How/why does the cross save?

[StrawberryJam]

Everything revolves around sacrifice. Originally sacrifice was not by way of institutionalized rituals of animal sacrifice and shedding of blood.

Note the importance of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine. Jesus is our high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

I disagree strongly here. The first animal sacrifice was done by God himself to clothe Adam and Eve.

God chose blood as the only apeasement to him.

He could have chosen any other means. This is why burnt sacrifices smelled pleasing to him.

And, the reason why he rejected Cain’s offering. Christians say, Cain did not “give his best” but, when we read the bible, the only thing that appeases God is lots of blood.

 

[Pax]

I disagree strongly here. The first animal sacrifice was done by God himself to clothe Adam and Eve.

 

[StrawberryJam]

StrawberryJam;5283807:

Where in scripture does it indicate that God offered the first animal sacrifice by clothing Adam and Eve? I do not think that God’s provision of skins for clothing was ever referred to or understood as a sacrifice.

Those animals lives were sacrificed to make clothes. It’s just that simple.
Why? They only needed the clothes after they sinned.
What appeases God when there is sin?

 

[Pax]

God chose blood as the only apeasement to him.

 

[Pax]

It’s late…gotta go…Pax out!

 

[StrawberryJam]

StrawberryJam;5283807:

StrawberryJam in Christ,

This is not as clear cut or as narrow as you seem to think. Please read Psalm 4 and Psalm 40, and you will begin to see what I mean. Likewise, once again look at Melchizedek. There are other passages in scripture that also demonstrate my point, but these give a start in that direction.

God Bless.

I will read it, thank you Pax. I do know that Melchizedek had no mention of family in the bible, and he is linked with Christ, and as the first priest if I am not mistaken.

 

[csmatyi]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would talk more about this subject. I think the following article is much more eloquent on the subject than I am so I recommend that you go here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

God bless.

Let’s go through this logically:

1. What was the basis for Jesus Christ’s death? The Bible continuously says that Jesus Christ died in our place for our sins. That is, He died when we should have rightly died.
2. Jesus Chrits’s death was a sacrifice on the cross. One, full, holy, and complete as the Bible tells us.
3. However, the Roman church days that the Mass and the sacrifice at the cross are one and the same (one bloody, one bloodless). This means that the sacrifice of the Mass is repeated over and over and over and over again. How can you say this? Does this mean that Jesus Christs’s sacrifice on the cross is insufficient, so that it has to be repeated? This denigrates Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and denies the Gospel. Please grasp the logical aspects of this question!
4. The lamb in Heaven after Final Judgement who appears to be slain. Yes, even after Jesus rose from the dead, he still had the wounds on His hands and feet. This was His physical appearance the role of which is to constantly remind beleivers, even in Heaven, of the reason that they’re there! But this is not sacrifice, since Jesus already finished the sacrifice.

Even if Jesus’ sacrifice has to be repeated one single time, then this means that the sacrifice at Calvary covered only a part of all sins! Therefroe not whole and complete, but incomplete and therefore insufficient. Rome has to reform!

 

[foundthelight]

Let’s go through this logically:

1. What was the basis for Jesus Christ’s death? The Bible continuously says that Jesus Christ died in our place for our sins. That is, He died when we should have rightly died.
2. Jesus Chrits’s death was a sacrifice on the cross. One, full, holy, and complete as the Bible tells us.
3. However, the Roman church days that the Mass and the sacrifice at the cross are one and the same (one bloody, one bloodless). This means that the sacrifice of the Mass is repeated over and over and over and over again. How can you say this? Does this mean that Jesus Christs’s sacrifice on the cross is insufficient, so that it has to be repeated? This denigrates Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and denies the Gospel. Please grasp the logical aspects of this question!
4. The lamb in Heaven after Final Judgement who appears to be slain. Yes, even after Jesus rose from the dead, he still had the wounds on His hands and feet. This was His physical appearance the role of which is to constantly remind beleivers, even in Heaven, of the reason that they’re there! But this is not sacrifice, since Jesus already finished the sacrifice.

Even if Jesus’ sacrifice has to be repeated one single time, then this means that the sacrifice at Calvary covered only a part of all sins! Therefroe not whole and complete, but incomplete and therefore insufficient. Rome has to reform!

You are parroting back to us what you have been taught. Do you really think we are going to listen? Why don’t you study the writings of the Church Fathers from the first few centuries. Your eyes might be opened to the errors you have been taught as were mine.

 

[csmatyi]

You are parroting back to us what you have been taught. Do you really think we are going to listen? Why don’t you study the writings of the Church Fathers from the first few centuries. Your eyes might be opened to the errors you have been taught as were mine.

I study the writings of the church fathers: Paul, Peter, John, etc… Nothing else needed.

btw I was born Catholic, born again what you call “fundamentalist”.

Think about this: if you digest Christ in the host of the Mass, and then hours later do you really beleive that you will excrete Him out of your digestive system into the toilet and then flush Him down (this sounds like some sort of lie that Satan would think up)? Romish theologians argued about this centuries ago…

 

[foundthelight]

I study the writings of the church fathers: Paul, Peter, John, etc… Nothing else needed.

btw I was born Catholic, born again what you call “fundamentalist”.

Think about this: if you digest Christ in the host of the Mass, and then hours later do you really beleive that you will excrete Him out of your digestive system into the toilet and then flush Him down (this sounds like some sort of lie that Satan would think up)? Romish theologians argued about this centuries ago…

You are assuming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not completely absorbed into our bodies. Can you prove this assumption?

 

[csmatyi]

1. The OT prefigures the NT and the OT is but a shadow of the good things to come.
2. The Last Supper is the Passover. If you examine the Passover requirements and liturgy and compare them to the Last Supper, you will notice from the gospel narratives that Jesus and the apostles leave the upper room prior to the completion of the Passover. *The fourth cup had not been consumed. * You can get a decent presentation of this in Scott Hahn’s book The Lamb’s Supper. You might even be able to find an article of his called The Fourth Cup online that gives a summary of this as well.
3. In the garden of Gethsemane Jesus asks the Father, if possible, to let “this cup” pass from him. This is a reference to the fourth cup of the Passover and to his suffering and death on the cross. It is a reference to one and the same thing and it ties the Last Supper and his death on the cross together. The Passover is “finished” when Jesus says so on the cross. The OT Passover is but a shadow of the good things to come which included eating the NT Passover lamb we know as Jesus Christ. Read Jesus promise in the discourse on the bread of life in John 6 and tie that to Jesus words, “This is my body and this is my blood” at the Last Supper. Then think and ponder anamnesis as a starting point. Just remember that this abbreviated and that there is much more.

Your remarks about my reference to Malachi are way off. Please note once again, that there is only one pure/perfect sacrifice and that is the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Hinduism (LOL) doesn’t offer a perfect or pure sacrifice and neither does any other religious system. Only the Catholic mass is celebrated and offered every day from the rising to the setting of the sun, and only the Catholic mass offers the sacrifice of Jesus. Only the Catholic mass meets the criteria set out in Malachi and it is the Catholic Church alone that makes the claim that the mass fulfills the prophecy. No other body makes the claim for itself, and no other religious group meets the criteria. Yet that prophecy is true and it is fulfilled in the NT church established by Christ. Christ’s Church has always taught the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

Scripture denies your misunderstanding about the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus. Yes, Jesus died only once upon the cross. Catholics do not claim otherwise so you shouldn’t try to confuse the issue with the suggestion that we are saying anything like that. Later tonight when I return home I will touch upon Jesus sacrifice and the mass some more.

Yours in Christ Jesus Crucified,

Pax

Hmmmmm… your post still needs something to be explained…

How did you arrive at the fourth cup? What four cups are you talking about? Talking about John 6 and tying these things up together is just taking everything so out of context. If Jesus says in John 6 that in order to have eternal life, then you must eat of my body and drink of my blood, then why didn’t the crowd around Him devour Him then and there? Obviously because Jesus meant this in a figurative manner. Just as He meant that the church will be built up in 3 days (also from John 6), meaning that He will be ressurected in 3 days. If we mean Jesus to be digested bodily, then we must also wait for the temple of Jerusalem to built up in 3 days. Impossible, this didn’t happen. Eat Jesus’ physical body? You see, this doesn’t make sense.

As you say, the OT is the shadow of the things to come, therefore the Last Supper is only the shadow, only the symbol that shows forward to the finalization of Jesus’ sacrifice at the cross. And to this also belongs the suffering in Gethsemane.

To state that the Romish Mass is a fulfillment of prophecy is a logical falacy. Just because it is celebrated every day, doesn’t mean that it is the one true sacrifice of Malachi 1. Any other cult can claim this for themselves by performing some sort of ritual everywhere every day.

Here’s Malachi 1:11-12:

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.”

Incense, fruit, meat… the Romish Mass has bread and wine… hmmm… how is it that we mere mortal humans could offer Jesus up again anad again, when it is God who offered up Jesus His only Son on the cross? Still, I don’t see the logical connection between Malachi 1 and the Romish Mass where Jesus is supposed to be sacrificed again (note that Mark 14 says that Jesus will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day in the kingdom of God - therefore this is double proof that a so called propiatory Mass sacrifice is not to be understood from the NT), albeit in a bloodless manner and this kind of offering which is to be done in Jesus’ memory (that is, to remember Jesus, not to sacrifice Him up continuosly)?

 

[Pax]

Hmmmmm… your post still needs something to be explained…

How did you arrive at the fourth cup? What four cups are you talking about? Talking about John 6 and tying these things up together is just taking everything so out of context. If Jesus says in John 6 that in order to have eternal life, then you must eat of my body and drink of my blood, then why didn’t the crowd around Him devour Him then and there? Obviously because Jesus meant this in a figurative manner. Just as He meant that the church will be built up in 3 days (also from John 6), meaning that He will be ressurected in 3 days. If we mean Jesus to be digested bodily, then we must also wait for the temple of Jerusalem to built up in 3 days. Impossible, this didn’t happen. Eat Jesus’ physical body? You see, this doesn’t make sense.

As you say, the OT is the shadow of the things to come, therefore the Last Supper is only the shadow, only the symbol that shows forward to the finalization of Jesus’ sacrifice at the cross. And to this also belongs the suffering in Gethsemane.

To state that the Romish Mass is a fulfillment of prophecy is a logical falacy. Just because it is celebrated every day, doesn’t mean that it is the one true sacrifice of Malachi 1. Any other cult can claim this for themselves by performing some sort of ritual everywhere every day.

Here’s Malachi 1:11-12:

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.”

Incense, fruit, meat… the Romish Mass has bread and wine… hmmm… how is it that we mere mortal humans could offer Jesus up again anad again, when it is God who offered up Jesus His only Son on the cross? Still, I don’t see the logical connection between Malachi 1 and the Romish Mass where Jesus is supposed to be sacrificed again (note that Mark 14 says that Jesus will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day in the kingdom of God - therefore this is double proof that a so called propiatory Mass sacrifice is not to be understood from the NT), albeit in a bloodless manner and this kind of offering which is to be done in Jesus’ memory (that is, to remember Jesus, not to sacrifice Him up continuosly)?

You are not thinking logically or from an informed position of scripture or the Passover. Please study the Passover ritual and you will learn of the ritual of prayer, hymns, and the cups as well as the meaning of each element. I knew that you were unaware of any of these things and that is why I recommended the references.

Your tone and terminology towards the Church shows that you are heavily biased and not open to the truth.

If you knew anything of Catholic teaching as you claim and if you had even a remote understanding of how to read and appreciate John 6, you would not be so flippant in your remarks.

I would suggest that you research the Eucharist threads on this forum, and that you do some extensive research from a Catholic perspective on this issue. Your eyes will be opened and you will see that there are powerful reasons for the Catholic view.

Once more think about Malachi. No one but the Catholic Church lays claim to the prophecy of Malachi and none qualifies. The Church that Jesus established would lay claim to the prophecy and that Church would know that it should lay claim to it. Everything fits both from the inside and the outside. If you can show me a non-Christian religion such as Hinduism(LOL)) that looks to the Christian bible and lays claim to Malachi 1:11 then let me know. That is one of the silliest rebuttals I have heard on any biblical subject.

God bless.

 

[csmatyi]

You are assuming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not completely absorbed into our bodies. Can you prove this assumption?

It has been shown by science that all the material in your body gets exchanged within a definite time period. But just think about it. If you go to Mass every week for 50 years makes about 2500 Masses in your lifetime. 2500 times a gulp of wine makes up quite a volume of fluid!!! It does get exchanged and you do excrete it all!

Romanism disproved.

 

[csmatyi]

You are not thinking logically or from an informed position of scripture or the Passover. Please study the Passover ritual and you will learn of the ritual of prayer, hymns, and the cups as well as the meaning of each element. I knew that you were unaware of any of these things and that is why I recommended the references.

Your tone and terminology towards the Church shows that you are heavily biased and not open to the truth.

If you knew anything of Catholic teaching as you claim and if you had even a remote understanding of how to read and appreciate John 6, you would not be so flippant in your remarks.

I would suggest that you research the Eucharist threads on this forum, and that you do some extensive research from a Catholic perspective on this issue. Your eyes will be opened and you will see that there are powerful reasons for the Catholic view.

Once more think about Malachi. No one but the Catholic Church lays claim to the prophecy of Malachi and none qualifies. The Church that Jesus established would lay claim to the prophecy and that Church would know that it should lay claim to it. Everything fits both from the inside and the outside. If you can show me a non-Christian religion such as Hinduism(LOL)) that looks to the Christian bible and lays claim to Malachi 1:11 then let me know. That is one of the silliest rebuttals I have heard on any biblical subject.

God bless.

Please don’t get personal with me. I didn’t mean to get flippant, it is just that I simply cannot understand how Romanists claim that by repeating hoc est corpus meum in the Mass that Jesus Christ, the Lord Creator of the universe turns into multiple hosts, all containing His body, blood, soul, humanity and divinity (is Romanism a politheistic religion???). And also, again, Romanist theologians themselves argued about whether the host (that is, Jesus) is totally absorbed into the body at Mass (why not even mix some poison into it, will you still eat it, because hypothetically it turns into Jesus’ body - most certainly not!!!). They even gave it a Latin name to this specific theological question.

I only mentioned Hinduism in that we can support Hinduism the same way we can Romanism based on your logic.

An explanation for Malachi 1 is that the beleivers offer up all that they have symbolically to Jesus, that is, they offer themselves to him, because He offered Himself up for us. Therefore shall His name be great amongst not only the Jews but the Gentiles as well. So fitting.

Read Mark 14: Jesus speaks about the fruit of the vine, even though transsubstantiation is supposed to have already taken place - which goes to show that it in actual fact it diod not during the Last Supper… sorry.

God bless.

 

[foundthelight]

It has been shown by science that all the material in your body gets exchanged within a definite time period. But just think about it. If you go to Mass every week for 50 years makes about 2500 Masses in your lifetime. 2500 times a gulp of wine makes up quite a volume of fluid!!! It does get exchanged and you do excrete it all!

Romanism disproved.

The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products created by our bodies and filtered out by our kidneys. Thus it is not what we directly ingest. In fact, the majority of what we ingest goes toward building our bodies as we grow, replacing old cells, and fueling the chemical reactions that keep us going. You still have not shown that Jesus is excreted in our urine or our stool.

Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Mat 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Should I listen to you who tries to explain away Jesus’ words? Or should I listen to, and accept as truth, the words of Jesus? Why do you go to such lengths to try and explain them away?

 

[csmatyi]

The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products created by our bodies and filtered out by our kidneys. Thus it is not what we directly ingest. In fact, the majority of what we ingest goes toward building our bodies as we grow, replacing old cells, and fueling the chemical reactions that keep us going. You still have not shown that Jesus is excreted in our urine or our stool.

Should I listen to you who tries to explain away Jesus’ words? Or should I listen to, and accept as truth, the words of Jesus? Why do you go to such lengths to try and explain them away?

Precisely, my dear friend. The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products. You just disproved Romanism. The wine in the Mass is water laced with organic material found in grapes. Therefore it is wine and not the blood of Christ which had red blood cells in it and not organic plant matter in it.

I give an alternative explanation to Jesus’ words in the Bible - aha, so you are interpreting Scripture in your own way without the magisterium of your church? At least you have been reformed this far. Good show.

Look: This is my body: does this mean that Jesus plucked a swath of His own flesh out of Himself? He took the bread and said that it is His body. Jesus is made out of bread??? It is so obvious that this must be taken figuratively…

 

[foundthelight]

Precisely, my dear friend. The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products. You just disproved Romanism. The wine in the Mass is water laced with organic material found in grapes. Therefore it is wine and not the blood of Christ which had red blood cells in it and not organic plant matter in it.

A. Does blood contain water? Are red blood cells organic matter?

I give an alternative explanation to Jesus’ words in the Bible - aha, so you are interpreting Scripture in your own way without the magisterium of your church? At least you have been reformed this far. Good show.

A. ROFL. My words are exactly what the Church teaches. We teach that Jesus means what He says and that the Epistles must be examined in light of Jesus words, not the other way around.

Look: This is my body: does this mean that Jesus plucked a swath of His own flesh out of Himself? He took the bread and said that it is His body. Jesus is made out of bread??? It is so obvious that this must be taken figuratively…

A. You can’t get past the appearance to see the truth can you? Jesus also said that He was the manna that Israel ate in the desert. I suppose you discount that also.

To use another example, If God can appear as a burning bush to Moses, why cannot
Jesus appear as bread and wine? Why do you seek to limit the Creator of the universe in what He can do?

 

[csmatyi]

*Precisely, my dear friend. The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products. You just disproved Romanism. The wine in the Mass is water laced with organic material found in grapes. Therefore it is wine and not the blood of Christ which had red blood cells in it and not organic plant matter in it.

A. Does blood contain water? Are red blood cells organic matter?

I give an alternative explanation to Jesus’ words in the Bible - aha, so you are interpreting Scripture in your own way without the magisterium of your church? At least you have been reformed this far. Good show.

A. ROFL. My words are exactly what the Church teaches. We teach that Jesus means what He says and that the Epistles must be examined in light of Jesus words, not the other way around.

Look: This is my body: does this mean that Jesus plucked a swath of His own flesh out of Himself? He took the bread and said that it is His body. Jesus is made out of bread??? It is so obvious that this must be taken figuratively…

A. You can’t get past the appearance to see the truth can you? Jesus also said that He was the manna that Israel ate in the desert. I suppose you discount that also.

To use another example, If God can appear as a burning bush to Moses, why cannot
Jesus appear as bread and wine? Why do you seek to limit the Creator of the universe in what He can do?*

1. Blood contains lots and lots of water and red blood cells are organic. But Jesus didn’t have the fruit of the vine for blood, He was a human being.
2. So that means that Jesus fell from the sky and the Israelites ate Him all up when they were wandering in the desert. You can’t get past your literalism to see the truth, can you?
3. God is a bush? Don’t you mean that God was speaking from within the burning bush?
4. God is Spirit, haven’t you read the Scriptures? Not matter (e.g. manna, bush, bread or wine, etc…).

 

[foundthelight]

*Precisely, my dear friend. The fluid we excrete is water laced with waste products. You just disproved Romanism. The wine in the Mass is water laced with organic material found in grapes. Therefore it is wine and not the blood of Christ which had red blood cells in it and not organic plant matter in it.

A. Does blood contain water? Are red blood cells organic matter?

I give an alternative explanation to Jesus’ words in the Bible - aha, so you are interpreting Scripture in your own way without the magisterium of your church? At least you have been reformed this far. Good show.

A. ROFL. My words are exactly what the Church teaches. We teach that Jesus means what He says and that the Epistles must be examined in light of Jesus words, not the other way around.

Look: This is my body: does this mean that Jesus plucked a swath of His own flesh out of Himself? He took the bread and said that it is His body. Jesus is made out of bread??? It is so obvious that this must be taken figuratively…

A. You can’t get past the appearance to see the truth can you? Jesus also said that He was the manna that Israel ate in the desert. I suppose you discount that also.

To use another example, If God can appear as a burning bush to Moses, why cannot
Jesus appear as bread and wine? Why do you seek to limit the Creator of the universe in what He can do?*

1. Blood contains lots and lots of water and red blood cells are organic. But Jesus didn’t have the fruit of the vine for blood, He was a human being.

A. And He is also fully God.

1. So that means that Jesus fell from the sky and the Israelites ate Him all up when they were wandering in the desert. You can’t get past your literalism to see the truth, can you?

A. I think that we have his upon the crux of your argument. You seem to be denying at least some of the biblical miracles. You instead wish to rely only on your own senses rather than faith.

1. God is a bush? Don’t you mean that God was speaking from within the burning bush?

A. I said appear. However,

Exo 3:2 And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he saw that the bush was on fire, and was not burnt.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said: I will go, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush. and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am.
Exo 3:5 And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet; for the place, whereon thou standest, is holy ground.
Exo 3:6 And he said: I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God.

Bush, Flame, Holy ground it is all miraculous.

1. God is Spirit, haven’t you read the Scriptures? Not matter (e.g. manna, bush, bread or wine, etc…).

A. Are you saying that God was not also fully man in Jesus?

 

[csmatyi]

*1. Blood contains lots and lots of water and red blood cells are organic. But Jesus didn’t have the fruit of the vine for blood, He was a human being.

A. And He is also fully God.

1. So that means that Jesus fell from the sky and the Israelites ate Him all up when they were wandering in the desert. You can’t get past your literalism to see the truth, can you?

A. I think that we have his upon the crux of your argument. You seem to be denying at least some of the biblical miracles. You instead wish to rely only on your own senses rather than faith.

1. God is a bush? Don’t you mean that God was speaking from within the burning bush?

A. I said appear. However,

Exo 3:2 And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he saw that the bush was on fire, and was not burnt.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said: I will go, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush. and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am.
Exo 3:5 And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet; for the place, whereon thou standest, is holy ground.
Exo 3:6 And he said: I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God.

Bush, Flame, Holy ground it is all miraculous.*

You went past my arguments. Yes, God appeared in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. As I was saying, God is not matter, but Spirit.

Just because I don’t beleive that God became matter like a bush doesn’t mean I deny the supernatural or that these were miracles, I just don’t interpret them the way you do because your interpretation to me doesn’t make sense (if taken so literally).

Did I ever deny that Jesus was fully God. But He was also fully man, and as a man He had red blood cels in His blood, not wine or fruit of the vine.