Religious

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And just what does science stick into the test tube to test?

Why a test tube? Why not an electron microscope? Or a GeLi detector? Or some other instrument?

I think I see which logical fallacy you're working toward but I could be wrong. I'll wait until you've stuck your foot in your mouth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

the definition of eternal is inextricable linked to "time", infinite is not."You" altered my post changing infinite to eternal.A laughable straw-man BC.

1in·fi·nite adjective \ˈin-fə-nət\
: having no limits

: extremely large or great


1eter·nal adjective \i-ˈtər-nəl\
: having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever

Eternality has no limits either.

Main Entry:1eter£nal
Pronunciation:i-*t*r-n*l
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity— more at AYE
Date:14th century

1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God *good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?— Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)*
2 a : continued without intermission : PERPETUAL b : seemingly endless
3 archaic : INFERNAL *some eternal villain T devised this slander— Shakespeare*
4 : valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS *eternal verities*
–eter£nal£ize \-n*l-**z\ transitive verb
–eter£nal£ly \-n*l-*\ adverb
–eter£nal£ness noun

Straw man, indeed.

[Show Me the Wire]

What part of "again" don't you understand? It makes absolutely no sense for him to say that if he hadn't shared in the cup with his disciples.

It makes no sense to you because you do not understand chronological order.

Apparently neither you nor Roger Oakland have vital comprehension skills. Luke 22 has a more detailed time frame. Prior to the blessings of the bread and the cup Jesus said he would not eat the Passover meal nor drink wine "again" until the Kingdom of God is fulfilled. See verses 14 through 18 inclusive. After supper, verses 19 through 20 show the blessing and the statement by Jesus identifying the wine as his blood was done later in time. This chronological ordered disproves your assertion that Jesus drank from the cup after his declaration that it is his blood.


14 When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it[c] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. Luke 22: 14-21.

The other Scriptural accounts are condensed version of the detailed account above, in order to, highlight the importance of the bread and body being Jesus' body and blood.

to summarize, again, it is not understanding the word "again", but understanding the chronological order to which the word "again" refers. The word "again" is used prior to Jesus' declaration of his blood as the New Covenant.

Your conclusion, about Jesus drinking his own blood, based on the word "again" is flat out misrepresentation. What else is new? Misrepresentation is expected from you.

Now you can't complain about me regarding answering your questions. I quoted Scripture and referred you to a site.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I suggest you read this site:
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/20...ing-his-blood/

Your question about violating Mosaic Law is answered. If you don't agree to bad. However consider your question answered.

This site is less than worthless because it answers nothing. It doesn't explain how Jesus didn't violate the Law of Moses by drinking his own blood or by leading his disciples into temptation and ultimately into sin. Again, the Law reads with respect to this specific issue:

Lev 17:10-14
10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' 12 "Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.' 13 "So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

14 "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'
NASB

If the bread and wine were literally Jesus' body and blood, respectively, then Jesus sinned. He sinned personally by drinking his own blood and he sinned by leading his disciples into the same sin. The latter would be quite hypocritical of Him given the Lord's prayer and how we are to pray that we we not be led into temptation. Jesus would have made a mockery of all scripture, since his disobedience would present numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in scripture. If Jesus broke the Law of Moses (which he came to fulfill by obeying it completely, then we can all burn our bibles. The bible is as useless and worthless as the site to which you linked me.

Now, let's put this issue to bed once and for all as to whether or not Jesus participated in the Passover meal at the Last Supper, which you say he did not. Was Jesus a mere observer at the table or did he eat and drink the Passover with his disciples? Here's the Markian passage again:

Mark 14:22-25
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."

23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."
NIV

Pure, simple, honest exegesis of this passage tells us three things:

1. Jesus shed his blood only for "many" in the world. Not all.

2. Jesus said that he just drank wine! No blood. Wine. "The fruit of the vine" is what He and his disciples drank.

3. The fact that Jesus drank from the cup is further reinforced by the word "again", which clearly implies that he just got finished drinking from the cup. In the Greek there are actually two words used that have been translated "again" . The two words together literally mean "no more". I will drink form the cup "no more" is what Jesus literally said. This would be a totally absurd, meaningless statement if Jesus had not drank from the cup!

The YLT (Young's Literal Translation) renders v. 24 this way:

Mark 14:25
25 verily I say to you, that NO MORE may I drink of the produce of the vine till that day when I may drink it new in the reign of God.'
YLT

This interpretation is very strongly reinforced in Luke's version of the Last Supper.

Luke 22:14-21
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it AGAIN until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink AGAIN of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for YOU.
NIV

According to verse 14, Jesus eagerly desired to participate in the Last Passover Meal. But you would have us believe that Jesus just sat passively at the table and watched his disciples eat and drink! He watched them eat the Passover. But he didn't put a thing on the table to his lips!

And in v. 14, the Gr. term "ou-mee" translated "again" literally means "not any more". Ditto for v. 18. Same term: "not any more". Very clearly, these kinds of statements would make no sense if Jesus had not fulfilled his desire by eating his Last Passover Meal with his disciples!

So, your interpretation of these passages would have Jesus be a sinner at bare minimum twice over. He sinned personally by breaking the Law of Moses by drinking his own blood and he led his disciples into the same sin!

This, sir, is an insurmountable problem for you and your Roman church. But don't believe me on this. Go to who you think is your "most learned" black robe and ask him. Find out from him how Jesus and his disciples did not break the Law. Watch him break out in sweat. Or stammer and stutter -- or shrug it off since your church leaders looks down their collective snout at lay people's interpretations.

But if you fail with a common black robe, maybe you can get in in to see the monsignor of your parish. Failing that or if he has no answers, maybe you can get an audience with your bishop. But no matter where you go, they will not be able to reconcile these horrendous contradictions their interpretations present; for the dead simply have no spiritual understanding.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It makes no sense to you because you do not understand chronological order.

Apparently neither you nor Roger Oakland have vital comprehension skills. Luke 22 has a more detailed time frame. Prior to the blessings of the bread and the cup Jesus said he would not eat the Passover meal nor drink wine "again" until the Kingdom of God is fulfilled. See verses 14 through 18 inclusive. After supper, verses 19 through 20 show the blessing and the statement by Jesus identifying the wine as his blood was done later in time. This chronological ordered disproves your assertion that Jesus drank from the cup after his declaration that it is his blood.


14 When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it[c] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. Luke 22: 14-21.

The other Scriptural accounts are condensed version of the detailed account above, in order to, highlight the importance of the bread and body being Jesus' body and blood.

to summarize, again, it is not understanding the word "again", but understanding the chronological order to which the word "again" refers. The word "again" is used prior to Jesus' declaration of his blood as the New Covenant.

Your conclusion, about Jesus drinking his own blood, based on the word "again" is flat out misrepresentation. What else is new? Misrepresentation is expected from you.

Now you can't complain about me regarding answering your questions. I quoted Scripture and referred you to a site.

Nice edit job. Why did you edit out "again" from v. 16? Also, your interpretation doesn't address Jesus' eagerness to EAT the PASSOVER MEAL with his disciples.

See my last post.

[boxcar]

ShowMe, suppose someone invites me to a Thanksgiving chow down. As I'm sitting at the table, I tell my host:

I have long desired to have this opportunity to dine with you and get to know you; for I will not be around to eat another Thanksgiving meal with you again until I get back from Europe in a few years.

Then my host asks me to bless the meal. And so I say Grace and give thanks to the Lord.

Does this mean that I didn't eat the dinner because of my remarks prior to the meal? That I just sat there and watched my host and his other guests eat and drink after I gave thanks? Why? Because of the "chronology" of my remarks?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

ShowMe, suppose someone invites me to a Thanksgiving chow down. As I'm sitting at the table, I tell my host:

I have long desired to have this opportunity to dine with you and get to know you; for I will not be around to eat another Thanksgiving meal with you again until I get back from Europe in a few years.

Then my host asks me to bless the meal. And so I say Grace and give thanks to the Lord.

Does this mean that I didn't eat the dinner because of my remarks prior to the meal? That I just sat there and watched my host and his other guests eat and drink after I gave thanks? Why? Because of the "chronology" of my remarks?

Not the same situation. Jesus ate dinner and drank wine at dinner, just as you did. After supper, which in your example the eating and drinking are completed.

The chronological order was established for the use of the word "again". You made your argument based on asking what I didn't understand about the word "again" being used. I answered your argument.

Do you now want to change your argument to Jesus drank the blessed cup with his apostles, because Jesus was being social and following culture norms?

But of course I hope if you filled your cup with your blood you wouldn't partake of it.

Why do you always make arguments trying to compare apples and oranges? In chronological time there is action before, during, and after.

[Show Me the Wire]

It doesn't explain how Jesus didn't violate the Law of Moses by drinking his own blood or by leading his disciples into temptation and ultimately into sin. Again, the Law reads with respect to this specific issue:

Sure it does, it explains when the sacrifice took place. just not according to your the timeline you like. Which surprises me though because you don't like chronological time.

You can keep on telling me what to believe. I know and understand what I believe, I also know and understand what you believe and since I understand both that is why I don't believe what you believe.

[boxcar]

Mr. ShowMe, you have insisted in front of all these witnesses in this thread that Jesus did not eat the Passover Meal. You're using this defense to try to show that He didn't sin by "eating his own blood". (But of course, this explanation doesn't address the great sin,(punishable by death under the Law, in which he led his disciples.Therefore, Jesus would still be a sinner!)

But be that as it may, since you insist that Jesus did not partake in the Last Passover Meal, please be advised that if He didn't, then He was still a sinner!
The Passover was one of Israel's most sacred feasts and participation in that feast -- celebration of that feast -- was not optional. Even though the Passover was instituted in Egypt prior to the giving of the Law, under the Law the people were REQUIRED to celebrate the feast. It's a command in the Law of Moses. (Check this out also with any orthodox Jew!) And it was commanded because it's "The Lord's Passover".

Lev 23:4-8
4[i] 'These are the appointed times of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them. 5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the Lord's Passover. 6 'Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7 'On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work. 8 'But for seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the Lord. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.'"
NASB

So, here's the upshot: If Jesus did not eat the Passover Meal, he violated the Law of Moses. The above passage is not merely good advice or a suggestion. It's a command! It's an injunction!

And Jesus understood all this perfectly. You forget that it He who sent Peter and John to make the preparations. You also forget his words when he sent them:

Luke 22:8-12
8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for US, that WE may eat it." 9 And they said to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare it?" 10 And He said to them, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. 11 "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you," Where is the guest room in which I MAY EAT eat the Passover WITH My disciples? "' 12 "And he will show you a large, furnished, upper room; prepare it there."
NASB

End of story. Jesus fully intended to eat the Passover Meal with his disciples, and he expressed his eager desire to do so to his disciples in the upper room.

So, it appears your worldly, fleshly interpretations of these passages have left you in an unenviable catch-22 dilemma. Jesus sinned if he ate and he sinned if he didn't.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Sure it does, it explains when the sacrifice took place. just not according to your the timeline you like. Which surprises me though because you don't like chronological time.

You can keep on telling me what to believe. I know and understand what I believe, I also know and understand what you believe and since I understand both that is why I don't believe what you believe.

There was no sacrifice at the Last Supper. Your timeline is a wee bit off, as is your chronology.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Not the same situation. Jesus ate dinner and drank wine at dinner, just as you did. After supper, which in your example the eating and drinking are completed.

The chronological order was established for the use of the word "again". You made your argument based on asking what I didn't understand about the word "again" being used. I answered your argument.

There is no chronological order established with the word "again" -- except to say that he Jesus said he would not eat that Passover Meal again until the Kingdom of God comes.

And my analogy is perfect. I made my remarks before the meal but then ate the meal, same as Jesus did.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no chronological order established with the word "again" -- except to say that he Jesus said he would not eat that Passover Meal again until the Kingdom of God comes.

And my analogy is perfect. I made my remarks before the meal but then ate the meal, same as Jesus did.

Oh, really. I am not going to argue with you. The passage for most people is written in chronological order of when what was said and done. The word "after" for most people means something was done at a later time.

Apparently, you do not pay attention to my posts. If you did would have known I attended a non-denominational Christian church for several years. It was affiliated with the Southern Baptists. As part of my involvement, I attended morning Bible studies and studied the Bible on my own. I understand how protestants generally interpret Scripture.

Besides that during my undergrad years I took a s*** load of theology, comparative religion and philosophy classes. To this day I read books authored by Protestants, which are very good. Based on my education and personal experiences I understand the differences and understand protestant thought. There is nothing you can tell me that I don't already know.

Why do you think I have knowledge regarding the reformation and the philosophical influences humanism, voluntarism and nominalism had and to this day have.

I admit I didn't know much about Calvin and his doctrine, until you started posting. However, now I do.


However, your silly arguments are not worth anyone's time or effort, like the above argument about chronological time is inapplicable to the word of God or infinity and eternity are synonymous .

In case you missed it, the Word of God incarnated, which means the Word, Jesus, entered into chronological time. Jesus lived according to chronological time, he was born, before he taught, he was baptized before he suffered temptation, etc. Thus, his words and actions at the last supper were in chronological time.


If you want to discuss theology fine, if you want to argue interpretation of Scripture based on your silly logic count me out.

p.s. Do not assume my classes were taught by men in black robes,

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Oh, really. I am not going to argue with you. The passage for most people is written in chronological order of when what was said and done. The word "after" for most people means something was done at a later time.

Apparently, you do not pay attention to my posts. If you did would have known I attended a non-denominational Christian church for several years. It was affiliated with the Southern Baptists. As part of my involvement, I attended morning Bible studies and studied the Bible on my own. I understand how protestants generally interpret Scripture.

Besides that during my undergrad years I took a s*** load of theology, comparative religion and philosophy classes. To this day I read books authored by Protestants, which are very good. Based on my education and personal experiences I understand the differences and understand protestant thought. There is nothing you can tell me that I don't already know.

Why do you think I have knowledge regarding the reformation and the philosophical influences humanism, voluntarism and nominalism had and to this day have.

I admit I didn't know much about Calvin and his doctrine, until you started posting. However, now I do.


However, your silly arguments are not worth anyone's time or effort, like the above argument about chronological time is inapplicable to the word of God or infinity and eternity are synonymous .

In case you missed it, the Word of God incarnated, which means the Word, Jesus, entered into chronological time. Jesus lived according to chronological time, he was born, before he taught, he was baptized before he suffered temptation, etc. Thus, his words and actions at the last supper were in chronological time.


If you want to discuss theology fine, if you want to argue interpretation of Scripture based on your silly logic count me out.

p.s. Do not assume my classes were taught by men in black robes,

Nice background. Now address my last two posts.

If Jesus didn't observe the Passover, he sinned. If he did and drank his blood, he also sinned.

If he ate the bread, but didn't drink his blood, he still sinned by having his disciples break the Law of Moses.

Here's some Chronology fer ya: The Cross on which Christ sacrificed himself followed the Last Supper. Therefore, right up until the time of His death on that Cross, The Covenant of Law was still in effect per the teaching in Hebrews.

Please resume your studies -- this time around, preferably in the bible.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There was no sacrifice at the Last Supper. Your timeline is a wee bit off, as is your chronology.

You know I didn't say that, my response specifically referred to the site's explanation about when the sacrifice took place. All your original questions were answered. If you don't agree with the answers that is your perogative, as it is my prerogative to not agree with your answers.

And your immature ploy of misrepresenting my statement (s) does not and will not motivate me to argue interpretations with you. If you continue to act like a petulant child, who is not getting his way, I will accommodate you, by not engaging in discussion with you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You know I didn't say that, my response specifically referred to the site's explanation about when the sacrifice took place. All your original questions were answered. If you don't agree with the answers that is your perogative, as it is my prerogative to not agree with your answers.

I didn't say you did. I said the site did NOT address the issue. Jesus made only one sacrifice -- and that was on the Cross, which according to the bible's timeline was well AFTER the Last Supper. Since an atoning sacrifice requires a LITERAL. PHYSICAL death (per Hebrews) in order for a testament or covenant to literally go into effect, Jesus' institution of the New Covenant did not go into effect (become ratified) until his literal, physical death. Just become some ancient religious whack jobs say differently, matters not a whit to me. I go by by what scripture says. Scripture says the sacrifice took place at the Cross -- not at the Last Supper.

Also, when does the bible say the "sacrifice took place"? Why do you need to refer to some extrabiblical material for such an an easy answer. What is so complicated to the question: When did the sacrifice take place? Is this rocket science to the RCC? You see what such disdain and hatred for scripture you have? You must appeal to some website to someone who assumes his own authority. To someone who doesn't even bother to support his thesis? You place that guy's writings on that website above scripture? And you call yourself a "believer"? The only thing you believe is other people's writings!

And your immature ploy of misrepresenting my statement (s) does not and will not motivate me to argue interpretations with you. If you continue to act like a petulant child, who is not getting his way, I will accommodate you, by not engaging in discussion with you.

Yeah, yeah...you're stalling because you have no answers.

First, Jesus said in Luke that he was going to participate in the Passover Meal with his disciples. This is why he sent Peter and John to make preparations. Jesus had no intention or desire to simply become a passive spectator at the meal, especially since the Passover was a "perpetual ordinance" that was to be observed. To not observe it would have been sinful. Observing the Passover required EATING the meal.

Secondly, then Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper how he so "eagerly desired" to "EAT THIS PASSOVER WITH YOU". Yet, he didn't? In violation of the Law, yet?

Next, Jesus clearly said that the cup from which he just drank was the "fruit of the vine". Not his blood.

In short...according to Hebrews, Jesus, as well as all Israel, was still under the Old Covenant until his sacrificial death on the Cross -- not a moment before. Therefore, whether He drank his own blood or abstained he still sinned. Hebrews 9 is very clear on this issue of WHEN the New Covenant went into effect. (That is in your bible, by the way. You don't have to go to anyone's website.) If you check out Hebrews 9, you'll see that your chronology as well as that website's is wee bit off.)

And one more thing: If Jesus' sacrifice took place at the Last Supper, why did he need to go to the Cross? Wouldn't his "sacrifice" at the meal have made his trip to the Cross redundant and superfluous -- pointless?