Dna Tests On Eucharistic Miracles

[havok579257]

I will repeat what I just said in this forum many times.

 

I know that you believe in this historical Jesus as the Christ of God who comes in flesh more or less 2000 years ago. I know that you believe in this ‘host’ as the true body and blood of that historical Jesus. And I know too that you ‘eat’ it often in obedience to this particular verse (1 Cor 11:23-2) and I quote...

 

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me ."  25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. [NIV]

 

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 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.[KJV].

 

But  you have forgotten to ask yourself – Is that ‘host’ really the true body and blood of the Christ of God? Or They (Apostle Paul and all witnesses of God) are saying a  â€˜bread’ or ‘spiritual food ‘different from this ‘host’?   

 

Thus, I asked if that ‘host’ you are holding is the same ‘spiritual food’ ate by people during the days of Moses. How come it will become the body of your historical Jesus (since according to your early fathers He comes in flesh in their days and not in the days of Moses)?

 

Obviously, your ‘host’ is not the same ‘spiritual food’ during the days of Moses but it is clearly written in 1 Cor 10:3-4 that this spiritual food and spiritual drink comes from spiritual rock,  â€˜...and that rock was Christ’.

 

This is what I am telling from the very beginning , Apostle Paul is not referring to your historical Jesus as the Christ of God otherwise Apostle Paul will never mention about this 'spiritual rock' in the days of Moses.

 

I ate it once and it is enough for me to remember my Lord and everything he did to me forever. But to you it is different. You eat it again and again and again ‘...until the Lord comes’. Now, how can you explain this verse in John 6:53-57?

 

 "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me

 

there is one Jesus and he is the Jesus in the gospels and he is real.  Peter in Acts mentions how he met Jesus , the Jesus of the gospels.  Is the Peter in Acts not real also?  If that's so, that would make Paul not real also, yet you say he is.  Your in a total contradiction here.  If Peter in Acts is real and he talks about meeting the gospel Jesus, then that means Jesus is real. 

[reyb]

there is one Jesus and he is the Jesus in the gospels and he is real.  Peter in Acts mentions how he met Jesus , the Jesus of the gospels.  Is the Peter in Acts not real also?  If that's so, that would make Paul not real also, yet you say he is.  Your in a total contradiction here.  If Peter in Acts is real and he talks about meeting the gospel Jesus, then that means Jesus is real. 

 

 

Who is Simon Peter known as ‘Cephas’?  I find this topic interesting because if ‘Cephas of the gospel’ is the same ‘Cephas met by Paul in antioch'  then your analysis may be correct – meaning, this historical Jesus is ‘real’ and true historical figure. But I want you to read this first.

 

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

 

Galatians 1:18 NRSV

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days;

In these passages, 'Cephas' is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated ÎšÎ·Ï†á¾¶Ï‚ (KÄ“phâs).

The apostle's given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning 'rock' or 'stone'. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, Î Î­Ï„ρος (Petros). It is not known why Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churches in Galatia and Corinth.^[16] He may have been writing at a time before Cephas came to be popularly known as Peter. According to Clement of Alexandria, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles.^[17] Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles, though this is perhaps Clement's way of deflecting the condemnation from Simon Peter. In any case the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism (which this involves) is still disputed.

In Aramaic, it could be כיפא.

Edited April 2, 2013 by reyb

[ToJesusMyHeart]

historical balorical!

[TheLordsSouljah]

love it how Wiki is so apparently trustworthy. It's a big fat downer mark in reputation world for using it is a source... 

[reyb]

love it how Wiki is so apparently trustworthy. It's a big fat downer mark in reputation world for using it is a source... 

 

 

Of couse, I do not believe everything that is stated in Wiki. Nevertheless, whether we believe it or not, we have something to talk about as our point of reference. Just like in our present discussion, we can make our own research whether Clement really said ‘Cephas in antioch is not the same Simon Peter of the Gospel’.  We can challenge it if you want but we must have clear ‘reasons’ to deny it other than to  simply  say, ‘it is a lie’. 

[havok579257]

Who is Simon Peter known as ‘Cephas’?  I find this topic interesting because if ‘Cephas of the gospel’ is the same ‘Cephas met by Paul in antioch'  then your analysis may be correct – meaning, this historical Jesus is ‘real’ and true historical figure. But I want you to read this first.

 

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

 

Galatians 1:18 NRSV

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days;

In these passages, 'Cephas' is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated ÎšÎ·Ï†á¾¶Ï‚ (KÄ“phâs).

The apostle's given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning 'rock' or 'stone'. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, Î Î­Ï„ρος (Petros). It is not known why Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churches in Galatia and Corinth.^[16] He may have been writing at a time before Cephas came to be popularly known as Peter. According to Clement of Alexandria, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles.^[17] Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles, though this is perhaps Clement's way of deflecting the condemnation from Simon Peter. In any case the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism (which this involves) is still disputed.

In Aramaic, it could be כיפא.

 

classic reyb, ignore my question.  Peter in Acts , is called Peter.  He is in the same book Paul is in.  In Acts Peter talks about the Jesus gospel as a real person.  So explain that one reyb?  Or ignore it like you did above.

[reyb]

classic reyb, ignore my question.  Peter in Acts , is called Peter.  He is in the same book Paul is in.  In Acts Peter talks about the Jesus gospel as a real person.  So explain that one reyb?  Or ignore it like you did above.

 

Look above.

 

According to your early father clement 'Cephas in antioch is not the same Peter in the Gospel' and since, Peter in Acts is the same (or must be the same) Peter in the Gospel because Acts is a continuation of Luke's story). Let us settle this things first -- Is Cephas in antioch the same Peter in Acts or not? (Please put your answer on the other topic ‘Who is Simon Peter called ‘Cephas’?)

[TheLordsSouljah]

Reyb, you've not once changed anyone's mind/ way of thinking/ been listened to seriously. And don't you lament all the precious minutes you have wasted that God in His generosity has given you? What if you died right now? Are you really doing His will?

Sure, we've all wasted time before. But this is just ridiculous!

Edited April 3, 2013 by TheLordsSouljah

[reyb]

Reyb, you've not once changed anyone's mind/ way of thinking/ been listened to seriously. And don't you lament all the precious minutes you have wasted that God in His generosity has given you? What if you died right now? Are you really doing His will?

Sure, we've all wasted time before. But this is just ridiculous!

 

 

Then, I have my rest in Him - not because of my faith in God anymore - because of his promise. I already explained this while I am discussing ‘foolishness of God’ and  ‘weakness of God’ in other topic.

 

Sometimes, there is really deep sadness in my heart because, if only you will seek the Truth from God himself. I truly believe you will find Him. 

[havok579257]

Look above.

 

According to your early father clement 'Cephas in antioch is not the same Peter in the Gospel' and since, Peter in Acts is the same (or must be the same) Peter in the Gospel because Acts is a continuation of Luke's story). Let us settle this things first -- Is Cephas in antioch the same Peter in Acts or not? (Please put your answer on the other topic ‘Who is Simon Peter called ‘Cephas’?)

 

 

no, let us settle things on my question first.  you always do this reyb, you always try to change the subject/question.  Is Peter in Acts a real person?  If he is not then that would mean Paul who is also in Acts is not a real person yet in his epistles he references Acts and his conversion.  If Peter in Acts is a real person then so is Jesus of the gospels since he mentions him.  So answer the qestion reyb, how do you explain this contradiction of yours?

Edited April 3, 2013 by havok579257

[reyb]

no, let us settle things on my question first.  you always do this reyb, you always try to change the subject/question.  Is Peter in Acts a real person?  If he is not then that would mean Paul who is also in Acts is not a real person yet in his epistles he references Acts and his conversion.  If Peter in Acts is a real person then so is Jesus of the gospels since he mentions him.  So answer the qestion reyb, how do you explain this contradiction of yours?

 

I am a little bit busy but I will come back on this issue. Thank you.