Behold: the flesh of the lamb.
Posted on 10/02/2023 11:57:46 AM PDT by ADSUM
Deflection does not excuse disobedience and does not answer the question.
Besides, rather than admit that the Catholic *interpretation* is wrong, Catholic’s knee jerk reaction is always to deflect and change the subject to rationalize disobeying a clear, concise, unequivocal command of Jesus.
Jesus could not have been more clear or succinct.
I guess Catholics really take to heart what they claim is Luther’s command to go and sin boldly.
Apparently, a former Catholic gets literally stuck on calling someone Father or as Jesus meant for us to call no one God, yet when Jesus clearly says “Take and eat” my Body and drink my Blood of the new covenant, then according to her it is not the Truth.
She should go back to school to get the proper instructions on understanding the Bible as delegated to His Church. Perhaps God is still testing her to see if she really understands his truths.
For your information, God said not to eat the blood of sacrificed animals on the altar, but the Jews were required to eat the flesh of the lamb that was sacrificed during Passover.
Jesus was the Lamb of God that was sacrificed on the Cross to forgive our sins and as God He changed the Passover and commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood as a new covenant. So He gave us the Mass and the Eucharist so that we could be present at his continuing sacrifice as offered to the Father.
Maybe others are the ones making excuses as Catholics have His Church and His Faith that he taught us and told us to share the Good News.
That was meant as ‘to call no man other than Jesus God”.
False.
but the Jews were required to eat the flesh of the lamb that was sacrificed during Passover.
Drained of blood.
He gave us the Mass and the Eucharist
False. He gave us the Lord's Supper to "do in memory"
The Lord's Supper included unleavened bread and wine. Still does. Christians ate and drank both.
When you got birthday presents as a kid, what did you have to do to make them yours? You received/accepted them. A GIFT of GRACE by definition is something one does NOT work for, earn, pay for, etc. If you did have to do something for it, then it wasn't a gift. Do you see that? We are saved BY grace THROUGH faith and that not of ourselves. It is the GIFT of God, not by works lest anyone should boast.
It's curious to me how some people grab a few passages from James, take them out of context, and then think they overrule all the other passages throughout Scripture that stress repeatedly we are not saved because we deserve it. Yes, Martin Luther thought about excluding the book of James from his translation of the Bible - and he wasn't alone in doubting its inspiration - but he didn't do so. Instead, he endeavored to get a greater understanding of its meaning in light of the whole of Scripture as well as its context. His teachings about the place of works within faith has been posted already on this thread so I'll not repeat it. Suffice it to say, Luther made peace with James' teachings on works and grew to accept it as Divinely-inspired. Something the book of Maccabees can't claim.
Many do not accept God’s Truth even as Jesus revealed it in his teachings and was written in the Gospels.
Your comments ‘false” are just your opinions and shows disbelief in the word of Jesus.
Read the road to Emmaus in Luke and the early Christian fathers. The Mass and the Eucharist have been offered to the Father and given to Catholics for 2000 years.
May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and teach you God’s Truths. When you truly believe, as Catholics we eat and drink the miracle Jesus provides to us as His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.
You are not required to believe, but Jesus told us it would be necessary for our salvation.
—> Read the road to Emmaus in Luke
No mass there.
No mass before 100ad.
No altar.
No clerical priests.
—-> The Mass and the Eucharist have been offered to the Father and given to Catholics for 2000 years.
So no.
—> You are not required to believe, but Jesus told us it would be necessary for our salvation.
No.
One can either choose God or reject Him.
We choose God with Faith, Hope and Charity (love). Our works are our actions that show our faith and love of God and neighbor. Without our actions we do not fully respond to God or have Faith in our hearts.
You are right that our justification comes from the grace of God. His gift of sanctifying grace in our souls is a participation in the life of God.
We receive a the gift of grace, either actual or sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is needed for eternal life. Mortal sin results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace.
Actual grace is that it enables us to act. It is the strength that God gives us to act according to his will.
Sanctifying grace is a state in which God allows us to share in his life and love. When we speak of being in the state of grace, we mean the state of sanctifying grace. There is no mortal sin in us. This grace comes to us first in baptism and then in the other sacraments.
Your comment “Divinely-inspired. Something the book of Maccabees can’t claim.”
Just your opinion based on Luther rejecting 7 books.
Why do protestants reject 7 books of the Bible (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith—from the Old Testament) yet accept the other books of the Bible from the accepted Catholic Canon and the Catholic Ecumenical Councils? Why do protestants follow Luther as the authority to determine the books of the Bible?
James is not out of context and it shows that protestant belief “faith alone” is not biblical or correct. Then show proof that Maccabees is not divinely inspired? Perhaps you are following protestant spin without understanding?
One needs to understand and accept all of God’s Truths and not selected verses that attempt to present a contrary view by one man.
Why can't I get a simple answer?
I can't Lose something I don't have.
Sorry that you have no assurance.
Behold: the flesh of the lamb.
Your opinion is contrary to the truth.
Thanks for clarifying the MEANING of what the WORDS fail to make clear.
—> Your opinion is contrary to the truth.
No, just contrary to what you are repeating from Rome.
Maybe we should look a little deeper into the matter than just Rome’s take on it.
Shall we??
Do you really think this was a guess- or maybe some divine revelation
allowed for this foretelling of Christ- how he would live AND die?
I have to ask this, seeing as we are to believe that two of the books in the Bible men decided upon,
God-breathed inspired by God-
forget to EVEN MENTION God within its text -
but somehow those books are accepted... and "inspired"...
but a Jewish text that prophesizes the coming Jesus Christ so accurately ...
Is some how, UN-inspired... and unworthy-
so much so, that God would not want this prophesy in his Bible?
I see consistency issues.
No mass there.
No mass before 100ad.
No altar.
No clerical priests.
No Altar?
Christ reclined at Table as was the posture of the Last Supper-
where Christ said to his Apostles...
"This is My Body"
the same as we do during the Eucharistic Prayer Liturgy at Mass.
No Clerical Priest?
Jesus is the most high, High Priest as we read in Hebrews;
30 And it came about, when He had reclined at the table with them,
that He took the bread and blessed it,
and He broke it and began giving it to them.
31 And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him;
and He vanished from [i]their sight.
Do you ever ask yourself why THIS scripture? Emmaus?
Why such details then on what you would consider as insignificant event?
Why would this be important for Luke to record?
This Supper with the Lord,
was the VERY FIRST THING Christ did after he was Resurrected!
Why he would spend all of Easter Day -
walking on a desert road- with 2 less known disciples -
Yet it was important enough for Luke to write this down:
(ie. It is Written:)
Christ reveals himself to Us now, as then...
They recognized Him in the Breaking of the Bread.
—> Emmaus
“ Luke 24 And it came to pass as He was partaking of a meal with them, having taken the bread, He offered thanks, and having broken it, He was giving it back to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him. ”
No consecration (you made that up)
Christ broke bread, gave thanks, and they ate it.
No wine.
Not a mass (you made that up)
They were sharing a meal.
Christ took the bread, gave thanks, and “gave it back to them.”
Just a meal and fellowship.
No “Eucharistic Worship” (you made that up)
Nor did Christ ever conduct the Roman mass.
Nor did any Roman until much later in history.
—> Christ read them Scripture; the Liturgy of the Word;
No.
No reading. (You made that up)
He explained His crucifixion and suffering to discouraged disciples.
“ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself
—> That pretty much describles the Mass
Pretty much isn’t the standard of scripture. It is simply eisegesis to read a later practice back into Scriptures.
—> Why such details then on what you would consider as insignificant event?
Why would this be important for Luke to record?
Christs appearances validated His resurrection.
Without the resurrection, Christianity is void.
“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins,” wrote the Apostle Paul to the Saints at Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:17).
—> This Supper with the Lord,
was the VERY FIRST THING Christ did after he was Resurrected!
It was not. You left out everything before this.
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.