffering, the cup He prayed about in the Garden.
Yes. He is the lamb that was slain for our sins.
Did you think that Catholics believed otherwise? The Passover Lamb was a type of Christ, the unblemished lamb whose blood was shed for us.
Because Jesus, the Lamb of God, took the Bread, blessed it, and said “this is my body”. So too with the cup.
Is that not going backwards?
Yes. Even non-catholic communities have this “rememberance”. It is a reflection.
You have said that people who don’t agree with Scott Hahn should “take it up with him”, so I guess your argument with the “forcing” is with Jesus, since it was He who decided to make the bread into His Body and the wine into His Blood.
I can’t wrap my head around those statements. Why is it impossible for Him to be symbolic with the bread and wine symbolizing His body and blood and still give His literal body on the Cross? If I say to my friend while showing him a picture of my daughter, “this is my daughter who is coming tomorrow”, why can’t my daughter literally and physically arrive tomorrow?
If your friend snatched your daughter’s picture from your hand, spit on it, or ripped it to shreds, would you say he 'profaned" your daughter, or “profaned” her picture? You can’t “profane” what is not present. Yes of course one could understand that the bread and wine are “symbolic”, but then we have the problem of the other references to it not making sense.
Being offered vinegar on a sponge seems to hardly correlate with Matthew 26:29
Right. And Hahn mentions that it was to fulfill the Scriptures that He was thirsty. Why would John address that over the 4th cup, if the drink signified the 4th cup?rcwitness:
Being offered vinegar on a sponge seems to hardly correlate with Matthew 26:29
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
The Apostles were certainly not standing around at the foot of the cross having happy hour with Jesus!
He was apparently offered something before he was nailed to the cross:
Any wine can become vinegar when exposed to open air. But this is not something referred to as a “fruit of the vine” one would drink with companions.
It is comforting to know Jesus never lied!rcwitness:
Any wine can become vinegar when exposed to open air. But this is not something referred to as a “fruit of the vine” one would drink with companions.
Sure is! And what were you referring to?guanophore:
It is comforting to know Jesus never lied!rcwitness:
Any wine can become vinegar when exposed to open air. But this is not something referred to as a “fruit of the vine” one would drink with companions.
It was referring to post # 811.Wannano:
Sure is! And what were you referring to?guanophore:
It is comforting to know Jesus never lied!rcwitness:
Any wine can become vinegar when exposed to open air. But this is not something referred to as a “fruit of the vine” one would drink with companions.
And were Mary and John substance changed though to senses appeared same when when Jesus said, “Behold your mother…behold your son”…was that literal