Oh it is a diversion.no diversion.
the eucharist is the real presence and is under the salvific effect of the last supper.
and it is the belief of paul, too.
Oh; Paul knew all about all dem dar other """""Gods"""""Oh it is a diversion.
The eucharist is not the real presence at all, the LS had no salvific effect either and it is not the belief of Paul either.
from an early protestant historian...They are not both sacrifices at all. The only real sacrifice that saves us is the one on the cross.
You cannot accept that your version of communion is actually cannibalism. I am not discussing blood guilt you brought that in as diversion. Make a new thread if you are obsessed with discussing it.you just cannot accept that 'guilt of blood or blood guilt' means murder.
I do not care what a mere man writes, not even going to read it. I see that communion is a remembrance other wise it is cannibalism and breaking the commandments. It will not matter what you say, you have provided no evidence of a change.from an early protestant historian...
“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
But you want us to care about what you write. What God has written is that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. You say that it is not his body and blood. Why should we care about what you write?I do not care what a mere man writes, not even going to read it. I see that communion is a remembrance other wise it is cannibalism and breaking the commandments. It will not matter what you say, you have provided no evidence of a change.
It is not the blood of Christ at all and the belief tht it is, is rubbish. Jesus also said Peter was Satan, Herod was a fox, He was a door etc. Jesus said must have context which Rcs ignore. Jesus would never tell anyone to break a commandment which your understanding has Him doing. Not only that there is no evidence of the change.It is not rubbish, it is the blood of Christ - at least that is what Jesus said.
No you don't have Jesus words because He was speaking symbolically. Your institution has been proven not to be His church as it fails to meet any of the scriptural tests, looks, requirements etc. You have faith in a man made institution and I see very clearly that it is full of false claims and teachings.We have Jesus' words. We have the teaching of His Church. And we have faith that helps us believe what we cannot see.