Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).
If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).
In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:
“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)
Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father … I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.”
So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:
“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”
It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:
“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? … The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)
It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one? Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.
But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:
“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)
But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:
“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. … these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. … all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).
One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.
But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:
“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).
That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:
“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”
Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:
“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”
Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.
Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):
“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)
“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)
So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?
Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1). “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.
Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.
Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.
Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).
When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”
We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:
“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).
The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
Cannibalism has nothing in common with the Christian Eucharist. The Eucharist has no identifiable "anatomy". We aren't eating "parts." And He isn't "dead."
The charge of cannibalism is exactly the error the early Christians knew the Roman pagans would make, which is one reason why they had their Eucharists in secret. The pagan mentality just wouldn't "get" it. That's why one of the oldest Eucharistic hymns we have, says "Ponder nothing earthly-minded." Now that you can see the different criteria which distinguish two quite different things --- Eucharist and cannibalism --- please do not repeat the mistake of conflating the two.
Sorry friend ......God placed the jewish law into effect that blood was not to be consumed.. Jesus had to keep the WHOLE law perfectly if He was to be the spotless Lamb ...which meant He would not violate that law or encourage others to do so...
Did the apostles eat the real actual flesh of Christ at the last supper? Did they drink His actual blood?? Did He ??
Who do you think you are kidding? The eucharist fits perfectly with pagan thought. Constantine worked diligently to combine the two and was very successful.
Real (or True) Flesh, yes; and Real (or True) Blood, yes. We have it on His word:
John 6:51-56 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.Plwase pay close attention to v.63 where Jesus says "The flesh is of no avail," because He is obviously not referring to "His" flesh. He has just told us that "His" flesh is true food, and "His" flesh avails for eternal life.The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
No, rather He speaks of "the" flesh. Our fleshly-minded, or shall I say meat-headed, way of thinking about things, which is the sense in which he is using the term "flesh." He is speaking of un-regenerate thinking.
For instance, mixing this up with pagan cannibalism. That would be a fleshly, undiscerning error. Or saying it's not "real" or "true" flesh and blood because all of the appearances (including chemical characteristics) remain of bread and wine. That's another fleshly, undiscerning error.
You don't have to parse this all out. It's beyond human comprehension anyway.
It's sufficient that when you hear Jesus' blessed words, "This is My Body," you say "Amen."
Just "Amen".
Take every thought captive in obedience to Christ.
And that intent failed miserably. Because they didn't use Scripture as they should have. And because the title *mother of God* doesn't mention Jesus as the title *mother of Jesus* does.
The best thing to counter error is not creating more error by renaming Mary as *mother of God* but to simply use Scripture to teach correctly about the nature of Jesus.
. And now people are getting led into more error than ever with all the false teachings about Mary that Catholicsm has promulgated.
Jesus offered ONE body for sin, shed that blood, and was done.
There can be no participation becuase Jesus is not in heaven being continually offered for our sin. He has a different body, one that can no longer die, and one that does not need to die because the son debt is paid in full.
Quit now. Constantine had nothing to do with Christian Eucharistic theology. He did legalize Christianity and gave public buildings to Christians as houses of worship, and to his credit he attempted to defend the Christians of Armenia from conquest by the Persians, but he did not live in the Faith nor even call himself a Christian. Finally on his death-bed he chose the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, not a Catholic, as his baptizer.
I know our esteemed friends the Orthodox have a different view of this, but in the Catholic Church he is not seen even as a fellow believer, let alone a canonized saint.
And what dd he have to do with the Eucharist? Ningun cosa. Nada. Zilch. He had nothing to do with Catholic theology.
You're evidently a victim of spurious history purveyed by people who don't know jack chick about Catholicism.
An angel told Joseph in a dream to not fear to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
That comes with understood repsonsibilities and privileges, one of which is sex. I have no doubt that when God had the angel give Joseph that message, that HE knew how Joseph would interpret it.
And Scripture tells us that Joseph did not know her (aka have sex) until AFTER she gave birth.
Since Mary did not have physical union with the Holy Spirit, there was no one flesh union that happened therefore the charge that a conjugal union happened is not valid.
If the charge is to be made that she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and that a conjugal relationship was established, you’re forced into the position of claiming that physical sex was involved.
Jesus called the cup * the fruit of the vine* acknowledging that it was wine in the cup and that he was using a metaphor by calling it blood.
Since otherwise forcing His disciples to drink blood or tricking them into it, would have violated the Law that He Himself handed down at Mt. Sinai.
That’s curious. You’ll notice nobody’s in error about the meaning of the term “Mother of God” except certain 16th century polemicists who, whether misled or misleading, misconstrued the term -— and their intellectual progeny.
If the term * mother of God*. were superior to and preferable to, the term *mother of Jesus*. to prevent error in the understanding of the nature of Jesus, then pray tell, why did the Holy Spirit inspire the writers of the NT to say *mother of Jesus*?
Does the church really think it can improve on the work of the Holy Spirit?
* Mother of God*says a whole different thing than *mother of Jesus* and it’s simply a matter of the clear, basic meanigns of the words, having nothing done with nefarious motives.
The only misunderstanding that occurs is when the Church demands that people by default intuitively understand that God means Jesus in this one particular, specific instance but not any other, that God means God, the Trinity as opposed to specifically the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity.
In fact, these are the very words used in the Canon of the Mass, for example, Eucharistic Prayer IV:
In a similar way, taking the chalice filled with the fruit of the vine, he gave thanks, and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
Jesus and the Apostles certainly must have drunk of the other cups of Passover wine during the Last Supper, before the consecration of what He said is "the chalice of my Blood." It does not follow that he had partaken of the consecrated wine, His blood, which he gave his Apostles. The text doesn't say that.
This was His last meal before His death. The time would be short. This is why He said "But I say to you that I shall not drink again from this fruit of the vine until the day in which I shall drink it with you new in the Kingdom of my Father.”
This meal was His last drinking of the Passover wine before His death.
Exactly ... either he was lying or He was revealing the typology of the passover meal ...
Mary is not the Mother of the Trinity. I never heard anybody assert as a plausible meaning with the exception of you, my dear. And maybe one or two other FReepers, misled or misleading, though --- I am willing to assume --- inadvertently. That's it, tout court.
I guess I can be glad we're no longer arguing about Baby Jesus' transitional stools.
Please realize that it's neither of those.
It's neither a figure of speech, or a soon to be dismembered and cannibalized Mini-Me. The reality is that, as Jesus said, "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Then, at table, He said "This is my Body" and when the supper was ended, "This is the chalice of My Blood, the Blood of the New and eternal Covenant."
It must be obvious that we connect those two statements.
His true, Eucharistic body and blood have the appearance and chemical characteristics of bread and wine. They are nevertheless what He says they are.
Can't we settle with that?
It reminds me of an argument with my older son when he was an adolescent: "Is light a particle or a wave? It's got to be a particle or a wave!"
It's like what Nils Bohr said about quantum physics: "You never actually understand it. You just, so to speak, get used to it."
LOL...Actually had a priest say in a sermon that “those were not roses in Jesus’s diaper “
The choice is either Jesus was lying or His words had an other meaning ..one the apostles understood..because not one questioned Him about breaking levitical law
He was wearing His body and using His blood at the time.. so it could not have been the real actual "body of Christ" could it ??
BTW there is a question if the resurrected Jesus even had any blood.. He said He was flesh and bone? not flesh and blood.. Might Jesus have shed every drop of His blood for our salvation?? Does a resurrected body need blood??
(Minor snark, but no malice.)
I'd better festoon this with /s/
............/s/
/s/
............/s/
...../s/
/s/
............/s/
lest this spark a new round of bug-tussling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.