"Scott" <chayim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7D06e.1482$lv1.662@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "The Nolalu Barn Owl"
>
<gordie@nolalu.o
10.ca>
> wrote in message news:994h511hjo7qglfp8svj42n5sb43h00hde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:47:06 -0600, "Thaddeus" <No mail!> wrote:
> >
> >>Cardinal Francis Arinze - Pope Benedict XVI?
> >>
> >>http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article41.htm
> >>
> >
> > I came across this page myself just the other day.
> > As an ex-Evangelical Protestant it makes me feel funny reading it.
> > This gentleman names dates. He also seems to follow the end times
> > scenario that those like Grant Jeffery, Hal Lindsay, etc. are
> > constantly chirping about.
> > I am not sure of how inspired this information is.
> >
> > --
> > Gordie
> >
> > Question: A Baptist friend put a new twist on John 6. He said that
the
> > disciples who left when
> > Christ spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood took him
literally
> > while the others who
> > stayed knew he was being symbolic. He Jesus didn't explain himself
> > because He knew that
> > saying "This is my body and blood" would make the unfaithful leave,
which
> > they did.
> >
> > Answer: Two words: Judas Iscariot. He didn't leave. But beyond
this,
> > the fact remains that your
> > friend is arguing from silence. We don't know what the apostles who
> > stayed thought because the
> > text doesn't say. We do, however, get the strong impression that
their
> > faith was shaken. Peter,
> > after all, does not say "We knew you were just kidding around." He
says,
> > with a sort of
> > desperation, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal
> > life." Peter stays,
> > not because he knows Jesus is being "symbolic" but because, whatever
Jesus
> > means and no
> > matter how weird and frightening it is, there's no place else to go.
> >
> > The problem with your friend's theory is that it takes the whole
passage
> > out of the context of the
> > rest of the life and faith of the early Church. Jesus doesn't just
say
> > this weird thing. He says
> > other weird things which the disciples don't understand, such as "The
Son
> > of man will be crucified
> > and rise from the dead" and "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees."
Mark
> > tells us (Mark 4:34) that
> > Jesus always explained his figures of speech to his apostles. The
only
> > time he doesn't is when
> > he's not using a figure of speech. Significantly, neither in John 6
nor
> > when he predicts his death
> > does he tell his apostles what he "really" means. Instead, he follow
up
> > his strange words in John 6
> > with equally strange words at the Last Supper: "This is my body." His
> > disciples strain to
> > understand both his words about his death and resurrection and his
words
> > about the Eucharist.
> > When he dies and rises, is it so strange to think they concluded his
> > words were meant literally
> > about the Eucharist, just as they were meant literally about the
Passion?
> > Especially since there is
> > not a shred of evidence from the New Testament that the later Church
took
> > them as "symbolic".
> > Paul says the bread and cup are a participation in the body and blood
of
> > Christ (1 Cor. 10:16).
> > He says we can sin against the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23). The later
Church
> > follows suit and
> > repeatedly emphasizes that the Eucharist is not merely a symbol but
the
> > flesh and blood of Christ.
> > In fact, nobody for the first thousand years of the Church speaks of
it
> > as merely a symbol.
> > It is passing the bounds of credibility that the whole of the Church
> > could have, to a man, so
> > badly misunderstood the apostles on such an elementary point. Imagine
> > yourself, for instance,
> > hearing somebody describe the Bible as the "word of God" and
concluding
> > that, since John calls
> > Jesus the "Word", then the Bible must be Jesus Christ. Now imagine
> > everybody in the whole
> > Church making the same dumb error of logic. Now imagine no teacher in
the
> > whole Church
> > stepping forward to say, "That's not what I mean when I call Scripture
the
> > 'word of God.'"
> > That is something like the stupidity alleged of the early church, if
they
> > really did confuse a
> > "simple symbol" with the Incarnate God himself. The burden of proof
is
> > not on the Catholic
> > here, but on the innovator who must show why the whole of the early
Church
> > formed the
> > distinct impression that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus
> > Christ himself.
> > http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?quest=243
>
>
> The burden of proof is not on the Catholic
> here, but on the innovator who must show why the whole of the early
Church
> formed the
> distinct impression that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus
> Christ himself.
Looking at modern man and their "awe" and "wonder" how they take some
things
just far too literally by the word, and miss the symbolism intentions at
time.
Jesus is the passover lamb. Which is eaten on Good Friday, yes LAMB not
fish
as
is a Catholic tradition (to boost the fish industry by a Pope, so the
rumor
goes).
So Jesus is saying that He is the lamb, and that you must eat of him in
that
manner,
and symbolised this with the bread. Blood is forbidden by Moses, and it
needs
again to be symbolic, which was the wine to represent the blood of the
passoever
lamb. For that blood is sprinkled on the door posts to ward off the angel
of
death.
So to drink blood is not the thing to do, but to symbolise the passover
blood in
"REMEMBRANCE" of Jesus and his atonement sacrifice and the symbolism of
the passover tradition. Symbolic also is the fact that the changes in
spiritual
matters are from within, and that wine is taken within to the door posts
of
one's
heart/inner parts so to speak. Likewise Jesus compares himself to the mana
as the bread which came down from heaven. The symbolism is on many
factors and angles and is woven like a rug for maximum fulfillment of
scriptures.
The lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.
Incidentally there are symbols in number values, Jesus in Greek adds to
888.
In another code showing values in the English language,
Scriptures = 888
Old Testament = 888
The Passover = 888
Lamb of God Sacrifice = 888
Gods Anointing = 888
There is much more, which shows God is real and Jesus Christ is Lord, as
signs embedded int he language, and also that George Bush 2 adds to the
same value as Antichrist, and other factors of 666 pointing to him.
http://watchman.land.ru
So many signs, even the formula in the number of days between Bush and
the code programmer, as "6416" which also has the same value as "Beast"
and "43rd" and "001" as his number in office and year of coming to power
in 2001.
Finally you will see that THERE IS PROOF that this MESSAGE is from
God by many numerical signs from bible prophecy and more.
PEace
>
>
> the above is absurd you mean the Constantine Pagan god mithra sun god
> wor****p combined with the word of God making a "polluted mixed religion"
>
> started to make this a literal.
>
> Jeremiah 16;
>
> 19. O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of
> affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the
earth,
> and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and
things
> wherein there is no profit.
>
> Take your views with the satanic abomination called the Catholic church
and
> dung them together!!
>
> and continue to ignore the commandments of the true GOD YHVH.. and be
> deceived by whatever it is the catholic pagan abomination teaches.
>
> I wonder how many priests at this moment are still molesting young
boys?
>
>
|
