Post Reply
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Life In The Flesh And Blood
13 months ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:11PM #21
weberhome02
Posts: 945

.
Christ is stated to be the Christian's paschal lamb.


†. 1Cor 5:7 . . For Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed.


The law of the Passover clearly states that no one is permitted to eat the same lamb more than once; not even its leftovers.


†. Ex 12:8-11 . .That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire-- head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must incinerate it.


Point being, it is a violation of Passover principles to keep coming back to an altar over and over again to dine upon Jesus' body by ingesting consecrated host after consecrated host.


An additional stipulation is that paschal flesh cannot be eaten raw, which has led me to wonder if transubstantiation fans ever think to question if the flesh of the Lord's body they assume to be eating has been thoroughly cooked first.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 10:20PM #22
Theo
Posts: 4,382

Point being, it is a violation of Passover principles to keep coming back to an altar over and over again to dine upon Jesus' body by ingesting consecrated host after consecrated host. An additional stipulation is that paschal flesh cannot be eaten raw, which has led me to wonder if transubstantiation fans ever think to question if the flesh of the Lord's body they assume to be eating has been thoroughly cooked first.



Well, an additional "Passover principle" was that the Passover was to be eaten in haste, but frankly that has nothing to do with anything as far as Christians and the New Covenant is concerned... the same goes for the bitter herbs, and the way the lamb was cooked whole. And btw - communion bread is cooked, not that your point matters. Point is, Christians are not to go to the Law and try divining the proper practice for things done under the New Covenant. Rather we are to follow the traditions of the apostles, and in areas where we have no written instructions - there are tons of Christian writings dating back to the first, second and third centuries, that tell us very clearly what the Apostolic Church practice was.


When Christians celebrate the Lord's Table, we are not sacrificing a lamb to commemorate how the death-angel passed-over the blood stained doors of Israel, or their exodus from Egypt, rather we are proclaiming the death of our Lord Jesus Christ - and that is not something we are to do but once, once a year like the Passover, or even once a month. We are to do it often, even as St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:26 ... "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death till He comes." The early Church observed the Lord's table weekly, and while this can not be verified dogmatically because of a certain vagueness in this and other Scriptures, it is not even a debatable point given the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers.  


The idea that we can only partake of the Body and Blood of Christ once is right up there with praying for something only once, otherwise demonstrating a lack of faith and saying vain repetitions and praying like the heathen. Jesus taught us to seek, knock and ask God for our needs, and in the Greek that was uttered in the continuing action tense. Likewise the Lord's supper is a celebration of Christ, His death to sin on the Cross, and His victory over the devil... and proclaiming it is an essential aspect of the Gospel - i.e. the Good-news, Christ died to save sinners.


I am beginning to wonder about you Cliff, you "don't believe in celebrating the Lord's Table more than once," and "the Lord Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily," really Cliff ??? those are two highly abberational teachings that are completely out of step with historic Christianity. Are you a bone on your own Cliff, or a member of the Body of Christ? If you fancy yourself to belong to Christ, perhaps you need to understand that when it comes to essential truth - you need to be in unity with other Christians, not out there acting like the fount of all truth contradicting established truth. And I can say this because I am in unity with historic Christianity and I know the difference.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 6:49AM #23
withwonderingawe
Posts: 4,314

Weber; That blood, and that body, are gone forever; having been supplanted by an altogether new, heaven-born body.



Then why was the tomb empty ??


Job understood “… And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God…” Job 19


Isaiah prophesying of the resurrection wrote “ Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” Isa 26:19


Jesus said “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will braise it up….he spake of the temple of his body” John 2


Thomas wouldn’t believe the Lord had raised from the dead until;


“ I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side”


So when the Lord appears to him Jesus tells him


“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing” John 20


His resurrected body retained the scars from the cross.


In Luke 24 they handle his body and he ate with them. The miracle is the spirit gives life to the body and we can eat all we want without getting fat.


Obviously the body which went into the tomb is the one that came out.



Weber; Did the Lord's earth-born body ascend to heaven? No, it did not. He went up in a new, heaven-born body; ....



Where does it say that??


Luke wrote about the day Jesus ascended into heaven;


“… He was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days…while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


….And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”


I don’t see anywhere there where it says he switched bodies or something.


It’s not that he took on a different body but that he changed the mortal one he had into an immortal one.


1Cor 15
“42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:


43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:


44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. “


The quickening spirit raises the corruptible mortal body which found it’s life in the blood and changes it into a spiritual body.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 10:09AM #24
weberhome02
Posts: 945

.
†. 1Cor 11:25 . . Do this in memory of me


The Lord's Supper (as Protestants prefer to label a communion service) is Christianity's equivalent of a Memorial Day.


†. 1Cor 11:26 . .Whenever you eat of this bread and drink from this cup, you are proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes


That's precisely why I sincerely believe communion services should never be held behind closed doors or in secret chambers; but always be observed in full view of the whole congregation, both the saved and the unsaved-- as not only a reminder, but also as an advertisement.


†. Mrk 16:15 . . Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone, everywhere.


The Lord's Supper is a pretty good way to comply with that mandate. Communion consists of but two elements; but they speak volumes.


The world of today lacks an adequate concept of justice. The cross' concept is vivid. One look at that bloody spectacle and there's no mistaking that the Bible God's heart is set on retribution.


†. Isa 52:14 . . Many were amazed when they saw him-- beaten and bloodied: so disfigured one would scarcely tell he was human.


The Romans whipped the Lord to within an inch of his life, slapped him around, crowned him with thorns, and drove nails into his palms and his feet. But that was child's play compared to what God did. By the time those hours of darkness lifted; the Lord's own mother would have trouble recognizing him.


†. Luke 23:48 . .When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.


Yes, of course they beat their breasts; and you know why? Because they were having trouble catching their breath. The extent of that man's injuries were so horrific that they could scarcely tell he was the same man. If that's what his own Father did to him during those three hours of darkness on the cross; then just think what the Bible's God has in store for people who pooh-pooh its purpose as silly nonsense. At the very minimum; they too will be beaten and bloodied beyond recognition. I suspect that by the time some people's day in court is completed at the Great White Throne depicted at Rev 20:11-15; they will look as though they were dragged through a field of concertina wire and dropped into a cotton gin.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 11:58AM #25
Theo
Posts: 4,382

Yes, of course they beat their breasts; and you know why? Because they were having trouble catching their breath. The extent of that man's injuries were so horrific that they could scarcely tell he was the same man. If that's what his own Father did to him during those three hours of darkness on the cross; then just think what the Bible's God has in store for people who pooh-pooh its purpose as silly nonsense. At the very minimum; they too will be beaten and bloodied beyond recognition. I suspect that by the time some people's day in court is completed at the Great White Throne depicted at Rev 20:11-15; they will look as though they were dragged through a field of concertina wire and dropped into a cotton gin



I thought you were the same "Cliff" that once defiled beliefnets forums a few years back. Now I am sure of it. Wow.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 12:09PM #26
withwonderingawe
Posts: 4,314

Cliff; Yes, of course they beat their breasts; and you know why? Because they were having trouble catching their breath. 




gees Cliff ya need to learn a little about their culture, those people still beat their breast and rend their clothes when they get a little upset. It's how they show strong emotion. 

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 12:11PM #27
withwonderingawe
Posts: 4,314

Theo; We are to do it often, even as St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:26 ... "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death till He comes."



Perhaps Theo we should look at the whole passage. He is telling these Christians you don’t come together to eat drink and be merry but to partake of the Lord’s sacrament.



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:


24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.


26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.


27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.


28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.


29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.


That really is an argument against the once saved all ways saved doctrine.


The Lord gave us two ordinance for his new testament or covenant. The first is baptism. In Gal 3:27 he says those who have been baptized have put on Christ. Think about it, you go down into the water and are complete immersed while the baptizer says in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Then with this sacrament of bread and wine we are taking into our bodies as symbols of his body.


There is a total body and personal experience. Under the old covenant the priest would sprinkle the crowd but this way we are making a personal covenant & commitment.


In Mormon doctrine the sacrament is a renewing of the baptismal covenant in that as Paul said “But let a man examine himself”. We should each ponder the last week and ask ourselves have I taken on me the name of Christ, have I followed in his footsteps. If I haven’t then I need to repent and ask the Lord’s forgiveness least I “…..eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to” myself, not discerning the Lord’s body as I should.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 12:18PM #28
weberhome02
Posts: 945

.

May 27, 2012 -- 6:49AM, withwonderingawe wrote:

Obviously the body which went into the tomb is the one that came out.


If only it were that simple.


Some Christians believe the Lord rose from the dead with the same body with which he was crucified. Others believe he rose from the dead with a brand spanking new glorified body. Others believe he rose from the dead as a spirit and that the human body he showed Thomas wasn't real; but rather one that the Lord materialized; viz: an apparition. And yet others believe the Lord rose from the dead with the same body with which he was crucified but when he ascended to heaven forty days later, his body underwent a miraculous regeneration-- in a moment, in the blink of an eye --to an amazing supernatural body.


All that confusion only goes to prove just how un-obvious the particulars of the Lord's resurrection really are; and causes me to guffaw whenever I see someone describe their Bible quotes as the "plain teachings of scripture". Haw! scripture is anything but plain: a lot of it is practically smoke and mirrors.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 4:02PM #29
Theo
Posts: 4,382

1) Some Christians believe the Lord rose from the dead with the same body with which he was crucified. 2) Others believe he rose from the dead with a brand spanking new glorified body. 3) Others believe he rose from the dead as a spirit and that the human body he showed Thomas wasn't real; but rather one that the Lord materialized; viz: an apparition.



1) Historic Christianity teaches that Jesus died and rose again and afterwards ascended to heaven. In other words, we believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ; note the adjective - bodily, it was added in order to modify "resurrection" so everyone would know what kind of resurrection we believe in. Actually "bodily" is redundant, because there is only one kind of resurrection; the body that dies is the body that is raised.


In our Lord's case, Jesus died - physically, and was raised - physically, and thus the empty tomb. As for flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom of God, that is also true. You see, Jesus was not only raised back to life, He was also glorified... meaning that His physical body was transformed into a spiritual body. When this happened for Jesus is debatable, but we know that presently, He is glorified man seated on the Throne of heaven, and we also know He was raised from the dead bodily. I believe Jesus was glorified sometime soon after His resurrection, when He ascended to God the first time... as He mentioned to Mary after His resurrection.


2) Who believes Jesus rose from the dead in a brand spanking new body? What became of His dead body? Frankly, I've been a Christian 37 years and have a degree in theology, and I have never heard of anyone, especially as representative of any group, who believes Jesus rose from the dead in a brand new body. I do know people who believe Jesus rose from the dead already immortal, i.e. glorified, but they believe it was the same body, only transformed.


3) JWs teach that Jesus was raised from the dead as a spirit, and that the body He appeared to His disciples in, was only manifested to prove to them that He really rose from the dead, only later did they come to understand that Jesus was raised "spiritually" and no longer had a body.


All that confusion only goes to prove just how un-obvious the particulars of the Lord's resurrection really are; and causes me to guffaw whenever I see someone describe their Bible quotes as the "plain teachings of scripture" when in reality some parts of scripture are more like smoke and mirrors.



All what confusion? Do you find it confusing that people have different opinions? Life must be very hard for you. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is clearly taught in the Bible, the problem is that too many people simply refuse to believe what historic Christianity says, but in as much as they still want to believe in something, they come up with their own original ideas... kind of like you.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
13 months ago  ::  May 27, 2012 - 4:25PM #30
Theo
Posts: 4,382

WWA:

Perhaps Theo we should look at the whole passage. He is telling these Christians you don’t come together to eat drink and be merry but to partake of the Lord’s sacrament.


> 1 Cor 11:20-22 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you."


I agree, when the Church comes together, one of the major reasons should be to eat the Lord's Supper...


The problem is, this passage does not say that. It is somewhat vague and open to interpretation because it says the opposite... I believe Paul here implied that the norm among first century Christians, was to come together once a week to eat the Lord's Supper... that was certainly the Apostolic Tradition as well as the Postapostolic Tradition. However, the Corinthians were making such a mockery of the Lord's Supper by observing it in an unworthy manner, that Paul actually tells them they did not come together to eat the Lord's Supper. So while I agree with you, I have yet to see those who do not favor weekly observances of the Lord's Supper persuaded by this passage.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook