The Resurrection & The Eucharist

http://www.frksj.org/homily_ressurection_and_the_eucharist.htm ^

[verga]

Says who? See post 200

[metmom]

But the discussion wasn’t about the Koine Greek.

It was about CB *going far enough back.*

Going to the oldest manuscripts isn’t far enough back?

Then the Catholics are the ones with the problem.

[metmom]

But the discussion wasn’t about the Koine Greek being *he[sic] original*.

It was about CB *going far enough back.*

Going to the oldest manuscripts isn’t far enough back?

Then the Catholics are the ones with the problem.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

How many times were you warned about “making it personal?”

[verga]

Very nice, Has nothing to do with the discussion, but still very nice, Now are the 10 Commandments still valid today or not.

[verga]

Seriously, 10 commandments still valid or not?

[verga]

This is the most hypocritical thing I have read in a long time. When a Catholic tells you "New Covenant, New Rules" about the Eucharist prots babble on that the law about not consuming blood predates covenants... yada yada yada....

But when it suits the prot purpose "God’s dealings with man changed under the different covenant".

is a valid response.

No SALE! like I told your compatriot, try to pick a story and stick with it. If the prots can't be right the least they could do is be consistent.

[verga]

I didn’t miss anything, I told you why your proof text was in error.

[CynicalBear]

You stepped in it verga.

[CynicalBear]

>>Then the Catholics are the ones with the problem.<<

The fear of scripture by Catholics is palpable.

[CynicalBear]

>>But when it suits the prot purpose "God’s dealings with man changed under the different covenant".<<

Ooooooo!! Nice slight of tongue there dude! The contention was, when did the covenant change". The New Covenant did NOT take affect until AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ. NOT at the last supper.

[metmom]

Why did God give us the Ten Commandments?

That would answer if they are still valid or not.

[metmom]

The prohibition against eating blood was given before the law, before the old covenant was given, and was reiterated at the Council at Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Acts.

It is still a valid prohibition.

[verga]

I will leave you to your non answer.

[metmom]

At the Last Supper the old covenant was still in effect.

Now, in Acts, Peter states that he had never eaten anything unclean.

As an observant Jew, Peter would not have eaten something that he thought was unclean, so if he thought Jesus was telling them they were eating His literal flesh and blood, Peter would have refused to eat. PETER understood it to be symbolic.

Now, if he had eaten blood at the last Supper, he would have eaten something unclean, and therefore lied to God about never doing it.

[verga]

I said the false Dichotomy was moronic, not the person that made it.

How many times have you been warned?

[metmom]

Spiritual truths are foolishness to the man without the Spirit.

It’s not an non-answer.

The Law was given to define sin and lead us to Christ.

It was not given so that by observing it, we could attain heaven or receive eternal life.

[verga]

Yes I did step in the truth and as usual come up smelling like a rose.

[verga]

Hey if that helps the prots get through the dark scary night so be it. I will pray for you all.
Have a good evening.

[CynicalBear]

>>Now, if he had eaten blood at the last Supper, he would have eaten something unclean, and therefore lied to God about never doing it.<<

Nice catch! Exactly!