Does The Glorified Body of Christ Have Blood?

Shameless Popery ^ | December 5, 2012 | by Joe Heschmeyer

[Sontagged]

A question:

Does “one... Apostolic... church” mean what the Catholics and Episcopalians say it means, or something else?

[nonsporting]

JW's don't teach this. They reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Disembodied spirits do not have "flesh and bone." I showed this to a JW at my door:

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. (Luke 24:39)

[Sontagged]

Exactly my point.

[Elsie]

You’re one up on me. I’d NEVER thought about it except sort of when a Mormon boy tried to foist a similar idea upon me — He said Jesus is spirit at the Resurrection —

Then you SHOULD have paid attention; you GENTILE!!

---

And HERE (bottom line) is WHY...

---

 

 

 

Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

 

---

If the above link does NOT function; try THIS one.   Click on the second image.

 

http://mormontruthnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/robert-millet-former-dean-of-religious_01.html

---

 

 

Timeline...    Subject...

 

0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Why would anyone want to belong to a false religion?

Simple.

They do not think it is false.

They think YOURS is!

(Unless they are of the 'all roads lead to GOD' persuasion.

[Elsie]

Does “one... Apostolic... church” mean what the Catholics and Episcopalians say it means, or something else?

I have no idea what they 'say'.

There are a LOT of Denominations that say "Our way is the RIGHT way"

[Elsie]

Exactly my point.

Ok; we seem to agree that the BIBLE is the reference point; so...

...just what WAS Jesus doing when He referred to THIS?

[Sontagged]

And I have been spouting that verse for many long FReeper days here, to no avail, with some of my protestant FRiends who seem to believe that Jesus had no blood in His body after the Crucifixion and after the Resurrection...

JW’s seem to teach the same thing; no blood in a resurrected spirit body of Jesus!

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2012/08/1-corinthians-1544-50-jehovahs-witness.html

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

[Elsie]

 

As I was walking across a bridge one day; I saw a man standing outside the railing, about to jump off.

 

So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

 

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

 

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

 

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"

 

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

 

-- Emo Phillips

[Mark17]

Unless they are of the 'all roads lead to GOD' persuasion.

Isn’t that more commonly called universalism? I believe that is another false religion. 🤣

[Mrs. Don-o]

Strange Bump

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But avoid *foolish controversies* and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. “

“Reject a *factious man* after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.”

Titus 3:9-11

[Mark17]

I know, I know, but when the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness come to my door, I usually confront them with the truth. Usually, they are not interested in the truth, but I simply say, well, you came to my door, peddling your false religion, so here is the truth. Most of the time, they beat feet, since they are not interested in the truth. 👎

[Mark17]

Strange Bump

Not so strange. We are trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Elsie did some super scientific calculations on another thread, and came up with a figure. I just can’t remember what it was. 😁🤣😊👍

[Campion]

A greater question is does Christ now occupy a glorified/resurrected body? Bible says yes .... Nicene Creed would philosophically say no (unless it is lumped in as another non-biblical mystery).

How do you possibly get that out of the Nicene Creed?

[Campion]

You mean Catholics should have a problem with Christ not having literal blood in His resurrected body when Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physically is so much stressed in Scripture (see below), but the Catholic Eucharistic Christ is akin to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ in that he appears to be something he is not, that of bread and wine.

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

There is nothing "docetist" or "gnostic" about Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Docetists thought Christ didn't really die on the Cross. The gnostics thought all kinds of crazy things having to do with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense. Neither group would recognize transubstantiation as their own.

[daniel1212]

... Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” ... Please provide a cite for the quote "physically present". Much obliged.

Tell me first what the difference is btwn Christ being present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place, and being "physically present," yet "this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation"?

[Iscool]

This “Bloodless Body” view appears to have first been put forward by a Lutheran by the name of J. A. Bengel (1687-1752). Bengel’s original theory was fairly complicated, as he had elaborate work-arounds for passages like Hebrews 9:11-14, 24-26, in which Christ is depicted as entering Heaven with His Blood.<.i>

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own (shed) blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: Heb 9:14 How much more shall the (shed) blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

There is nothing in these passages that suggest Jesus brought any blood to heaven with him...In fact, it is just the opposite...Jesus had to lose his blood to get there...

Jesus' physical, terrestrial body had to be changed into a celestial body unlike anything any human can comprehend...Jesus' physical body can walk thru doors and walls and anything else he wants to walk thru...

What would be the need for blood in heaven??? 'Human life is in the blood but so is human death...Most every disease known to man is the result of bad blood...Why would God want blood in heaven???

[daniel1212]

You mean Catholics should have a problem with Christ not having literal blood in His resurrected body when Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physically is so much stressed in Scripture (see below), but the Catholic Eucharistic Christ is akin to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ in that he appears to be something he is not, that of bread and wine

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

So you find fault with a easily comprehensible 23 word sentence? Perhaps you find fault in encyclicals? Why one encyclical (QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, POPE PIUS Xl ,MAY 15, 1931) of over 20,000 words, has more than one paragraph of over 400 words, and at least one sentence of over 90 words, and which also abounds in punctuation.

There is nothing "docetist" or "gnostic" about Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Docetists thought Christ didn't really die on the Cross. The gnostics thought all kinds of crazy things having to do with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense. Neither group would recognize transubstantiation as their own.

And there are differences btwn a earthly king and the King of the kingdom of God, yet the Lord said "the kingdom of heaven likened unto a king, which would take account of his servants," (Matthew 18:23) for the use of analogy does not require comprehensive correspondence.

And my analogy of the Catholic Eucharistic Christ to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ had nothing to do "with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense," but was that in both cases he appears to be something he is not.

Hold that the manifestly physical body of Christ was an illusion a mere semblance without any true reality as in , docetism , that it was not what it appeared to be, is indeed "akin" (as said) to holding that the manifestly material bread and wine do not exist, and that what Christ appears to be is not the reality.

That is simply not how Scripture describes the body of Christ, and a truly literal reading of the words "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24) would mean the disciples were consuming the only manifestly physical body of Christ body of Christ they knew, that would be manifestly crucified, versus a metaphysical wafer-god.

Might as well imagine David transubstantiated water into the blood of men, since he call it and treated it as so:

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

[eastsider]

I’m asking a a very straightforward question: What is the source of your quote? Either you have a source or you don’t.