How many times somethings is mentioned

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by UNITE MY WILL
AMEN. God does want us to exercise faith and obedience. Just because we don’t understand Truth, can’t comprehend Truth, or choose not to believe Truth, does not make Truth untrue or unreal. Our GREAT inablility in understanding is one of the many dangers of self-interpertation of scripture. And only through God’s GREAT wisdom does he give us the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Peace,
T

I don’t believe in self interpretation either. I also don’t think just because any church says they are the correct church with all the correct understandings doesn’t make it so. That’s self-serving, IMO.The above is what St.Paul and St.Matthew wrote guided by the Holy Spirit. St.Paul wrote the Church has theTruth, irregardless of what you or I believe or think.​

Here’s a problem we have in this discussion.

From your point of view, if I understand anything that is different than the CC teachings I wrong — end of discussion, no room for any more real meaningful discussion unless I want to change my mind and become a catholic. You (the CC) is way up there; I’m lowly, way down here. Everything is a big deal with my beliefs of no importance. Just because we don’t agree, doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion. We didn’t agree from the beginning. I NEVER said or implied I or the Church are way up anywhere and you are lowly way down anywhere. If you got this out of our discussion please forgive me. Everyones beliefs are important, we all are made in the image and likeness of God!

From my point of view, if you have a different understanding (the understanding of the CC) then I DON’T think you are wrong becasue I’m correct. I understand one or both of us could be wrong, I know I don’t know or understand all things so you (the CC) could have the correct understanding. Discussion continues with us being equals, you’re lacking nothing nor am I. According to Romans 14 one of us may be weaker members as far as belief is concerned. No big deal.
I most definitely could be wrong, I am human. This is why God gave us the Church, to absolutely know there is an authority to go and receive the truth, not because any man has this of their own power, but only through God and His relation to the Church. This doesn’t come from me but from the very word of God. And the best thing is that God has made it available to ANYONE and EVERYONE who is willing to hear. We are all on this jounrey together as the body of Christ.

Peace,
T
 
Originally Posted by UNITE MY WILL
AMEN. God does want us to exercise faith and obedience. Just because we don’t understand Truth, can’t comprehend Truth, or choose not to believe Truth, does not make Truth untrue or unreal. Our GREAT inablility in understanding is one of the many dangers of self-interpertation of scripture. And only through God’s GREAT wisdom does he give us the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Peace,
T

I most definitely could be wrong, I am human. This is why God gave us the Church, to absolutely know there is an authority to go and receive the truth, not because any man has this of their own power, but only through God and His relation to the Church. This doesn’t come from me but from the very word of God. And the best thing is that God has made it available to ANYONE and EVERYONE who is willing to hear. We are all on this jounrey together as the body of Christ.

Peace,
T
Could the CC teachings be wrong? I assume you hold to all the teachings of the CC. If so, your beliefs are correct, right? and mine are wrong if they differ, right?
 

When did God clarify for Abraham? Not until the knife was on the way down. Those that left Jesus left way too early to understand.But it was still God that stop Abraham before it was too late, so following this example why did not Jesus?​

They wanted no part of having to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. They believed what He said was true and rejected that if they were to continue following Him. Those that decided that, even thought they did not understand how they could eat His Flesh or drink His Blood, they knew they must stay with Him for He had the Words of Life, they understood Jesus’ meaning later.Where do you get this assertion? Faith acted upon results in ‘seeing’.
Also what about My flesh is TRUE food and My blood is TRUE drink?

Why would Jesus ask if a metephorical teaching would be offensive?

Peace,
T
 
Also what about My flesh is TRUE food and My blood is TRUE drink?

Why would Jesus ask if a metephorical teaching would be offensive?

Peace,
T
Metaphorical teaching is NOT offensive. Those that left were offended by the literal. They chose not to follow Jesus and find out what the real understanding was. That would be like Abraham, hearing God telling him to kill his son saying ‘God this is too hare an instruction. I’m not going to follow you any longer.’ Abraham would have not seen God did not mean for him to literally kill his son. Was God decieving Abraham? Abraham believed incorrectly that God wanted him to kill his son.
 
Could the CC teachings be wrong? I assume you hold to all the teachings of the CC. If so, your beliefs are correct, right? and mine are wrong if they differ, right?
I really am interested in your response to these question, please.
 
Could the CC teachings be wrong? I assume you hold to all the teachings of the CC. If so, your beliefs are correct, right? and mine are wrong if they differ, right?
Does God’s Word tell us that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of TRUTH? Yes, so the Church through God has all TRUTH. So, the Church the that Christ bulit upon the Rock, which has been around over 2000 years, brought forth our Holy Bible, can be traced to the apolstle, that holds the writings of the church fathers, that holy poeple have lived and died, and with all the scandal weak humans have brought upon her, Satan has not prevailed. This is the Church through God which holds all TRUTH.

Peace,
T
 
Does God’s Word tell us that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of TRUTH? Yes, so the Church through God has all TRUTH. So, the Church the that Christ bulit upon the Rock, which has been around over 2000 years, brought forth our Holy Bible, can be traced to the apolstle, that holds the writings of the church fathers, that holy poeple have lived and died, and with all the scandal weak humans have brought upon her, Satan has not prevailed. This is the Church through God which holds all TRUTH.

Peace,
T

1Ti 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

First of all, you have to pre-assume the church mentioned by Paul is the CC. I’m not willing to say that the church of the NT is identical to the CC.​

4769 στυλος stulos stoo’-los

from stuo (to stiffen, properly akin to the base of 2476); TDNT-7:732,1096; n m

AV-pillar 4; 4
  1. a pillar
  2. a column
    2a) pillars of fire i.e. flames rising like pillars
  3. a prop or support
1477 εδραιωμα hedraioma hed-rah’-yo-mah

from a derivative of 1476; TDNT-2:362,200; n n

AV-ground 1; 1
  1. a stay, prop, support

Even if your presupposition of the CC being the one church of the NT, being the support of the Truth doesn’t it understands all the Truth. Only the Holy Spirit knows all the Truth and He is the only one who knows the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)​

You can put a box filled with stuff on my head doesn’t mean I know what’s in it.
 

1Ti 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

First of all, you have to pre-assume the church mentioned by Paul is the CC. I’m not willing to say that the church of the NT is identical to the CC.​

4769 στυλος stulos stoo’-los

from stuo (to stiffen, properly akin to the base of 2476); TDNT-7:732,1096; n m

AV-pillar 4; 4
  1. a pillar
  2. a column
    2a) pillars of fire i.e. flames rising like pillars
  3. a prop or support
1477 εδραιωμα hedraioma hed-rah’-yo-mah

from a derivative of 1476; TDNT-2:362,200; n n

AV-ground 1; 1
  1. a stay, prop, support

Even if your presupposition of the CC being the one church of the NT, being the support of the Truth doesn’t it understands all the Truth. Only the Holy Spirit knows all the Truth and He is the only one who knows the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)​

You can put a box filled with stuff on my head doesn’t mean I know what’s in it.
And you’ve seen in John where Christ told the APOSTLES the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, would bring all things to their minds. Scriptures do not tell us that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to everyone’s mind.

The APOSTLES understood all the truth. They were the Church. They wrote the scriptures. The scriptures didn’t guide them.

God gave us a Church and then the New Testament scriptures, in that order…
 
And you’ve seen in John where Christ told the APOSTLES the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, would bring all things to their minds. Scriptures do not tell us that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to everyone’s mind.

The APOSTLES understood all the truth. They were the Church. They wrote the scriptures. The scriptures didn’t guide them.

God gave us a Church and then the New Testament scriptures, in that order…
It gets to the point in these discussion where we go around and around and around over and over and over again so I guess the only thing left is to thank you for your understanding of what is meant. I disagree.
 
It gets to the point in these discussion where we go around and around and around over and over and over again so I guess the only thing left is to thank you for your understanding of what is meant. I disagree.
Show me the scriptures, with explanations, stating the Holy Spirit would bring all things to mind and make all things known to everyone. Show me where He spoke such to ALL the people.

That’s all you could possibly disagree with, in light of the fact we know He started a Church first and He appointed authoritative men over that Church and those authoritative men, and men they had appointed, wrote the New Testament scriptures.
 
Show me the scriptures, with explanations, stating the Holy Spirit would bring all things to mind and make all things known to everyone. Show me where He spoke such to ALL the people.

That’s all you could possibly disagree with, in light of the fact we know He started a Church first and He appointed authoritative men over that Church and those authoritative men, and men they had appointed, wrote the New Testament scriptures.
Okay, let’s say the Holy Spirit was speaking only to the 11 disciples. Where does it say that the CC leaders/popes and theologians (and only them) had the correct understanding of the Bible?
 
Okay, let’s say the Holy Spirit was speaking only to the 11 disciples. Where does it say that the CC leaders/popes and theologians (and only them) had the correct understanding of the Bible?
The Apostles, and men they appointed, wrote the scriptures. Then they passed them to the men they appointed in the Church. We see from some of Paul’s writings of corrections, he would set things in order when he got there, so everything was not written. Part of setting things in order was providing the interpretation of what they had written. Those who received those letters and epistles, and the interpretations, taught men they had appointed and provided them with the scriptures and interpretations. Those who received the scriptures and interpretations passed them on to those they had appointed, and so on and so on. This is how an Apostolic Church works.

Those of Apostolic succession, received an authority through those who received thier authority from Christ. They filled the offices of their predecessors. When they filled those offices, they received all authority upon that office. As successors, they received the promises Christ made to those authoritative men He chose and appointed. Again, that’s how Apostolic succession works.

Edited to add: Where did the Protestants get the Bible from?

Martin Luther
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
 
The Apostles, and men they appointed, wrote the scriptures. Then they passed them to the men they appointed in the Church. We see from some of Paul’s writings of corrections, he would set things in order when he got there, so everything was not written. Part of setting things in order was providing the interpretation of what they had written. Those who received those letters and epistles, and the interpretations, taught men they had appointed and provided them with the scriptures and interpretations. Those who received the scriptures and interpretations passed them on to those they had appointed, and so on and so on. This is how an Apostolic Church works.

Those of Apostolic succession, received an authority through those who received thier authority from Christ. They filled the offices of their predecessors. When they filled those offices, they received all authority upon that office. As successors, they received the promises Christ made to those authoritative men He chose and appointed. Again, that’s how Apostolic succession works.

Edited to add: Where did the Protestants get the Bible from?

Martin Luther

You want me to tell you, ‘where does it say …’ so I would like you to tell me where it says the Holy Spirit’s voice would be passed down to only those in church authority after the original 11 disciples?​

The Bible came as the Holy Spirit inspired the letters to be penned, preserved and collected.
 

You want me to tell you, ‘where does it say …’ so I would like you to tell me where it says the Holy Spirit’s voice would be passed down to only those in church authority after the original 11 disciples?​

The Bible came as the Holy Spirit inspired the letters to be penned, preserved and collected.
It’s an authoritative Church.

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. **

Paul taught the authoritative Church.

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Heb 13:24 Salute all your prelates and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you.

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. **

It’s an Apostolic Church.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

The Bible came as I explained it came, and those that wrote them knew the interpretation.

Let’s look at another point that supports my view, how many Apostles that were eye witnesses to Christ wrote parts of the New Testament? Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses, yet they wrote 2 Gospels and it is believed Luke wrote Acts. Paul was not an eye witness to Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection, yet we believe Christ clearly appointed Him. Do we doubt He received the Holy Spirit? No, of course not.

Now where did Mark and Luke receive their knowledge? Through the Church, the Apostles appointed them too.

Just as the Holy Spirit inspired those men to write scriptures, the Holy Spirit had to inspire men through history to preserve and care for the scriptures, or else we might not have them today. And that Church that preserved and cared for the scriptures for over a thousand years was the Catholic Church. As I’ve shown you, Martin Luther admitted how Protestants came to have the scriptures. All through the Holy Spirit.
 
It’s an authoritative Church.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Paul taught the authoritative Church.

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. **

Heb 13:24 Salute all your prelates and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you.

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

It’s an Apostolic Church.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take**.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

The Bible came as I explained it came, and those that wrote them knew the interpretation.

Let’s look at another point that supports my view, how many Apostles that were eye witnesses to Christ wrote parts of the New Testament? Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses, yet they wrote 2 Gospels and it is believed Luke wrote Acts. Paul was not an eye witness to Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection, yet we believe Christ clearly appointed Him. Do we doubt He received the Holy Spirit? No, of course not.

Now where did Mark and Luke receive their knowledge? Through the Church, the Apostles appointed them too.

Just as the Holy Spirit inspired those men to write scriptures, the Holy Spirit had to inspire men through history to preserve and care for the scriptures, or else we might not have them today. And that Church that preserved and cared for the scriptures for over a thousand years was the Catholic Church. As I’ve shown you, Martin Luther admitted how Protestants came to have the scriptures. All through the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for those wonderful Bible verses and thanks for your understanding. Good night, friend. God be with and bless you.
 
Metaphorical teaching is NOT offensive. Those that left were offended by the literal. They chose not to follow Jesus and find out what the real understanding was. That would be like Abraham, hearing God telling him to kill his son saying ‘God this is too hare an instruction. I’m not going to follow you any longer.’ Abraham would have not seen God did not mean for him to literally kill his son. Was God decieving Abraham? Abraham believed incorrectly that God wanted him to kill his son.
If Jesus knew He was speaking metaphorically, why did he ask “Does this offend you?” Why would he think that he offended someone with a metapohor?

Please answer this question- Why did Jesus say" For My FLESH is TRUE food and My BLOOD is TRUE drink?" You keep passing over this question.

Peace,
T
 
If Jesus knew He was speaking metaphorically, why did he ask “Does this offend you?” Why would he think that he offended someone with a metapohor?
because the metaphor consists of a confusing command to commit the grossly sinful act of cannibalism. Why would he think someone would be offended by eating the accidents of bread whilst an indiscernable substance is supposedly swallowed? You don’t find that to be an offensive act, right?

With respect to this hard teaching, I had earlier (at page 3) posted this:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility.** As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.**

b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose (like Augustine) one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would lead. If that is right, then those that left rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems, that he didn’t care to.

You want to make something of Christ’s graphic use of “gnawing”, but you and I both know that you don’t actually sink your teeth into Christ’s flesh and gnaw at his tissue. Gnawing Christ’s flesh would require the accidents of his flesh…and those accidents just don’t appear at your Eucharist…so much for your Eucharist matching Christ’s graphic word choice. Again, no one who left Christ that day walked away b/c they found the “eating of his body by way of a real presence” to be a hard or offensive teaching, b/c Christ never described that manner eating. No one in the audience could have even fathomed that such a thing was possible, let alone reject it.
Please answer this question- Why did Jesus say" For My FLESH is TRUE food and My BLOOD is TRUE drink?" You keep passing over this question.
I believe that Dokimas already answered this question…from verses 65 and 43 it would seem that he was pushing them to demonstrate their lack of faith, sort of culling the herd.
 
I believe that Dokimas already answered this question…from verses 65 and 43 it would seem that he was pushing them to demonstrate their lack of faith, sort of culling the herd.
Does the teaching below sound like Christ would be ‘culling the herd’?

**Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and goeth to seek that which is gone astray?
Mat 18:13 And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray.
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. **

These were disciples that left Him and walked with Him no more. He always explained ‘parables’ to the disciples.

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.
 
You missed my point. I think ProdicalSon understood me. I KNOW, the best I can know anything, that Paul called us bread. Is that literal bread so that me, being little, I’m just a crumb? Or was that metaphorical bread? I believe the second as I believe Jesus used metaphors for communion, too.
I didn’t miss your point. I know what you are trying to say. What I am saying is that you are trying make into a metaphor what Jesus clearly said to take as literal truth. Jesus performed a miracle making five loaves of bread feed 5,000 people. Changing bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood is another miracle he performs for us. If you believe he performed the one for five thousand then you should also accept the other. How Jesus changes the substance of the bread and wine into his body and blood is a mystery (just like how he multiplied 5 loaves of bread to feed thousands) He he told us this is what happens, and then he showed us how to partake.
 
A prayer i say when receiving the Eucharist.

God, as you come to me in material form, help me to come to you in spiritual form.
That my thoughts be pure, my intentions compassionate and my soul at rest. Amen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top