Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Life In The Flesh And Blood
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 4:31PM #11
weberhome02
Posts: 1,818

.
Common  Objection : according to 1Cor 11:20-29, it's possible to be guilty of the Lord's body and blood. Being guilty of someone's body and blood is to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the bread and wine are only symbols?


According to Rom 6:9, the Lord rose from the dead immortal; which means that both his flesh and his blood are now impervious to death-- therefore it is impossible to be guilty of a homicide by partaking of the Lord's supper in a disrespectful manner. This is typically something the transubstantiation people never think of.


So then, it's conceivable that a vandal could pound a host wafer to dust with a mallet and feed it to his pet gerbil; and then use the wine element in one of Giada de Laurentis' recipes; and still not cause the Lord any mortal harm. The vandal might denigrate the sanctity of the Lord's crucifixion by doing so; and incite his Father's righteous indignation: but that's about it.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 8:58AM #12
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,219

Weber; Obviously the Lord passed around a cup of wine and called it his blood. I believe we need to look at the times. Bread and new wine were the staple of life, without it people would die. That’s why it was used as a symbolism of life. (would he passed around a coke today).


Weber; According to Rom 6:9, the Lord rose from the dead immortal; which means that both his flesh and his blood are now impervious to death-


I think you have that a little wrong. Paul told us "…Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.." 1cor 15:50


In Leviticus 17:11 it says; “ For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”


During the hours of the Atonement Christ first sweat great drops of blood in the Garden, then he was beaten and bled some more. Then after he died, when it was “finished” “…the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” spilling upon the ground.


There wasn’t a single drop of blood left in his body.


Paul wrote when he was trying to explain the resurrection’ “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”


Now I’m a person who takes quite a bit of the Bible literally. I believe the first Adam partook of a fruit which changed the perfect immortal body which God had made into a mortal one where the blood was the life of the body. The reason the Cherubim were place to block the way to the Tree of Life was because if Adam partook he then would have lived forever in his sins.


The second Adam/Christ shed for us every last drop of his blood making that atonement for sin.


Now this is one of my pet theories. It says he was made a quickening spirit, how so? Well he told the criminal hanging on the cross with him that they would be in paradise  together


John was told “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”


After the fall paradise or the Garden of Eden was taken from this earth we know and into the spirit world. When Christ overcame sin he entered there as a sinless man. The Cherubim were removed and Christ was able to eat of the fruit of eternal life thus becoming a quickening or life giving spirit.


At first when Christ appeared before his apostles they are afraid thinking he is a spirit but he says; “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” Luke 24


When Lazarus came forth from the grave that was a healing but the blood still pumped through his veins and he eventually died of old age.


This was different, note he says flesh and bone. No longer was the blood the life giving force in his body it was his quickening spirit. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”


He wanted them to understand just how real this was and asked to eat, they give him fish and honey. I believe as each of us as spirits who have been forgiven of all sin enter paradise we too are able to partake of this Tree of Life and also become quickening spirits thus being able to resurrect our bodies.


There are some who receive a resurrection of damnations so how exactly that figures in I’m not sure.


“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5


It does appear to be tied to our good or evil works rather than our pure acceptance of Him as redeemer. There seems to be a play on words which we need to recognize. There is immortality which everyone receives good or bad and then there is eternal life with God.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:48PM #13
weberhome02
Posts: 1,818

.

May 25, 2012 -- 8:58AM, withwonderingawe wrote:

I think you have that a little wrong


Is it impossible that you are the one who has it a "little wrong" rather than me? I mean, after all; Peter testified that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand: so it should come as no surprise to you if Mormon interpretations of Paul's writings are spurious now and again.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 6:05PM #14
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,219

May 25, 2012 -- 2:48PM, weberhome02 wrote:


.

May 25, 2012 -- 8:58AM, withwonderingawe wrote:

I think you have that a little wrong


Is it impossible that you are the one who has it a "little wrong" rather than me? I mean, after all; Peter testified that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand: so it should come as no surprise to you if Mormon interpretations of Paul's writings are spurious now and again.


Cliff
/





So ya think the resurreted Jesus has blood flowing through his veins??  

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 9:16PM #15
TemplarS
Posts: 6,778

Too much is being made here over the physical nature of the bread and wine Paul was talking about.  Cliff mentions transubstantiation, and this is a common obsession of both those who believe in transubstantiation and those who go out of their way to pick at it. To be sure, transubstantiation does not mean that the bread actually assumes the molecular makeup of flesh; but focusing solely on this misses the point.  (As far as the form of the resurrected body, even Paul is not sure about this: the best he can do is the seed analogy of 1 Cor 15:35-50; it is not a flesh-and-blood body, but what exactly it is is not clear- though this is a bit contrary to John who, as mentioned, goes out of his way to emphasize flesh).   


But Paul's point in 1 Cor 11 is only peripherally about the nature of the bread/body/wine/blood. When he condemns the Corinthians for not discerning the body, or profaning the body, what he is condemning is not their attitude towards the elements but the way they have desecrated the whole of the celebration of the Lord's Supper- which is, he takes pains to make clear (1 Cor 10:16), a participation in the body and blood (that is, the sacrifice) of Jesus.  What appears to be the problem is that the Corinthians were using the circumstances of the Lord's Supper, which at this point was evidently still celebrated in the context of a share-meal, as an occasion for gluttony and drunkenness; perhaps early arrivals were eating all the food.  In any case, they were not engaging in the ritual in the spirt of what it should be: sharing the bread and wine as a participation in his sacrifice.  So in this sense,  Paul regarded the bread and wine in this context as more than bread and wine (clearly, you cannot be unworthy to simply eat bread); what exactly is not certain,  the word "body" worked perfectly well for him, but from other passages, it is clear he did not require such a body to be flesh.  But: his point has little to do with physical change and everything to do with the elements as being bound up in some way with Jesus and his sacrifice.  The Lord's Supper is not just a memorial meal; you are also participating in and proclaiming (or showing, depending on translation- verse 26)  Jesus sacrifice.  Fail to understand that and you are condemning yourself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 10:19PM #16
weberhome02
Posts: 1,818

.

May 25, 2012 -- 6:05PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

So ya think the resurreted Jesus has blood flowing through his veins?


All I'm saying is: you need to be circumspect with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them. Telling people they are wrong, or even a little bit wrong, when it's not impossible you are both; is just setting yourself up for a painful dose of unnecessary chagrin.


†. Mtt 12:36-37 . . I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.  For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 10:54PM #17
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,219

Weber; All I'm saying is: you need to be circumspect with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them



Mmm I could have sworn this was a debate board.



I’m quite sure at least 95% of everyone here believes I’m very wrong.




So do you believe the resurrected Christ has blood flowing in his veins?

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:49AM #18
Theo
Posts: 4,687

Weber... I think you should forget about both the transubstantiation view and the symbolic view... you won't find either position clearly taught in Scripture.  


Years ago I noticed that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that the bread and wine are merely symbols of His flesh and blood.  Likewise, neither Jesus nor the apostles support the teaching that the blessed bread and wine transform through the virtue of the priesthood into His actual flesh and blood. Rather, Jesus taught that the blessed bread and wine are His flesh and blood, (i.e. true food and drink) and St. Paul implied that the blessed bread and wine are spiritual food, and when we partake of them, we have communion with the body and blood of Christ, which was broken for us.


The symbolic view does not satisfy the confident statement of Christ that this is my body and my blood, and the transubstantiation view does not recognize that the elements are "spiritual food" and therefore "faith" is required. I've come to the position that when we bless the bread and the wine, it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and therefore, for those who believe and partake, it is the flesh and blood of the Son of God. By partaking of the Eucharist we spiritually metabolizes, as it were, the body and blood of Christ, and thereby become one with Him and one another.


I fault the traditional view of Communion for making a magic act out of the Eucharist that requires a priest with the right pedigree (apostolic succession) in order to transform the host into the body and blood of Christ, but requires nothing of those who partake except dependence upon the priesthood. And I fault non-traditional Churches and ministers for making the elements (i.e. the bread and wine) merely symbolic and in most cases, for not recognizing  the rite as a thanksgiving offering (which is what Eucharist means) and therefore the Church should actually give thanks and bless the bread and wine - as Christ and the apostles did.


Your results may vary...


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 10:57AM #19
weberhome02
Posts: 1,818

.

May 25, 2012 -- 10:54PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

I’m quite sure at least 95% of everyone here believes I’m very wrong.


What's important is that you don't get so confident in your Mormon identity as to sincerely believe LDS interpretations are 110% infallible.


 


May 25, 2012 -- 10:54PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

So do you believe the resurrected Christ has blood flowing in his veins?


Think about it.


For one: the Lord's resurrection body has a digestive system.


†. Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.


And is also quite capable of imbibing alcohol.


†. Mtt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.


Plus: even if the Lord's earth-born body had drained every last drop of its blood the day of his crucifixion, it wouldn't matter as regards his resurrection because the blood of his crucifixion was his old body's blood. That blood, and that body, are gone forever; having been supplanted by an altogether new, heaven-born body.


†. 1Cor 15:50 . . I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.


Did the Lord's earth-born body ascend to heaven? No, it did not. He went up in a new, heaven-born body; in point of fact, the Lord went up with a body that's impervious to death.


1Cor 15:35-53 likens the Lord's earth-born body to a seed. But as any gardener knows, when seeds germinate, parent plants supplant their seeds and they become seeds no more; having fulfilled their purpose. In other words; the Lord's earth-born body is gone, gone, gone, gone. It did not go to heaven; nor will my own earth-born body go there when it expires.


Bottom line is: the flesh and blood spoken of at 1Cor 15:50 is earth-born flesh and blood (viz: the first Adam's) rather than heaven-born flesh and blood (viz: the last Adam's). In other words: it's the flesh and blood of the natural man as opposed to the flesh and blood of the supernatural man.


When Peter testified that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand; he wasn't kidding. I've no doubt that right now, today, even as we speak, that there are literally thousands of people out in the world wearing the Christian label who have not yet properly understood 1Cor 15:35-53 and that's why so many of them adamantly insist that 1Pet 3:18-20 teaches that the Lord rose from the dead as a spirit instead of a human; and it is nigh impossible to convince them otherwise.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 4:05PM #20
Ironhold
Posts: 11,514

May 26, 2012 -- 10:57AM, weberhome02 wrote:


.

May 25, 2012 -- 10:54PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

I’m quite sure at least 95% of everyone here believes I’m very wrong.


What's important is that you don't get so confident in your Mormon identity as to sincerely believe LDS interpretations are 110% infallible.




Speak for yourself there, kiddo.

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

    Beliefnet On Facebook