[QUOTE CORPUS - POST 24:]

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST 24:

II. New Testament

(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4, 11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:24 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass.

John 6:23-53 - here we learn that a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like those of our day who deny teh eucharist, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So one cannot find one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

Again, I do not wish to appear negative toward you. I only disagree with your interpretation that this is referring to the elements - bread and wine - actually changing their composition into the real body and blood of Christ. Your claim above that John 6 eliminates any claim to metaphorical possibilities is simply not so. In John 6:63 Jesus says plainly that the words that He speaks are to be understood spiritually and not literally. Moreover, by comparing John 6:53-54 with John 6:47-48 one can plainly see that Jesus is speaking metaphorically when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is speaking of our believing in Him.

The Greek word phago (S.5315) may literally mean "to eat" or "physically consume" but it is not without its metaphorical sense as can be seen in 1Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 10:3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Here Paul explains that the spiritual food which the Israelites ate in the wilderness was Christ. The next few verses in 1Corinthians explain that all that went on there happened as an example for us. Here we have an example of eating and drinking that REPRESENTS Christ. Why would we assume that the bread and the wine would be any different?

QUOTE CORPUS:

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed… John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts

Corpus, my disagreement with you is not that Jesus is "true" or "real" FOOD, of which we must partake to live. Our disagreement is that you believe that John 6:55 is saying that the Eucharist is the same thing as Jesus. It is not. That ALETHES (S.230) can be use metaphorically is seen in:
Luke 21:3  And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

It cannot be understood that the widow cast in a great sum of money. She cast in only two mites, but it was all her living. Jesus spoke metaphorically of the reality of her greater sacrifice; because all the others gave to God out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

Again, Corpus, this argument is flawed as can be seen in James:
James 5:3  Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

The word "eat" is PHAGO (S.5315) and "flesh" is SARX (S.4561). Here those who do not have the interest of their brethren at heart will find that their own wealth will eat up their life like a fire does fuel. The same two Greek words are used again in Revelation 17:16 for the Beast destroying the Harlot.

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE CORPUS - POST #24]

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #24

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

We can agree that these Scriptures prophesy of the Bread of Life, who is Jesus. Where we disagree is that you believe that there is a prophesy that finds its fulfillment specifically in partaking of the elements of bread and wine. I do not believe there is any such prophecy. To me that would be like saying that there was a prophecy in the time of Noah that foretold the Israelites partaking of the Passover Lamb. The shadows do not prefigure other shadows. The shadows speak of the actual BODY which is Christ, Himself (Colossians 2:17).

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE CORPUS - POST #23]

Continued to Corpus,

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #23

b). Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 -none of Jesus' bones were broken.

Agreed! I have no argument with anything you posted in the above quote to this point. The baptism matter, however, I believe is a matter of denominational administration. It may and does differ from denomination to denomination. This difference should not separate brethren.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

We are not in agreement here, my friend. This foreshadows the True Bread from Heaven which Jesus says is Himself. Notice:
John 6:33  For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world… 35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst… 47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48  I am that bread of life.

Jesus is that Bread of Life. To partake of that Bread (Jesus) is to trust or believe Him. When I say that He is my life (Colossians 3:4), I am saying that I am abiding in Jesus (the Vine of Life - John 15:5; 14:6). To bring forth the fruit of Christ is to live not my physical life, but His Spiritual life within me; then the fruits will be that of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) not of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). The life of the Spirit and the life of the flesh, cannot be lived at the same time. One or the other animates my body (Galatians 5:17). Who or what animates my body is a choice I make (Galatians 5:16), but the works or fruits I bear are not my own but that of my Master (or master). Either the life I have from Adam will require satisfaction, or the life I have from Christ will require satisfaction; but I cannot permit BOTH to bring forth fruit in my life simultaneoulsy. It is one or the other. When I am bringing forth those fruits (whether the flesh or the spirit), I am PARTAKING of or EATING that life (bread). Notice:
1Corinthians 15:44 …There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

To PARTAKE of or EAT the Body of Christ is to yield to Christ within, trusting that there is more than this life; and to lay myself down for Him (Romans 12:1) is indeed my reasonable service.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 - they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

While I agree that the Israelites ratified the First Covenant through a meal; and the apostles (our representatives) ratified the New Covenant with a meal, I do not endorse your conclusion that the bread and the wine are the actual elements of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbols that prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:1-6). It is only logical that the bread and the wine would also be a figure or memorial of Christ as well. By what logic would it be otherwise? Where is the premise in God's Word to indicate such an interpretation?

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE CORPUS: POST #23]

Greetings Corpus,
Welcome to ChristiansUnite. It is always a pleasure to speak with my Catholic brethren. However, I was unaware, as Tibby seemed to imply in an earlier post that the charasmatics have split from Rome. Am I understanding him correctly?

Are you one of the "friends" with whom Tibby was conversing just before he began this debate on this forum?

QUOTE CORPUS: POST #23

I suspect Tibby is not implying that the complete Word of God has been revealed.

I do suggest that we have the complete Word of God. I don't mean that everything God ever said or will say is in the pages of the Bible, but as it pertains to salvation, we have ALL WE NEED! There is nothing lacking - IT IS COMPLETE!

QUOTE CORPUS:

What becomes problematic however is precisely how that Word is to be interpreted.

We agree here, however, I wished to bring this out in the beginning, because we shall disagree on many things in your posts. So I don't wish to begin with a negative comment.

QUOTE CORPUS:

I. Old Testament

(a). Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jerusalem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Concerning Genesis 14 and Psalm 76 we are in agreement. However, we begin to disagree with Psalm 110:4. Psalm 110 foretells the coming of the Messiah who is also an Eternal Priest. This Scripture says nothing of bread and wine. The sacrifice that Jesus offers is Himself. The bread and wine is a memorial or a remembrance of that Sacrifice. How the Catholic Church views this Scripture is a matter between that organization and God. It is not a matter between this organization and me. Each of us has his own thoughts as to how the Word of God should be rendered; and we must do this with fear and trembling, knowing that we should not go beyond what is written:
1 Corinthians 4:6  And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The words "of men" have been supplied by the translators to help us in understanding God's Word. I believe that in this case the supplied words should be left out. It is not just men of whom we must beware. We need to take caution as to how we receive the Word of God. I know I do not take it lightly when others put words in my mouth. Imagine the disrespect we show our Lord when we put our own words into God's mouth and call them His!

QUOTE CORPUS:

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Let me quote this Scripture:
Malachi 1:11  For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

This Scripture is speaking of the universality of the Sacrifice of Christ. The name of God will be great from the east to the west… i.e. all around the world. Why? Because in every place "incense" (the prayers of the saints) is offered in the name of God (in the name of Jesus) and a pure offering - which is the Sacrifice of Christ. This is not speaking of bread or wine. They indeed are symbols of that great Sacrifice, but there really is ONLY ONE SACRIFICE (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12). The Cross affects all people around the world and all time before and after Christ.

Going on in the Scripture, "for my name…" that is the name of Jesus, for as Philippians 2:10-11 says, we pray (bow, worship, offer incense) in His name, AND we confess that He is Lord (compare also Romans 14:11 quoting Isaiah 45:23). All this is speaking of Christ. There is no mention or reference to the bread and wine. The only connection the bread and wine has to this is that Jesus made it a memorial of His pure Sacrifice. We naturally think of what He did when we contemplate the bread and the wine. To say that bread and wine is prophesied and that IT is the pure offering is to miss the point.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Exodus 12:14,17,24 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Agreed! The PASSOVER LAMB prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ. He is the LAMB that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 35-36).

QUOTE CORPUS:

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise is considered fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

Of course you know that I would disagree with you here. The children of God make up A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS. As far as the priesthood of God is concerned, there is no distinction between a man who gives a sermon or who evangelizes a city and the ordinary believer. We are all priests before our God (Revelation 5:10), daily offering our sacrifices (Romans 12:1). Would you have me believe that only Catholic priests are to be involved in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6)?

MORE TO COME

[ANAMINESKO]

Continued to Tibby,

As for your word ANAMINESKO (S.363), it too is used to call to mind as in:

• Mark 11:21 where Peter remembered that the Lord had cursed the fig tree;
• Mark 14:72 where Peter remembered that the Lord had said that he would deny Him three times;
• 1Corinthians 4:17 where Paul sends Timothy to the Corinthians so he could recall to their remembrance what Paul’s way were like;
• 2Corinthians 7:14 we find that Titus remembers how well the Corinthians received him;
• 2Timothy 1:6 Paul seeks to encourage a fearful Timothy by recalling to his mind the gift of the Holy Spirit that is within him (i.e. Timothy);
• Hebrews 10:32 Paul is encouraging the Jewish Christians in that they are going through some grievous trials. He calls to their remembrance how in previous trials they had endured. He didn’t want them to throw all their works away.

QUOTE TIBBY POST #11

You also said the bible should stand alone, if the bible should stand alone, then why are we sitting hear arguing about the meaning of a few passage in the bible? If it stands alone, then we should be able to agree on this, without any doubt. And why are their millions of Commentary, and Companions, and Devotionals to help us with the bible? If the bible can stand alone, then why do we have those annoying inserts in those Study bibles that people read while your trying to teach!? lol, those thing are so distracting, don’t you agree? And they always say the thing you already know, lol. But I’m getting off on a Rabbit trail. The point is, if the bible was meant to stand alone, then why must they have all these books to read along with the bible!? I just think reading the writings of the guys who walked with Jesus and the guy that were taught by the guys that sat with Jesus on a daily basis! He started teaching as a young boy, if you recall. 20-25 years worth of teaching, put into 4 small books. Tell me there isn’t a part we are missing! I mean, there is a lot these guys didn’t write. Most of the four gospels that tell us what we know about him were written as letters, not full biographies! No, not all of the Apocrypha are good; some of them are down right heretical! But many of them are historically and theologically correct.

Tibby, I believe we have the complete Word of God. His Word is not deficient. Am I curious of some details that have not been revealed? Certainly! Are their phrases that are difficult to understand? Yes! This is one reason why we are having this debate. However, we do not NEED commentaries or other Bible helps. They are certainly helpful in that it is always good to understand how another brother in Christ understands the Word of God. Nevertheless, the Word of God would exist undiminished if I never had a commentary. On the other hand, if all I had were commentaries and did not have the Word of God, concerning which these same commentaries were written, I would indeed be handicapped. I would have to take the words of men as though they were the Word of God. This would indeed be a tragedy.

Concerning Jesus teaching since he was 12. There is nothing to indicate this. He did not make his public debut until He was 30 years old. At age 12 he confounded the Jewish rabbis, but that does not mean that Jesus publicly taught from that point onwards. Are their things that could have been reported concerning Jesus life? Yes, John makes this abundantly clear in John 21:25, but John also says that what we have is sufficient  to show that Jesus is indeed the Christ and that we have eternal life through Him (John 20:30-31).

Tibby, I would like for you to answer my question. I don't see the point in Transubstantiation. What purpose would it serve, if that were true? Jesus promised to be with us personally throughout our lives. He says that He and the Father have made their abode within each of us (John 14:23), and the Holy Spirit is the other Comforter (John 14:16-17) who dwells within us, whom the world is unable to receive. If these Scriptures are so, in what way would "Transubstantiation" be something greater? How could Jesus be more present with us during communion than every other day?

God bless,

John1one

[QUOTE TIBBY – POST #11]

Greetings Tibby,
I hope you have been well. My business did not take as long as I had thought. It seems you have been busy with others. Good. I am glad you are enjoying your stay here.

QUOTE TIBBY – POST  #11

Actually, John, in your reply to my first point, your logic is flawed, for the apostles DID ask him about this. See chapter 6 of John. This takes place right after the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle, and Jesus’ waking on water. Jesus beings talking about drinking his blood and eating his flesh, then in John 6:61, he realizes this offended them (and I use the word “realize” loosely, because he no doubt knew stating this would have that effect). Then in John 6:66 (um… makes you think) he disciples left “and walked no more with him” as the NKJ puts it. He never corrected himself over this. His followers were abandoning him, and he never said anything to correct himself like he had done with Nicodemus. Sure, they made up a few verses later, but he still never corrected himself, now did he? When people get upset and he is speaking metaphorically, he always explains himself. But this case, he didn’t. Think about the time He said “You shall destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in 3 days!” in Mt 26:61?  He never corrected him self. We could have though it was metaphorical, but he never corrected him self, or explained it, and was that metaphorical? I think not!

No, Tibby, my logic is not flawed. Let’s quote the text:
John 6:60  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61  When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62  What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

As far as correcting Himself, you are correct Jesus does not correct Himself. HE NEVER CORRECTS HIMSELF anywhere at any time. Nevertheless, He does EXPLAIN what He is saying, at times, when the disciples misunderstand. This particular Scripture is no different. Notice:

• the disciples are offended (v.60) at Jesus’ speech.
• Jesus is aware of the difficulty they have with His words (v.61).
• Jesus goes on to explain that the words He is speaking are spiritual (v.63).

They are not to be understood in the fleshy manner. That is, there is a spiritual meaning to them, and not to be taken literally.

Indeed, many walked away from Him (v.66), but I fail to see where they returned a few verses later. These people were not the apostles (vv.67-70). Nevertheless, this is off the topic.

QUOTE TIBBY – POST #11 AND PARTIAL POST #6

You also address the Remembrance issue, which is a repeat of what Petro asked. Read my original reply to what Petro said for the answer. [FROM POST #6 - anamimnesko. What is this? The word means much more then a psychological recollection! The word means “to be present again.” It is a representation. We don’t just mentally recall Christ death; we are taken back to the time he died in spiritual and physical since. Think about the thief on the cross next to Jesus when he asked Jesus “remember” him in Luke 23:42. Surely, he didn’t just mean for Jesus to think about him every once him a while in heaven, right? Are you going to tell me that he wasn’t asking to live again, to be present again?]

I  am not certain that it means a great deal, but your choice of the Greek word is incorrect. You chose ANAMIMESKO which seems to be S.363. The correct Greek word is ANAMNESIS which is S.364. This second word is used in Luke 22:19, 1Corinthians 11:22, 25 for the remembrance of or memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is also used in Hebrews 10:3 for the animal sacrifices causing  the worshipper to remember his sin. The Lord’s Supper is to cause us to remember what Christ did for us to cause us to realize that our sin(s) are forgiven. Christ’s sacrifice is one that gives a good conscience (compare 1Peter 3:21 where Peter shows that baptism is a sign of the death and resurrection of Christ and answers to a good conscience on our part toward God).

Concerning what the theif said on the cross, it is a different Greek word altogether MNAOMAI (S.3415). It means to recall to memory etc. but whatever significance this may or may not have had with the theif, it bears no significance upon the Greek word used by Chirst for the Lord's Supper.

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE TIBBY:]

Greetings Tibby,
While I am not an avid fan of any sport, I do like to watch an occassional football game. I will not miss the Super Bowl. That is an annual family get-together. I also like baseball. My favorite team is Atlanta. I also like the Yankees. Once in awhile I watch a boxing match, but I don't follow boxing since Ali and Holmes left boxing. I used to like to watch them. It was almost like watching two great dancers.

Why don't I believe in "TRANSUBSTANTIATION"? Well, like I said before, I don't see the point. What purpose would it serve, if that were true? Jesus promised to be with us personally throughout our lives. He says that He and the Father have made their abode within each of us (John 14:23), and the Holy Spirit is the other Comforter (John 14:16-17) who dwells within us, whom the world is unable to receive. If these Scriptures are so, in what way would "Transubstantiation" be something greater? How could Jesus be more present with us during communion than every other day? If Transubstantiation is true, how long is the Lord within, until the bread dissolves?

Lets speak now about things that you said concerning Communion:

QUOTE TIBBY:

1. Jesus said so. Yes, it is that simple. Many times, when he said something that people misunderstood, he explained it to them. Case in point, on the roof top, Jesus said something about being born again, and Nicodemus was like "Come on, you can't mean a man can go into his mothers womb again?"and jesus corrected him, and explaned what he meant(John 3:1-15)But, in John 6:51-56, Jesus states five times that "whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" and never said "Oh, by the way, I'm just kidding!" or "Yeah, it is just a poor choice of words, like with the born again thing!"

"Jesus said so..." Well, this is true, but did He mean for us to take this literally? I find it interesting that the apostles didn't ask Him how this could be, just like Nicodemus ask his question concerning our being born again. Don't you think that this would have been a new thing, if it were literally true? Why didn't any of the disciples question Jesus about this new saying.

On the other hand if they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, there would be no questions. After all if you show a picture of you mother or dad to a friend saying "This is my mom!" or "This is my dad!" is it not understood that you are speaking metaphorically? You would laugh at the friend who actually thought you were speaking literally. Let me show you a few verses where Jesus speaks metaphorically and the apostles understood Him to be doing just that - and so do we!

Luke 8:5  A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
7  And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection

Here Jesus says a seed is a person who receives His Word. He says the thorns are other things that grow in our hearts such as the cares of the world.

Another scripture is Luke 13:31-32 where Jesus says that Herod is a fox. We both know that Herod was not a literal fox. Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Again in Matthew 15:12-14, Jesus says that the Pharisees are blind. The apostles knew that Jesus was not speaking literally. He was speaking of their spiritual condition. Still another Scripture is: Matthew 16:6  Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Here Jesus tells the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. The apostles misunderstood Jesus and Jesus became upset with them that they were not thinking. When they saw that Jesus was not happy with how they understood His statement, then they understood that He was really speaking of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:6-12).

Now, why do I believe that what Jesus said is a memorial? Well, BECAUSE JESUS SAID SO!

Notice: Luke 22:19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Again in 1Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The Corinthian Scripture is interesting in that it goes on to explain a little more about the significance of the memorial. Notice: 1 Corinthians 11:26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

In verse 26 Paul says that when we partake of communion, we are preaching to the world about the death of Christ. This is not to be taken lightly. Often people who do not appreciate America will burn our flag (which is itself a memorial of our country). To take communion is to preach to the world that we have accepted the death of Christ as payment for our sins. To preach this in a hypocritical fashion, that is, not caring how we live ourselves, we show ourselves to be unworthy of Christ. To partake of the "Memorial" unworthily brings judgment upon our lives. Some have even died, because they keep doing this without regard to how that looks to the world.

Now let me address your second concern:

QUOTE TIBBY:

2. The Early Church said so. Hey, these are the guys that spent years walking with Jesus, and the guys who where taugh by them! They beleived in the real presence. The idea of it being anything other then Transubstantiation didn't come along until Ulrich Zwingli in the 1500's! He's theory: if the bible (both Old and New Testament) did not say something explicitly and literally, then no Christian should believe or practice it. This would mean the Trinity is wrong, church buildings are wrong, modern music in church is wrong, and hey, since the bible doesn't talk about the World Wide Web, this fourm isn't of God!

I love history. We have this in common, don't we? The early church took centuries to iron out different doctrines. This is why, I believe that we should be more concerned about the simplicity of Christ (2Corinthians 11:3) which is to love God and the brethren. It is not by our doctrines that we are identified with Christ, but by our love for one another (Matthew 7:16-20; Galatians 5:22-23; 1John 4:7-8). None of us may have all our doctrines in order, but there is no excuse for us not to know that God is Love and we ought to love one another.

In early church history many things were debated. Origin believed that Jesus was created, Tertullian didn't think Christ was equal to the Father. Some wondered if Jesus was God at all. Who did Christ save was also debated, as was Satan, hell and many other things. We cannot simply receive what the fathers said and say that this is equal to what is written in the Bible. Some of the fathers thought they had the blessing of God to kill those who disagreed with them. Often these same murderous  people supported those doctrines that we believe today. The Bible is the whole Word of God. We have the Holy Spirit to instruct us and we do not need men to teach us. It may be helpful and interesting to find out what the early church fathers said and did, but we are not compelled to say or do the same things. The Word of God is a complete product itself. We are able to understand the truth of it even, if all the historical Christian records were lost forever.

Well, my friend, that will be it for now. I may not be able to respond to another post from you until early next week (Tuesday or Wednesday). I may be going away, but those plans may change. Take care and God bless,

John1one

[TIBBY'S SIGNATURE:]

Greetings Tibby,
Welcome to Christians Unite. I hope you find your stay here enjoyable. I find we have a few things in common:

TIBBY'S SIGNATURE:

Religiously, I come from both Non-Denominational Charismatic, and Roman Catholic. I enjoy reading and studying Philosophy, Theology, and History.  I also love to debate. I love weight lifting. I'm also into Boxing, Karate, and pretty much any sports I can find to play.

When I was a young man I was a Roman Catholic, and at one time I too was a "transubstantiationalist."  Whew! my fingers get tired just looking at that word! I used to read a little philosophy, but I have forgotten what I read. I like to read theology and I still have a love for history. I also love to debate - when those involved are not too serious. At times I have found that people identify themselves with what they believe and judge one another by their doctrines. I try not to do that, but sometimes I fail. Didn't Jesus say that we would be known by our love? Nevertheless, I love to involve myself in the doctrine of the Bible - finding out things about God.

Sports: I like to watch! My body is falling apart and the most I can do is cheer (or boo) in front of the TV.

Concerning your thread: I believe that communion is for a memorial of the death of Christ. God can certainly do as He pleases. Jesus did change water into wine. Nevertheless, I do not see the point in the bread and the wine actually becoming the body and blood of Christ. If you wish to discuss this, I'll be happy to put in my two cents.

Have a great evening, Tibby, and God bless.

John1one

[QUOTE ASAPH:]

Greetings asaph,
QUOTE ASAPH:

That is a sad commentary on the people of God. I don't know anyone personally who agrees with a lot of things I see from the scriptures. That's ok but to be suspicious and closed minded over these things even in the face of overwhelming evidence really rubs me the wrong way. But if we are committed to loving them in Christ a lot of sins will be avoided and a multitude covered over.

Perhaps I responded to you in a manner that gave you the wrong idea. When I said that I am used to rebuke and outright attack, I was speaking of when I am clear concerning a position I take that is not the traditional point of view. I don't remember anyone treating me badly, if I merely disagreed with them in the same manner that denominations disagree with one another.

Concerning the Wednesday crucifixion and Christ's response to the thief, both of these subjects are non-traditional Christianity. What some refer to as cults would agree with the position I have taken with them. I believe that this is why at times some will rebuke me, because they think I am taking a position of a cult and speaking against Christianity. It is more of a misunderstanding than anything else. Actually, in the beginning, I thought you were going to take that position when you posted the link. I was pleasantly surprised when you never mentioned it again and just spoke from your heart.

I did leave a board once because I was accused of not being a Christian. I had spoken about a subject that had been debated by the early Church fathers, but I had taken the minority position. Consequently, I was rebuked by one man in a manner that I found unreasonable. I did not wish to attack him as I felt he had done to me. I was embarrassed, because I knew others whom I respected on the forum were reading what was being said. I left the forum.

QUOTE ASAPH:

To get back to Peters sermon at pentecost, speaking of David not being resurrected yet, could it be possible that David was'nt included in the number that came out of their graves after Jesus rose? Look at how the Matthew passage words it:

Matthew 27
51  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The key words are "many bodies." Therefore David did not neccessarily have to be in that number. My thinking is that David will rise at the coming of Jesus.

I have heard several positions about these verses. One position is that a number of people were resurrected to a natural life and were seen by many who knew them and were thus a witness to the Resurrection of Christ.

Considering the uproar that resulted in raising Lazarus, I have to decline this position. There is nothing in history to support this, which certainly would have to be addressed if "many" were resurrected.

I have heard your point of view before as well, but for the life of me, I do not understand why David would remain in the grave while others were resurrected. While God is sovereign and can do as He pleases, nothing in Scripture would indicate a partial resurrection. "MANY" is used for "ALL" in Romans 5:15  "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead..."

QUOTE ASAPH:

1 Cor 15
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Those that came out of their tombs after Jesus was raised would be a part of the sheaf waved, after all a sheaf is a bundle. For whatever reason, God did not include David in that number.

I have to be quite literal here. I do not believe that anyone could be a part of the sheaf or bundle of grain that was offered to God. First of all, no one could be resurrected until that offering was accepted by God. The entire Wave Sheaf Offering represented Christ, for only Christ ascended into heaven to be ACCEPTED by our heavenly Father.

The Scripture above says that Christ (no implications of anyone else) is the first fruits, and afterward we who are His will be resurrected when He returns.

QUOTE ASAPH:

Well, you pretty much stated your case very well on a Wednesday Passion, but a have a lot of pride to overcome so I am not yet ready to concede. Pray for me brother.

You didn't even have to ask, brother. I covet your prayers as well. My faith at one time was overcome by a man. I was only a young man at the time, but it has changed me forever. After leaving the man, I backslid from Christ as well. When I returned to God I vowed to Him never to trust a man again. I qualified that saying I would receive anything He gave me through His children, but unless I understood it, I would not accept it. Consequently, I am more argumentative than I need to be. I have been working on this in my walk with Christ, but I have a great way to go before I would consider that my attitude is like His. Thank you for the discussion. I appreciated it more than I can explain. Thank you for your prayers. You are a good friend and brother in Christ.

God bless,

John1one

Hi Symphony,
You know, my friend, there is a positive side to all this unbelief in archeology! Jesus said that if we don't praise Him and get the word out, the rocks would immediately do our job for us (Luke 19:40).

Every time I hear of some unbeliever putting down Christian archeology, I praise God, because I know that He must be pleased with the way we are testifying of Him!

Have a great evening there bro' and God bless,

John1one

[Secondly,]

Continued to asaph,

Secondly, if it did mean Saturday, we must then ask: when did Jesus rest? It is plain that He went to Jerusalem BEFORE He went to Bethany for He came from Jericho to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem to Bethany (Luke 19:1, 28-29). Notice that Jesus never left the mount while the disciples went and took the colt. Then Jesus proceeded to ride the colt (couldn't be a Sabbath - Deuteronomy 5:14) and went into Jerusalem.

Indeed Jesus did come up from Jericho on Friday, six days before the Passover Feast day (or Sabbath). He came from Jericho and entered Jerusalem. This was His first entry and no one in the city knew who He was (Matthew 21:10). The whole city was moved at His coming, but the pilgrims didn't know who Jesus was. After He threw the money changers out of the Temple and taught awhile, He left for Bethany (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11) when evening approached. There they made a supper for Him (John 12:1-2). This was the evening of the sixth day before the Passover (John 12:1). This was not the day He rested. But He rested at Bethany in the home of His friend Lazarus on the 10th day of the month, the day the Jews were to choose the Passover Lamb. For the next five days this Lamb was inspected for blemishes - first by the Pharisees and Herodians (Matthew 22:15-22); then the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-33); then the scribes or lawyers (Matthew 34:-46), but none found fault not even with false witnesses (Mark 14:56; Luke 23:4, 14; John 18:38; 19:4, 6).

I must conclude that He rested on the Sabbath, the 5th day before the Passover (Feast Day). Why do I say this? Notice what Jesus does when He enters Jerusalem from Bethany. He first "finds" the colt (John 12:14). It was not tied up waiting for Him as before. It too was resting. Then He heads toward Jerusalem and the whole city (Jerusalem) comes out to meet Him, because they found out He was coming (John 12:12-13). At this time Mark  helps John's account with more detail. Notice He is coming from Bethany not Jericho (Mark 11:12) and desires to eat a fig from a tree (Mark 11:13). He finds none and curses the tree (Mark 11:14), then He entered Jerusalem and cast out the money changers from the Temple for a second time in three days (Mark 11:15). This is the "Triumphant entry" and not the one recorded in Matthew or Luke. In Matthew they did not know who He was (Matthew 21:10). In John 12:12 the news of Jesus coming to Jerusalem had reached the folks there and they went out to meet Him. They heard from the locals that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead only a few weeks prior (John 12:17-18). There was such a commotion that the priests and Pharisees feared that the whole nation of the Jews scattered throughout the world would be behind Him (John 12:19). This was indeed the Triumphant entry and four days before the Passover Feast Day.

Nevertheless there is an additional entry on the day following the triumphant entry and the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:20, 27). Notice that in Luke 19:39-40 that the Pharisees became upset with Jesus that the disciples were praising Him as Messiah. This was done in the Temple, after His entry on Friday - the sixth day before the Passover Feast (Matthew 21:15-16). Therefore Luke is recording an additional entry, though it appears to be only one. Notice as well that Luke records that Jesus wept over the city, saying that they had not known the hour of their visitation (Luke 19:41-44). Clearly the leadership had rejected His being Messiah by criticizing the disciples praise (Matthew 21:15-16). Nevertheless, on that first entry the people were innocent. They didn't know who Jesus was (Matthew 21:10-11). The fact is, the multitude came out to meet Jesus for His second and triumphant entry (John 12:12-13). However, when they asked to speak privately with Jesus (John 12:20-21), and when He told them that He must die to save them (John 12:32-33), they responded with great disappointment asking who is this Son of man or Messiah (John 12:34). My point here is to show why Jesus wept in Luke 19:41. He wept because no one from the city came out to meet Him on that day. This third entry shows that the people also rejected Him as Messiah. Why would He have wept during the triumphant entry? Why would He say that He was rejected before everyone did reject Him? There must therefore have been at least three entries. This would have been three days before the Passover.

The second day before the Feast Day, He spent at Simon's home (Matthew 26:6) and one day before the Passover is recorded in Matthew 26:17. The Holy Spirit has seen fit to show us where Jesus was and what He was doing in each of the 7-8 days before the Passover Feast Day (two spent passing through and lodging in Jericho). This is true ONLY for a Wednesday crucifixion. A Friday and Thursday crucifixion cannot give an accurate agenda of the final week of Christ's earthly life.

QUOTE ASAPH:

The rest of your posts were very thought provoking. If it were not for the many scriptures that say He rose the third day, I might go for it. Any way your posts are appreciated and I will wait patiently for the time when we will know for sure what happened.

Asaph, you are a true gentleman. I appreciate your manner. I hold to some non-traditional Christian view points - not of Christ, not of the Godhead - but in other areas. Some people do not consider me a Christian, because I don't agree with them and they have no Scriptures to counter what I say. I can respect the viewpoint of others. We all arrive at what we believe through much inward struggle, but you are the first to disagree with me who has shown any respect at all for what I think. Thank you.

Concerning an earlier post I had written to A4C, you said:

QUOTE ASAPH

I say, amen!

My friend, I am indeed overwhelmed. No one has ever received what I said about that Scripture. It too is a non-traditional point of view. I am used to rebuke and outright attack. I wish we lived in the same neighborhood.

God bless you and your family,

John1one

[QUOTE ASAPH:]

Greetings asaph,
Blessings to you today.  In POST #35 you asked

QUOTE ASAPH:

John1one,
Then what does the third day mean to you how do you define it. Many passages say He rose the third day.

I believe "the third day" can be expressed "in three days and three nights" or anytime "the day after tomorrow." It would depend upon the context or the definition placed upon the clause by the speaker. My only contention with others' definition of "the third day" is that most will not permit the definition to include "three days and three nights" or a full 72 hours. If you were a 1st century Jew, how would you express 72 hours into the future? MUST you say "in four days" or "on the fourth day" to define 72 hours? Clearly, 72 hours is three days. My own opinion is that the definers of "the third day" use Luke 13:31-33 in the same manner in which they would accuse me of using Matthew 12:40. Rather than let the more definitive Scripture define the more obscure, tradition has done the reverse. Clearly "three days and three nights" is more descriptive than "three days" or "the third day." In Luke 13:31-33 Jesus is NOT speaking about His death and burial, but He is speaking about His death and burial in Matthew 12:40. Which Scripture do you believe should be used to define "the third day" as it pertains to the length of time Jesus would spend in the grave?

1Samuel 13:12, 13 places two of the clauses side by side. "Three days ago" = "three days and three nights." It is beyond my understanding to figure out any other way to say 72 hours. Certainly in their 3000 year history the Jews had to have needed to describe 72 hours or three actual days and three actual nights. How did they do it? How can one say that "the third day" CANNOT mean "three days and three nights?"

QUOTE ASAPH:

My thoughts,
The verse in John 12:1 says:

1  Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

It says 6 days before the passover, not the feast. The feast of unleavened bread began the day after passover. So the days counted were Saturday thru Thursday. This would allow Jesus to come to Bethany on Friday.

First of all, every other reference to the time before the Passover in the Gospels refers to the FEAST DAY or SABBATH of the Passover. Notice Matthew 26:2, 5; Mark 14:1-2 where mention is made of two days before the feast of the Passover, and specific mention is made of the Feast Day being special. Then again in Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 mention is made concerning one day before the Passover and Mark says that this particular day is when the Passover lamb was slain. This reference is of the evening or beginning of the 14th day of Nisan, because at the daylight portion or the end of the day, Jesus was slain at the exact time the Passover lamb was slain. Nevertheless, six days before the Passover can technically mean what you say, but it would be out of the character of the other references.

MORE TO COME

Why did I choose Christianity?
I suppose it is because no other faith recognizes the need of mankind. No other God is willing to take our place, so we might enjoy the good life of eternity with Him.

Nothing comes close, Sammy. God sees His children in need and He comes for us. He satisfies our need with His love and mercy, and gives us great promises in Christ, His Son, so we don't have to live on in fear. No other faith comes close to Christianity, there is nothing out there to compare with our promises that we have from Him.

What about you, Sammy?

God bless,

John1one

[QUOTE SAMMY:]

Greetings Sammy,
I must say, you have some interesting opinions. I don’t agree with any of them, but I think you and I could have a few laughs together, if we were neighbors.

QUOTE SAMMY:

If someones idea of heaven is o be with You but your idea of heaven is not to be with them, is a duplicate you made?

Cloning in eternity? Mmmmmmm! No! all the works have been finished from the beginning. (Hebrews 4:3). Do you believe in the Bible, Sammy? Have you ever considered that whoever created such a vast universe would be interesting enough for you and me to be lost in wonder for much more than just a few thousand years?

QUOTE SAMMY

what if the other persons idea of heaven is not to be deceived by a false you.  What if they want the real you?  But you still dont want them?  They're probably just lead to believe that the false you was the real one.  Doesnt it matter what someone really wants- even if they can never know their wish has been fulfilled?

Nothing that is of the lie will enter into the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:4-5). I won’t desire to lie, neither will anyone there desire what is not true (1John 2:21-27). Things are different there, Sammy, nothing that is there has even entered into your mind (1Corinthians 2:9). I imagine you have been disappointed a lot in your life. We all have, but we can trust He who is true (1John 5:20).

QUOTE SAMMY

What are you going to do with eternity?

Well, for starters, I am going to begin with a great banquet (Revelation 19:9). I am going to really enjoy a nice long meal and the fellowship that goes along with it. Jesus will be there, and I’ll get to know Him a little better. I may even come around to where you are sitting and say hello. We’ll talk about this discussion forum and how many stupid things we’ve both said etc. I imagine we’ll enjoy a laugh of two together. Next up will be some responsibility concerning the cities of God (Luke 19:17-19). Afterwards I am just trusting in the Lord that it will be wonderful. I trust Him, because I have found Him worthy (Revelation 4:11; 5:12). He would never tell a lie (Hebrews 6:18).

Tell me, what are you going to do for eternity? I see you have only a few thousand years mapped our before retirement. I think that is one of those things over which you and I will have a good laugh.

QUOTE SAMMY

Every so often, you'll have to get your memory erased.

Naaaaahhhh! I don’t think anyone will be on drugs in the Kingdom, my friend. We won’t need them there. Our minds will have as much stimulation as we desire, without seeking that artificial upper or downer. I believe we can trust Him to make it so.

QUOTE SAMMY

Here's an alternaive…

Ooooooooohhhhhh! Great! I love alternatives. I would be so bored in a place with only a single mind-set. Did you ever play chess, Sammy? It is so easy to defeat a person who has no alternatives in chess. He always opens the same way, moves with the same combinations, willing to trade the same pieces etc. It gets boring after awhile to be around a person without imagination. We’re so fortunate that our God has imagination. Look at His wonderful imaginative creation – the detail, the variety, the humor, the care, the wonder. It is able to keep many scientific fields busy for thousands of years, artists for perhaps even longer – never experiencing or painting the same sunset. Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh! I can hardly wait to enjoy all those alternatives.

QUOTE SAMMY

Wish away your fear

No need to do that, Sammy. There are only three things we are able to take with us when we leave our present existence – faith, hope and love! All the rest is imperfect and will be replaced with the REAL THING! The Word of God says that there ain’t no fear in LOVE (1John 4:18). Isn’t that great? NO FEAR! I am reminded of good old Arnold in Kindergarten Cop!

NO FEEEAH!

[/glow]

QUOTE SAMMY

Wish away your fear of death and then.  Well... Die.

 

Oh! Sammy… take those dark glasses off your eyes man! Death is not cool in the Kingdom, dude! No! No! No! Death dies in the Kingdom! Haven’t you read the Scripture that says Death is an enemy that gets destroyed and is swallowed up in life (1Corinthians 15:26, 54). Read your Bible, man. That’s the coolest thing you can do, this side of ETERNITY! ======= BUT for your own good take away those DARK GLASSES so you can see clearly.

QUOTE SAMMY

What's wrong with oblivion.

 

WHOOOOAH! Dude, you’ve been reading the wrong text books. What’s wrong with oblivion? Don’t you know? Blackness of darkness, no thoughts, no color TV (just making sure you’re reading this), no taste, no memory --- DEAD. Man, that’s the UNcoolest thing that can happen in life. OBLIVION? Get a good translation of the Bible. Personally, I like the KJV, but you better get a good modern translation. Even the worst one will be able to tell you that OBLIVION is not cool. It is THE END. You won’t even be able to read the credits. It will be all over. GONE!

Sammy Eternity is life, not death. Read the Bible.

QUOTE SAMMY

granted I dont want to experience it right away-

DITTO, Dude! DITTO!

Keep that thought. Now we are getting somewhere. Don’t let that smoking flax go out. LIFE – cling to it, man. Jesus is the WAY ---- the TRUTH -------- and the LIFE! Cling to Jesus. Don’t let Him go. He’ll give you a wonderful blessing if you just fix you eyes upon Him. Let LIFE  reign in your mortal body!

QUOTE SAMMY

but I think I could happily retire there

WHAT? Oblivion? HAPPILY RETIRE? What are you smoke’n? There is no happiness in OBLIVION! No way, man! Who have you been talking to? Who blew that smoke at you? It’s foggen up your brain --- more precisely, your HEART. There is no feeling or thought or anything else in the grave. It is not a wishful place. You can’t even have a dream there. Why do you think that you could “HAPPILY RETIRE” there?

QUOTE SAMMY

So if you had your choice what would it be?  eternal life or an afterlife for a few thousand years then oblivion?

Do you really call that a choice? It’s a no brainer, Sammy. Why would I want to end eternity. I have tasted life here in this life. Why would I want to end this. On my worst day, I would choose life. I trust Him to make it good. He is able! He is willing! He is merciful! He loves you and me! And He is worthy of our trust.

Throw away thoseDARK GOGGLES

FIX YOUR EYES UPON JESUS

and keep on keep’n on!

God bless,

John1one

[QUOTE ASAPH:]

Continued to asaph,

In POST 28# you expressed a few more thoughts:
QUOTE ASAPH:

"I have an afterthought about John 20:1.

John 20
1  The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

It's about the phrase, "when it was yet dark." It seems to me that this implies there was darkness for some time before she came to the sepulchre and that sunrise was approaching. Otherwise why would John say that? It would have made more sense to say, "when darkness fell" or "when evening came", if he was refering to the moments just after sunset on Saturday."

The Greek word translated "yet" is eti (S.2089). Concerning its use to describe time it means a condition that formerly was so and is now in a different state; i.e. it was light and it is now dark or visa versa: it was dark and it is now light. I can also mean a condition continues at present; i.e. it was dark and continues to be dark.

It can therefore mean just as you say, however, this would no longer fit the Scripture: Matthew 28:1 where Mary was coming at sunset. See above.

Concerning your chart in POST #29, the day of Firstfruits does not have to be on the 16th of Nisan. It occurs on the 16th only when there is a double Sabbath during the Passover Festival. Notice Leviticus 23. There is a controversy over whether the Sabbath mentioned in Leviticus 23:11 means a 7th day Sabbath or Nisan 15, the Passover Holy Day Sabbath. The Sadducees and the literalistic Karaites believe it to be the 7th day Sabbath. The rabbis believe it to be the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) [reference The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible; "Weeks, Feast of"]. If the Sadducees are correct then the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEKS always falls on our Sunday. This is the method Christians use to count to Pentecost. If the rabbis are correct, then the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEKS always falls on the 16th of Nisan.

My thoughts about the reasoning of the rabbis is this: if the day always falls on the 16th, why must we count to find out what day the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost) is? If it is always the 16th of the first month, the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost will always be the 7th of the 3rd month. Why count at all? In fact each and every other Festival is dated as to the 1st; 10th; 14th; 15th; 21st or 22nd of the month. The Word of God singles out the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost and does not give its date, but instead says count seven Sabbaths + 1 day to come to this particular Festival. This makes sense only if Pentecost is always on a Sunday with a varying date.

Moreover, with a Friday crucifixion, 6 days before the Feast, Nisan 15, would be Sunday or what we consider the triumphant entry. If this is so, the day before was a Sabbath. Jesus would not have been able to leave Jericho (John 12:1). The distance between Jericho and Jerusalem is about 18 miles. There is no record of Jesus resting before He came to Jerusalem. What are your thoughts?

Have a great evening my friend, and God bless you,

John1one