ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Wine Turning Into Blood

Does this statement." As the word "occult" means something secretive, the Roman Catholic tendency to hide the blood of Jesus in secrets and mysteries seems rather occultish."
Describe Wine being turned into blood?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The False Traditions Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 4/8/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Thomas Aquinas died three hundred years before there were any Jesuits. Oy veh!
---JohnnyB on 5/9/09


mima:

I don't recall any scripture that says that anyone who does not believe in the literal transubstantiation is going to hell. In fact, there are very few doctrines that one MUST believe in order to be saved (for example, belief that God exists is one).

However, there are many that demand love and condemn lack of it.
---StrongAxe on 5/8/09


I realize I do not have hardly any answers but I try to follow the clues. Some of what I say may not make any sense to you if you just do a superficial search. Thomas Aquinas is depicted with the sun on his person in wikipedia in two pictures. This is information for those who can take it in without immediately having a knee jerk insult reaction to my words. All I ask is that you look for yourself. If he was not a Jesuit, he was (by all appearances) into some other idol worship. I would tell more clues, but it is better that Katty thinks I don't know anything. I have eyes in my head.
---frances008 on 5/8/09


I agree with this statement."I doubt if belief in it, or disbelief in it is going to be the reason anyone goes to Hell. But not loving each other, that is different."
---frances008 on 5/8/09

This is teaching a heresy.(Wrong belief)

But I do not agree that worshiping Mary is acceptable as a heresy(wrong belief) because that is putting Mary before God. And the Bible says that shall have no other Gods before me. So the worship of Mary in my opinion is crossing over the line and would cost the person they're soul.

Here we see what is wrong with "tradition" and papal bulls, once we get away from the clear taking of the Bible we were in danger of being scarred!!!!
---mima on 5/8/09


frances008:

Thank you, that is a very enlightened attitude.
---StrongAxe on 5/8/09




God reveals himself in different ways to different people. Who's to say who is correct and who is incorrect? I agree with Mic that this question is disagreeable/not convenient/not helpful. If God reveals to you that the RC Chruch is right, then that is fine by me. I am all for letting people worship the way they wish to. As long as we are not forced to accept what anyone has said or written outside of the Word of God. If we can be like little children and just obey the commandments, we will be okay, IMHO. Personally, I don't believe in the wine turning into blood. I doubt if belief in it, or disbelief in it is going to be the reason anyone goes to Hell. But not loving each other, that is different.
---frances008 on 5/8/09


Kattty still does not realize that Jesuits can call themselves anything. That little bit of information came from a Jesuit .... Please forgive Katty. He does not mean to disinform you, but is only talking from his little bit of googling. I rather trust EIPS which has a scholarly, well researched article.
---frances008 on 5/8/09


katavasia:

OK good, so we agree then :)
---StrongAxe on 5/7/09


** katavasia:

So then, I am correct - the change is NOT a physical one. In the same sense that when you speak to an ambassador or other government representative, you "speak to the crown", yet it's plain to everyone that the king is NOT actually present - but his authority is.**

OK, if you don't push this too far.

My point is the change has NEVER been physical, nor understood to be physical, or perceptible to the senses.
---katavasia on 5/7/09


katavasia:

So then, I am correct - the change is NOT a physical one. In the same sense that when you speak to an ambassador or other government representative, you "speak to the crown", yet it's plain to everyone that the king is NOT actually present - but his authority is.
---StrongAxe on 5/6/09




MIC TO MIMA:-Are you trying to learn about the Catholic FAITH or just rippling the waters to get some feed back?.If you desire to learn about RCC practices JOIN THEM.The information forthcoming will astound you and you will repent For all the spurious matter you put out, it's called setting fires, spreading discord: a dishonour to yourself.
---MIC on 5/6/09


ONE IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION:

In my posting about transubstantiation (taught by the Dominicans), I forgot to point out that "substance" here has a technical philosophical meaning.

The "accidents" of something are its physical attributes that can be weighed, measured, tasted, seen, observed, and such.

The "substance" of something is what makes it what it really is.

Hence, "substance" in this meaning cannot be perceived by the senses.

The change is by no means a PHYSICAL change, as only the accidents are physical.
---katavasia on 5/6/09


Here is an interesting question, some practice communion but do not actually drink the wine(symbolic of blood). If that be the case are they guilty of offering a bloodless sacrifice??? Who does this well I know sometimes the RCC does this.
---mima on 5/6/09


**The Dominicans were against anything that threatened the Word of God and were not adamant (at all) about the bread and wine actually changing - seeing it as symbolic.**

This is totally historically false, as are most of the things fanny says.

The Dominicans indeed taught that the substance of the bread and wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ--hence "transsubstantiation."

This is clearly expressed in Thomas Aquinas's SUMMA THEOLOGICA--and Aquinas was a Dominican.
---katavasia on 5/6/09


katavasia:

I think you misinterpreted just what I meant by "doing it wrong" in this context.

In every single church I have ever been in(both Catholic and Protestant), the communion elements did not physically change from bread and wine into flesh and blood in any discernable way. So I am curious just what the meaning of "become" is.

Because they "become" flesh and blood, but the normal use of the word "become" means a total transformation of one thing into another (and if it DOESN'T mean that, what about every other scriptural use of the word "become"? This would open another large can of worms).
---StrongAxe on 5/5/09


thanks, StrongAxe, I understand what you mean, now.
---Donna66 on 5/5/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


There are people who are brave enough to say that the sun-worshippers got the idea to make the wafer round and have everyone (unknowingly) worship the sun. This is is connected up on Ian Paisley's site with an article about the Jesuits and Dominicans. The former were in favour of transubstantiation, and promoted heliocentricity. Please correct me if I am wrong. The Dominicans were against anything that threatened the Word of God and were not adamant (at all) about the bread and wine actually changing - seeing it as symbolic. It is difficult to follow the article. Please check these for verification. Obviously the Jesuits won in their information war. (A Tale of Jesuit Cloak and Dagger...)
---frances008 on 5/5/09


**3) Virtually every church on the planet has been doing it wrong for the past 1900+ years.**

You're right in once sense, strongaxe. All Protestant Churches have been doing it wrong for 500 or so years.

You're just wrong on how long they've been doing wrong.

All of the pre-Reformation Churches (who are the vast majority of Christians) have been doing it RIGHT for the past 1900+ years.
---katavasia on 5/5/09


What I meant was this:

If communion is, in fact, the actual miraculous transformation of bread and wine into flesh and blood, AND this is an actual real transformation and not just a metaphorical equivalence, then the fact that no physical transformation is ever witnessed means that even though such a transformation is supposed to happen, it doesn't - which means that we're doing it wrong (and have always been doing it wrong).
---StrongAxe on 5/5/09


Strong Axe--

I guess I didn't understand what you meant, then. Could you clarify what you meant by
"every church doing it wrong"? What is it that they do wrong?

I agree that.>>the bread and wine still appear to all physical examinations to still be bread and wine<<< To me they are symbolic.
And my church, like many protestant churches, considers it such.
---Donna66 on 5/5/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Donna66:

Yes, I meant what I said. Whether or not a church teaches transubstantiation or not, when it offers communion, the bread and wine still appear to all physical examinations to still be bread and wine.
---StrongAxe on 5/5/09


The wine and bread at mass do not appear to change. When Jesus did or does miracles, you can see the change. We are to believe something is so when it apparently is not so. And what is the difference between symbolic and reality? The important thing is following Jesus spiritually, not any changes of bread into flesh. Jesus spoke metaphorically in many cases to confound those who were stubborn and insisted on doing things their way. This doctrine/misunderstanding has led to a lot of unhappiness and division in the body of Christ. Where did it originate? Transubstantiation is a later doctrine. Originally the apostles just met together to share bread and wine.
---frances008 on 5/4/09


When Jesus did miracles, like turning water into wine, healing people, and walking on water, he demonstrated clearly (many witnesses saw and tasted) that God has power over nature. But when Jesus said 'this is my body and this is my blood' there is no report that the disciples were astonished, or marvelled etc. Jesus was speaking, as he was wont to, in parables. So that those who were spiritual would get the message, and those who were of this world (materialistic) would take it literally. Jesus did not expect for everyone to understand. He wants us to, but he cannot force us to. If the bread really was His Body, then why would Jesus EAT IT. Please be sensible. The doctrine developed becomes a major obstacle of faith to non-Catholics.
---frances008 on 5/4/09


StrongAxe-

"Virtually every church on the planet"?
The Catholics and Episcopalians (or Chruch of England) are the only ones I know of who teach transubstantiation (the literal changing of flesh into bread and blood into wine...or is it the other way around?) Maybe the Easter Orthodox do too.

Otherwise all protestant churches use grape juice, I believe, and teach the symbolism of "Communion".
---Donna66 on 5/4/09


Send a Free Espanol Ecard


katavasia:

God said "Let there be light" - and there was light. Anyone can see it.

Jesus said "be healed" - the blind saw, the deaf heard, the lame walked - and everyone saw the physical manifestations.

Jesus said "your sins are forgiven" - not verifiable nor falsifiable by witnesses.

Jesus said "this is my flesh" - while we cannot see what happened then, if you witness communion in any church, bread and wine do not change physically, so one of these is true:
1) "becoming" is metaphorical
1) It is unlike any other use of the word, since they change yet they don't change
3) Virtually every church on the planet has been doing it wrong for the past 1900+ years.
---StrongAxe on 5/4/09


God said "Let there be light"--and there was light.

God Incarnate said, "Be healed"--and people were healed.

He said "Be opened"--and deaf ears and blind eyes began to function.

He said, "Take up your bed and go home"--and the lame man did.

He said, "Your sins are forgiven"--and they were.

He said, "This is My Body, this is My Blood"--and if you can believe that NOTHING happened, your faith is greater than mine.
---katavasia on 4/30/09


Ruben:

Yes, Jesus said in John 6:51 "and the bread that I will give is my flesh". But he also said in John 15:1 "I am the true vine". He was clearly speaking metaphorically in the second case, Jesus used metaphors constantly in his teachings.
---StrongAxe on 4/23/09


Yes he did speak metaphors but not in John 6:51-67
3 points on that :

1. Jesus never said this vine is my flesh.
2. No one question him and said, How can this man be a vine!
3. Therefore he never had to go back and repeat himself, as you recall when they ask him " how can he gives us his flesh to eat" he came back even stronger whomsoever eat my Flesh has etrnal life!
---Ruben on 4/23/09


Ruben:

Yes, Jesus said in John 6:51 "and the bread that I will give is my flesh". But he also said in John 15:1 "I am the true vine". He was clearly speaking metaphorically in the second case, since we don't hear any stories of anyone picking grapes off Jesus and making wine from them, nor of Jesus climbing up trees and planting roots in the ground and aiming his leaves at the sun. Jesus used metaphors constantly in his teachings. Why, then, is it impossible for him to have been speaking metaphorically in the first case as well?
---StrongAxe on 4/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


MIMA:-Since when did "OCCULT" mean secretative?.Dictionary meaning is, 'Beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge. MYSTERIOUS, outside the laws of the natural world magical:eg Astrology and Alchemy.Middle ages!.Since you do not beliee in Transubstantiation, does not mean it is false. What God says,is true. If you wish to contest you may ask HIM if ever you get the opportunity.But to spread false ness based on your ability to disagree with His word is incorrect.REPENT don't spread Falseness.
---MIC on 4/22/09


Anne * It is not wise to believe that the communion elements (bread & wine) have been transubstantiated by a priest into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. This idea leads people into worship of the consecrated communion wafer as one would worship God himself, which is a form of idolatry.

Not if Jesus himself says he is :

"and the bread that I will give is my flesh , which I will give for the life of the world."(Jhn 6:51)

"and how he was known of them in breaking of the bread "


---Anne on 4/22/09
---Ruben on 4/22/09


ANNE:-Maybe it is your upbringing that leads you to conclude what you cannot see.Since the Host is God HIMSELF as He saysJN6:45-51.therefore what you call idolatory is because 'you' do not believe, like Thomas.If he can walk on the water feed5000,with 2 fish and 5barley loaves can He not do this.?JESUS said "I live in Him who lives in me".You cite Jn1:12 read V10-11.dont choose verses just to appease your trend of thought.If I seem direct it is because there is no other way in displaying the truth.DIRECT.
---MIC on 4/22/09


It is not wise to believe that the communion elements (bread & wine) have been transubstantiated by a priest into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. This idea leads people into worship of the consecrated communion wafer as one would worship God himself, which is a form of idolatry.

The truth is: one receives Christ when he believes on His name (Jn. 1:12), and that we must turn from our idols and serve the true and living God (I Thes.1:9). For no one receives Christ in his mouth, then swallows Him to be digested. We must leave churches that teach such doctrines. God bless.
---Anne on 4/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


katavasia:

Yet I'm curious just what definition of "truly" and "becomes" are used. In EVERY other context, when one thing becomes another thing, it acquires all the properties of that new thing (at least in the context in which it does the becoming).

So for example, when an ice cube melts and becomes water, it actually acquires all the properties of water (fluidity, etc.)

In Transubstantiation, every PHYSICAL test of the bread and wine shows them to remain physically bread and wine rather than flesh and blood - so their "becoming" flesh and blood is NOT "becoming" in the same sense that we use the word in any other context (excepting metaphorical usage).
---StrongAxe on 4/21/09


**The Bible says that Jesus said "this is my blood". It does not, however, say that the disciples ACTUALLY drank blood. Whether Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically is left as a matter for interpretation - since Jesus spoke metaphorically on many other occasions.**

All the early comments on this and similar passages say that the bread truly becomes His Body, and the wine truly His Blood.
---katavasia on 4/21/09


katavasia:

The Bible says that Jesus said "this is my blood". It does not, however, say that the disciples ACTUALLY drank blood. Whether Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically is left as a matter for interpretation - since Jesus spoke metaphorically on many other occasions.
---StrrongAxe on 4/21/09


Though I'm not Catholic, I think they mean this: Jesus Christ gave the disciples the cup of wine at the Last Supper and told them to drink it for it was His blood.
---Betty on 4/20/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Well, Kat,

I'd say... you're good-to-go, bud.
---BruceB on 4/20/09


** I think people oughta believe whatever they want about wine turnin' into blood... and when the time comes, they can just hem and haw when giving an account of "their" beliefs.**

Since I believe what the Bible says on the issue, I won't have to hem, haw, or explain.

**Seems it might be better, though, to discover the answer before then: and that's why the Holy Spirit resides in us. God has that answer, along with all other answers. All we gotta do is ask for them.**

I did, and I got the answer
---katavasia on 4/20/09


And you actually think the writers of scripture would use words UNKNOWN to them? Or that somehow, they channelled the Bible by automatic writing
************


Holy Scripture was written by men who had Gods Holy Spirit DWELLING in them

unlike many religious systems who tell their subjects that the Holy Spirit resides in a building which is why they cannot comprehend how scripture is inspired by Gods Spirit ...and why those CALLED by God are GUIDED by his Holy Spirit to understanding ...true Christians are not given understanding by mortal men

the inspired WORD of God was INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit not "channelled" as many pagan witches and other non-christians use channelling through demons
---Rhonda on 4/19/09


I think people oughta believe whatever they want about wine turnin' into blood... and when the time comes, they can just hem and haw when giving an account of "their" beliefs.

Seems it might be better, though, to discover the answer before then: and that's why the Holy Spirit resides in us. God has that answer, along with all other answers. All we gotta do is ask for them.
---BruceB on 4/19/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


**It's unfortunate that many believe the "writers" of Gods Word were left to their own accord using terms only known to them ...WORDS of Gods Holy WORD inspired by The Father written by HIS Holy Spirit DWELLING within Apostles and those commissioned to document message from Christ of Gods Kingdom to come **

And you actually think the writers of scripture would use words UNKNOWN to them? Or that somehow, they channelled the Bible by automatic writing?

Furthermore, are you functioning under the premise that ANY translation actually has the inspiration and authority of the original texts?
---katavasia on 4/18/09


Many Bible writers (like Paul, for example) were writing letters with specific purposes to specific readers. So he would use terms that he and they were familiar with. His primary concern was for their benefit, not ours. So, while we may glean useful wisdom from such writings, we must remember that they were primarily written to someone else.

(For example, when Paul wrote "I will be with you soon", we cannot infer that this means he will be with US soon as well.)
---StrongAxe on 4/18/09


unfortunate that so many of the writers of the Bible used terms that were familiar and unambiguous to them, but are not so to us, leaving to such widely varied interpretations.
******

It's unfortunate that many believe the "writers" of Gods Word were left to their own accord using terms only known to them ...WORDS of Gods Holy WORD inspired by The Father written by HIS Holy Spirit DWELLING within Apostles and those commissioned to document message from Christ of Gods Kingdom to come

"terms" are very easily understood by guidance of Gods Holy Spirit ...wise made ignorant to Gods Holy Word ..."widely varied interpretations" are from MANS reasoning and his religious affiliations NOT from Word of God
---Rhonda on 4/17/09


**It's unfortunate that so many of the writers of the Bible used terms that were familiar and unambiguous to them, but are not so to us, leaving to such widely varied interpretations.**

People have always tended to read the Bible through the prism of their own culture and experience.

Sometimes this is harmless. For example, "biblios" in Greek (and the corresponding Hebrew term) meant a scroll, and not the modern codex.

Sometimes the result is not so felicitous.
---katavasia on 4/17/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


katavasia:

I guess that makes sense then. I had always thought it had to do with eating blood (as in the Old Testament provisions of the same). The Jehovah's Witnesses also use both of these to justify refusing blood transfusions.

It's unfortunate that so many of the writers of the Bible used terms that were familiar and unambiguous to them, but are not so to us, leaving to such widely varied interpretations.
---StrongAxe on 4/17/09


**
If taking communion is drinking the literal (rather than metaphorical) Blood of Christ, wouldn't this be contradicted by Paul's commandment to new believers to abstain from blood? (Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25)**

1. The Council of Jerusalem was BEFORE St. Paul was numbered among the Apostles.

2. "Blood" in this case, according to ancient commentators, is not one of the kashuroth, but refers to violence (as in the Biblical expression "men of blood").
---katavasia on 4/16/09


THIS is one reason why I can't really and truly believe some Christians, because OF COURSE we don't drink blood and eat flesh at communion!! And when somebody tells me we do, I begin to have doubts about everything else religious.
---sue on 4/16/09


katavasia:

If taking communion is drinking the literal (rather than metaphorical) Blood of Christ, wouldn't this be contradicted by Paul's commandment to new believers to abstain from blood? (Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25)
---StrongAxe on 4/16/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


**So also, the scriptures directing us not to drink blood have been recended by Jesus that we now become as cannibels partaking of literal blood and flesh of a human body?**

I am honored to be called a cannibal (note the proper spelling) by heretics who reject the truth of Jesus and the Eucharist.

Keep on blessing me. All you do is increase my heavenly treasure.l
---katavasia on 4/16/09


If the wine is to be taken as "blood" literally, then the bread is literal flesh correct? So then in 1Pet.2:24 about Jesus's body on the TREE means there was not a cross but just a tree he was nailed to? So also, the scriptures directing us not to drink blood have been recended by Jesus that we now become as cannibels partaking of literal blood and flesh of a human body? Does this actually make sense or is it something we should all just accept without it matching the other parts of God's word? This one is truely confusing, no? I believe it is a symbolic sacrifice Jesus is making of Himself (as the Lamb of God), not a literal changing of elements.
---mikefl on 4/15/09


The Apostle John in Revelation told us that 666 is the number of the name of the Beast.

Could he have given us the identity of the Beast in John 6:66?
---katavasia on 4/14/09


what are we to do these words of Acts 15:28-29

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood"

29 says to abstain from blood( not eat nor ingest blood) yet the RCC is busily making blood out of wine to be ingested or so they claim.

Which of course puts them complete at odds with the Scriptures!!
---mima on 4/14/09

Yet, Jesus and scripture disagree with you?

" Take and eat it, This is my body"(Mtt 26:26)

And since Jesus knows scripture bettter than you and me, he did not back up at all, did he? In Fact he allow some of his disciples to leave instead of calling them back and explaining to them what he meant, could be because he meant what he said, think about that!
---Ruben on 4/14/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Concerning wine being turned into blood, and the ingesting of that wine believing it to be blood, what are we to do these words of James,Acts 15:28-29

28"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,

29 "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood"

29 says to abstain from blood( not eat nor ingest blood) yet the RCC is busily making blood out of wine to be ingested or so they claim.

Which of course puts them complete at odds with the Scriptures!!
---mima on 4/14/09


**. Ask yourself Why did Jesus leave us His nominated Church RCC and all the 7 Sacraments which pertain to our Salvtion imbibed only in HIS CHURCH?**

Actually all the Apostolic Churches of the East, including the non-Chalcedonian ones, have the seven sacraments as well.
---katavasia on 4/14/09


Mima:-Your endeavours to tear down Jesus Church and His teachings are Absolutely futile.B/c the Protesting faith of a Baptist is ingrained in you. Ask yourself Why did Jesus leave us His nominated Church RCC and all the 7 Sacraments which pertain to our Salvtion imbibed only in HIS CHURCH?why does he ask us to follow him in his church It is ALL about HIS CHURCH He never spoke about any otherJUST His even to the extent "I know MY sheep and they know me.They listen to MY VOICE" ARE YOU LISTENING MIMA.or do you desire to continue to EXTOLL your virtues!
---MIC on 4/13/09


--Mima:

Mima, The only "Mystery" about that certain prayer you've referred to is the fact that it's prayed in Faith!

The tangible Blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins and it's very real indeed, in us during the 'Transubstantiation' of the Body & Blood of Christ which SPIRITUALLY does actually occur when the 'Communion of the Blood of Christ' is partaken in by Faith.

It's by our Faith that the spiritual transformation occurs during the 'Blessing of the cup', But whatsoever isn't partaken of in Faith is sin. : & MBW people try to police the Eucharist.

While there's no TANGIBLE transformation occurring in the cup, there are tangible transformations that occur in us do to our Faith in Christ.
---Shawn_M.T. on 4/13/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


MIMA:- Have you seen GOD?I guess I can answer for you NO. therefore HE IS Mystical But you still pray to Him.So would it be outlandish Heresy to assume that since you did not see God He does not exist by your methodology of deduction?, would that be Maximum or minimum-ocultic!!!Being a Baptist you cannot visualise b/c this is the extent of your belief "SEEING IS BELIEVING "Blessed are those who do not see but Believe".JN.20:29. Happy Easter MIMA
---Mic on 4/10/09


Why play the instigators by saying, "My blood is real drink", when it's no where in scriptures! We worship in 'Spirit & Truth' NOT in the tangible of looking to turn wine into blood!!
--Shawn_M.T. on 4/10/09

Indeed: in fact, in reality, in truth, truly (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement, to indicate a concession or admission, or, interrogatively, to obtain confirmation): Indeed, it did rain as hard as predicted. Did you indeed finish the work?

Sounds real to me!
---Ruben on 4/10/09


Shawn_M.T* When Christ said, after Blessing the cup, "this cup is the New Testament in My Blood"

Shawn, Jesus said " For this is my blood of the new testament"


Shawn_M.T.* (Christ is saying His Blood is the New Testament,NOT that His Blood is in the cup).


Shawn, Jesus is saying Both: "And he took the cup,"..."For this is my blood "
---Ruben on 4/10/09


---Shawn_M.T. and you well know Catholic church practices something called transubstantiation. This has to do with the a priest saying certain prayers which are supposed to turn the wine into the blood(the actual blood) of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And so the believe in transubstantiation is mystical, occultic at the very minimum. At its maximum it is an outlandish heresy of the RCC.
---mima on 4/10/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


--Ruben:

"My Blood is drink indeed"~John 6:55. In the deed of the 'Spiritual Blessing' of God's Word, which Christ did in the upper room & Paul shared in 1Cor.10:16.

The 'Communion of the Blood of Christ' is found in the 'Spiritual Blessing' of the cup which is done in Remembrance of the Blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins.

When Christ said, after Blessing the cup, "this cup is the New Testament in My Blood" (Christ is saying His Blood is the New Testament,NOT that His Blood is in the cup).

Why play the instigators by saying, "My blood is real drink", when it's no where in scriptures! We worship in 'Spirit & Truth' NOT in the tangible of looking to turn wine into blood!!
---Shawn_M.T. on 4/10/09


--Katavasia:

Katavasia, The devil believes & trembles but he doesn't HEAR the Truth of the Word. Don't get me wrong, it's Good that you believe the Bible is True : Now all you have to do is learn to Hear the Truth of the Word written in the Bible!.......Instead of listening to the disinformation that the world has told you about the 'Communion of the Blood of Christ'.
---Shawn_M.T. on 4/9/09


** ....but Biblically, Wine wasn't turned into Blood!**

Yes, it was, and it still is.

You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe the Bible.
---katavasia on 4/9/09


The basis of the question appears to be faulty.

"occult" meaning "secret" is a scientific, medical, or physical use of the word.

The meaning of the word relative to religious, or similar, practices, is "supernatural beleifs, practices or phenomena"
---alan8566_of_UK on 4/9/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


....but Biblically, Wine wasn't turned into Blood! The Communion of the Blood of Christ, which is done in REMEMBRANCE of Him, is found in the 'Blessing' of the cup (1Cor.10:16): not the literal turning, of what's in the cup into blood.
---Shawn_M.T. on 4/8/09

Before he said in Remembrance it reads " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."(Mat 26:28) and also "My blood is real drink" Are you saying he is saying symbolic, he did not shed his blood for the remission of sins?
---Ruben on 4/8/09


Jesus said in John six that his followers would have to drink His blood. Bible literalists should take that literally if they are consistent in being literalists! God bless.
---JohnnyB on 4/8/09


I don't know where mima got the idea there was something secretive or hidden about this.

The prayers of the Mass have always been availble in English and other languages, not only in books, but even available on-line as well.

Texts of the Eastern Liturgies in English are also redily available.

Furthermore, in the Roman Rite, the chalice is raised up in view of the congregation not once, but twice.

Apparently mima is doing nothing more than repeating disinformation he's been told--and/or trying to start up another exciting round of BTC.
---katavasia on 4/8/09


--Mima:

Mima, Could you explain a little clear How or Where, out side of scriptures, you're hearing the Roman Catholic church hiding the 'Blood of Jesus' in secrets or mysteries?

....but Biblically, Wine wasn't turned into Blood! The Communion of the Blood of Christ, which is done in REMEMBRANCE of Him, is found in the 'Blessing' of the cup (1Cor.10:16): not the literal turning, of what's in the cup into blood.
---Shawn_M.T. on 4/8/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


I'm not Catholic, so I can't really describe Wine being turned into blood. Where is that in scripture? I really have no idea what you're talking about.

I believe, since I was raised Catholic, and came out of it in 1983 when I got saved, baptized in the Holy Spirit and began my walk with the Lord for over 26 years now, I truly believe all of the false things the Catholics believe makes them a cult. I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but I was a Catholic and came out of it - it's really a list of rules and regulations you have to follow to be part of their church. I went to a funeral there and they said I was NOT allowed to take communion with them as I was an "outsider." I wouldn't take it with them anyway.
---donna8365 on 4/8/09


Once more mima asks a question that demands the answer he wants to get to suit his own prejudices.

It it not only the Roman Catholic Church that beleives the wine in the Eucharist becomes the Blood of Christ, as taught in the Bible.

So do Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonian Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, and Lutherans.

And I don't know where he got the idea that the Eucharistic wine is "hidden". The Chalice is there for all to see, some Roman Churches even use crystal chalices that you can see through.
---katavasia on 4/8/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.