the actual body of Christ.

  • Thread starter Thread starter xmydreamsfadex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bwsherman said:
Well no kidding there was an Old Testament…What about the fact that paper was scarce and the majority of people couldn’t read?
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not true. The Jews loved the word of God so much that they considered it a grave sin not to teach your children to read so that they could study the scriptures.

Nearly all Jews were literate.
And besides that, on what documents do you state that people were studying scripture in the sense that you do it today?
Click to expand...
I don’t. They studied the scriptures, but I’m sure their study was radically different than ours.
Have you ever heard of or read something called the Didache? In case you have not, let me give you the basics on it…
Click to expand...
Oh, please talk down to me some more.
So your assertion that they were sitting in eachothers homes reading scripture, when most people could not afford paper and were not even literate to begin with, is asinine and without foundation.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s exactly what the book of Acts describes.

So does Colosians 4 and Romans 16. Are you saying that the book of Acts is “asinine”?
 
I would be interested to know where you learned about most Jews being literate, however, that is probably for another thread. I do have one final question: What makes your interpretation of scripture more accurate than any other person on this particular thread? Do you base it on your own merits or do you rely on other people to help you with discerning the meaning of scripture? I think that will help me understand how it is you are coming up with the claims you are making on this thread. Thanks…

Pax
 
i am true to my word is 3:00 central standard time. so let the argument begin!!! 😃
 
someotherguy said:
So then, if they’re not Christ’s body and blood, and they’re not bread and wine, then what, exactly, are they?
Click to expand...
If you don’t believe their really the body and blood then how come when the host was tested for dna it had dna of a human heart tissue?
 
xmydreamsfadex said:
so, my question is, why do protestants believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to “mold” people into something better, but can’t change a piece of bread or some wine into the ACTUAL Body and Blood of Christ? .
Click to expand...
Some Protestants like to take things to extreme. They say that when Jesus said: I am the vine my Father the vine dresser, He is not literally saying that the Son of God is a plant! 🙂

That God the Father has a part-time job when He is not creating the universe, He earns a few cents on the side dressing vines. 😛

But a difference in the analogies the Lord used was that we know He was speaking figuratively in respect of the vine. But in the Eucharist He made it absolutely clear by His words:

‘I tell you the truth, the very truth…unless a man eats of the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, he will have no life in him’. Jn 6:

Now look at the context in which it took place. Some of the crowd had had a fiery dispute, criticising the Lords teaching, by saying ‘how can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ Now the Lord could have said: ‘look guys I didn’t mean it literally, come on now, that is ridiculous!’ But He did not. Quite the opposite in fact, He added ‘In truth, in very truth I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you can have no life in you!’ Jn 6: 52-53

So if the Lord said ‘in truth, in very truth’ we may take it He meant exactly what He said. Why else would He have been so persistent?
 
Aaron409 said:
If you don’t believe their really the body and blood then how come when the host was tested for dna it had dna of a human heart tissue?
Click to expand...
Well, that makes no sense to me. The accidents (outward appearances) of bread and wine remain after consecration. Even aided by technology, all observations of the accidents should still perceive bread and wine. DNA tests, microscopic examinations, and so forth (which, BTW would be blasphemous) should yield only results for bread and wine.
 
Gamera said:
Well, that makes no sense to me. The accidents (outward appearances) of bread and wine remain after consecration. Even aided by technology, all observations of the accidents should still perceive bread and wine. DNA tests, microscopic examinations, and so forth (which, BTW would be blasphemous) should yield only results for bread and wine.
Click to expand...
Not really. It only looks like bread and wine but in reality it is the body adn blood of Jesus no trace of bread or wine remain.
 
SacredHeartFan said:
Not really. It only looks like bread and wine but in reality it is the body adn blood of Jesus no trace of bread or wine remain.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. No trace of bread or wine remain. Only the accidents (outward appearances) of bread and wine remain.
 
I believe Aaron is referring to the Eucharistic miracles like the one in Lanciano, Italy. In that case, the bread and wine took on both the essentials and accidentals of flesh and blood. It has happened several times since, but Lanciano is the earliest instance.
 
someotherguy said:
So, what happens to Jesus’ body and blood when your body is through digesting Him?
Click to expand...
Why are you on here just trying to upset people?Seems kind of childish they’ve given you all the answers you need you just want to see them miss spell or type something wrong so you can point out their faults. Seems kind of like a waste of time, maybe you should go to the ask an apologetic section and they’ll tell you more clearly what you really want to know.
 
Loren_1of6 said:
I believe Aaron is referring to the Eucharistic miracles like the one in Lanciano, Italy. In that case, the bread and wine took on both the essentials and accidentals of flesh and blood. It has happened several times since, but Lanciano is the earliest instance.
Click to expand...
That is correct mam 🙂 I just don’t understand why protestants are so against it. Jesus obviously states it, but its there loss I suppose.
 
the actual body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Hi

In my opinion, the actual physical body of JesusYeshuaIssa was that of a human; he was born natually from Mary, he called himself So of Adam/Man. Physically he was just like an ordinary man; nothing usual about him.

He was loved one of GodAllahYHWH though.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

In my opinion, the actual physical body of JesusYeshuaIssa was that of a human; he was born natually from Mary, he called himself So of Adam/Man. Physically he was just like an ordinary man; **nothing usual **about him.

He was loved one of GodAllahYHWH though.

Thanks
Click to expand...
That is correct Paar, Jesus is Unusual.
 
Originally posted by paarsurrey:
the actual physical body of JesusYeshuaIssa was that of a human; he was born natually from Mary, he called himself So of Adam/Man. Physically he was just like an ordinary man; nothing usual about him.
Click to expand...
He was loved one of GodAllahYHWH though
Click to expand...
swariffin said:
That is correct Paar, Jesus is Unusual.
Click to expand...
Dear Swarfiffin

I made a mistake; the correct sentence may be treated as “Physically he was just like an ordinary man; nothing unusual about him.”

Thanks
 
Johndigger said:
Not quite. If you got into a time-machine and went to watch and pray at Our Lord being crucified and you offered up prayers at the foot of the cross.

Would that be the same thing as you re-sacrificing him?

Well, this is exactly what happens at Mass, except it’s Christ that is transported to us. It’s not a re-sacrifice. It’s the same sacrifice made present in our times.

It is an incredible and beautiful thing.

JD
Click to expand...
A good way of putting it 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top