Aimiel
Well-known member
There is no atonement without blood, since everyone is sinful, except Christ Himself. To be cleansed of sin requires His Blood, alone.
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
Lost Comet
New member
Just wondering...do you think that's consistent with how Jesus portrayed the Father?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Returning to 'God' is all that is essential.......
Returning to 'God' is all that is essential.......
My original position and argument for 'prayer' and 'repentance' as an effective method of 'atonement' stands.
See Rabbi Michael Skobac's article concering Leviticus 17:11, from which the passage in Hebrews refers, for a proper understanding and context Here.
Blood sacrifice was and is not the only means of atonement, as other ways were and are efficacious, which include 'prayer' and 'repentance'. The concept that "only the blood of Jesus can cleanse you from sin" is incorrect from a traditional Jewish perspective for starters, whose scriptures show other means of atonement, for 'God' is ever responsive to those who sincerely 'turn' to Him and do what is right. - there is no other way to 'God', but in re-turning to Him. Since 'God' is our Heavenly Father, he lovingly responds to those who call on Him.
Also see Rabbi Stuart Federow's article -
Jews believe that a blood sacrifice is not required for forgiveness of sins
pj
Returning to 'God' is all that is essential.......
My original position and argument for 'prayer' and 'repentance' as an effective method of 'atonement' stands.
See Rabbi Michael Skobac's article concering Leviticus 17:11, from which the passage in Hebrews refers, for a proper understanding and context Here.
Blood sacrifice was and is not the only means of atonement, as other ways were and are efficacious, which include 'prayer' and 'repentance'. The concept that "only the blood of Jesus can cleanse you from sin" is incorrect from a traditional Jewish perspective for starters, whose scriptures show other means of atonement, for 'God' is ever responsive to those who sincerely 'turn' to Him and do what is right. - there is no other way to 'God', but in re-turning to Him. Since 'God' is our Heavenly Father, he lovingly responds to those who call on Him.
Also see Rabbi Stuart Federow's article -
Jews believe that a blood sacrifice is not required for forgiveness of sins
pj
Last edited:
God has always been the same, he has always been forgiving, it's man who changes, who grows in understanding of God.
But man lacks faith that God is forgiving, so he has invented ritualistic, sacrificial approaches to God because man simply has a hard time fathoming forgiveness or accepting forgiveness. Man thinks in terms of "an eye for an eye", an equal self sacrifice in exchange for the sin penalty.
Jesus lived and taught, or retaught, that God is a loving and forgiving Father. No human sacrifice required.
The gospel message was contaminated largely because Jesus' own people rejected his gospel, so the Pagans who adopted evolving Christianity remodeled it to their liking.
Colter
But man lacks faith that God is forgiving, so he has invented ritualistic, sacrificial approaches to God because man simply has a hard time fathoming forgiveness or accepting forgiveness. Man thinks in terms of "an eye for an eye", an equal self sacrifice in exchange for the sin penalty.
Jesus lived and taught, or retaught, that God is a loving and forgiving Father. No human sacrifice required.
The gospel message was contaminated largely because Jesus' own people rejected his gospel, so the Pagans who adopted evolving Christianity remodeled it to their liking.
Colter
John Mortimer
New member
This is keen insight. It's funny how things that should be obvious are often overlooked in their simplicity.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Perfectly. He said that His Blood would remit the sins of many. I believe that millions and millions today believe upon His Blood. I believe many millions more will before the end of time. Jesus portrayed The Father as requiring perfection. He would not let anyone touch Him before He offered Himself upon The Heavenly Holy-of-Holies. He knew that perfection was required. He sprinkled His Blood on The Mercy Seat. God accepted His sacrifice once and for all. Unless you partake of His Blood and His Flesh you have no part in Him.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Yes, it does 'stand' ... it stands in your way. It stands in the way of you believing Truth. The Truth is: without Jesus' Blood no one could get into Heaven. He is The One and Only Way into Heaven. He is The One and Only Truth about God. He is The One and Only Eternal Life. Without Him, you have no hope. You have no relationship with The Father. You have nothing.
Aimiel
Well-known member
If that were the case, then why didn't He call upon twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
It is because He came to earth to be our sacrificial lamb. If you don't understand that and believe that, then you are not Christian. You have no part in Him. You're anathema.
Thanks John, so true, I have to remember to "keep it simple". So much of the profound stuff that Jesus said was natural, simple illustrations using nature and a sincere heart.
Caino
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Re-cap
Re-cap
Return: Here
Also previous UB passages and commentary hold. More will be shared on the 'meaning of the cross' from the papers. My relationship with the Father is predicated upon sonship, mutual affection and communion with reality. Your personal ad hominem above is disheartening and uncalled for as far as 'judging' my personal relationship with God. The thread is about the Urantia Papers, so I share from their perspective...cross relating such with other supporting schools. We've already proved that 'bloodshed' is not necessary for effecting 'atonement'. I would consider the teaching of traditional rabbis on this, clearly explained, as has been afforded you in my previous post.
By the way, with 'God' one has 'everything',...because 'God' includes 'everything'
pj
Re-cap
Return: Here
Also previous UB passages and commentary hold. More will be shared on the 'meaning of the cross' from the papers. My relationship with the Father is predicated upon sonship, mutual affection and communion with reality. Your personal ad hominem above is disheartening and uncalled for as far as 'judging' my personal relationship with God. The thread is about the Urantia Papers, so I share from their perspective...cross relating such with other supporting schools. We've already proved that 'bloodshed' is not necessary for effecting 'atonement'. I would consider the teaching of traditional rabbis on this, clearly explained, as has been afforded you in my previous post.
By the way, with 'God' one has 'everything',...because 'God' includes 'everything'
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Remember, God is a loving Father, willing to forgive and respond to those who return to Him. No human sacrifice is needed, neither can such atone for the sins of another, since one must atone for his own sins, and repent to his own credit. The principle of 'self-responsibility' cannot be surpassed or abrogated, although grace and inspiration is always afforded those who ask for it.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
If what you say were true, Jesus would never have had to die. We could all just float off to Heaven and all would be well. It isn't. Men are sinful. You've strayed from Truth into the deepest pit of lies one could imagine. It's because the enemy of your soul is subtle. He's creeped up behind you and slipped the wool over your eyes. Your pride is blinding you to the Truth of The Gospel. You need Christ. Without Him there is no eternal life. All you have is doctrines of demons. Nothing more. Smoke and mirrors.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
repentance.....
repentance.....
This is predicated on a presuppositional position that Jesus had to die to effect our salvation as some 'blood-atonement' (vicarious or otherwise), but we've dealt with this from an orthodox Jewish perspective, upon which the papers agree, but the papers brings new light on the 'meaning of the cross' within a different context altogether, showing the insufficiency of blood-sacrifices or any rituals done to merit or draw down the favor of 'God', because 'God' doesn't need these 'props' since He is our loving Heavenly Father, willing to forgive, pardon and restore sinners just for the asking and where there is true repentance.
The bestowal of Jesus, his teachings, his great dispensation has affected our world for the better, so his ministry is essential to our salvation, enlightenment and spiritual progress concerning the kingdom of heaven expressing on earth.
Again,...souls can re-turn to God thru prayer, supplication, repentance, doing what is right, reparation, etc. God forgives those who forgive others, and those who sincerely ask for forgiveness when it is born of true intent and accompanied with real repentance.
pj
repentance.....
This is predicated on a presuppositional position that Jesus had to die to effect our salvation as some 'blood-atonement' (vicarious or otherwise), but we've dealt with this from an orthodox Jewish perspective, upon which the papers agree, but the papers brings new light on the 'meaning of the cross' within a different context altogether, showing the insufficiency of blood-sacrifices or any rituals done to merit or draw down the favor of 'God', because 'God' doesn't need these 'props' since He is our loving Heavenly Father, willing to forgive, pardon and restore sinners just for the asking and where there is true repentance.
The bestowal of Jesus, his teachings, his great dispensation has affected our world for the better, so his ministry is essential to our salvation, enlightenment and spiritual progress concerning the kingdom of heaven expressing on earth.
Again,...souls can re-turn to God thru prayer, supplication, repentance, doing what is right, reparation, etc. God forgives those who forgive others, and those who sincerely ask for forgiveness when it is born of true intent and accompanied with real repentance.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
meaning of the cross.....part 1
meaning of the cross.....part 1
~*~*~
From Paper 188, "The Time of the Tomb", sub-section 4, "Meaning of the Cross" -
188:4.2 Jesus desired to live a full mortal life in the flesh on Urantia. Death is, ordinarily, a part of life. Death is the last act in the mortal drama. In your well-meant efforts to escape the superstitious errors of the false interpretation of the meaning of the death on the cross, you should be careful not to make the great mistake of failing to perceive the true significance and the genuine import of the Master's death.
188:4.3 Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evildoing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master's death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of mankind had come to owe him.
188:4.4 Before Jesus lived on earth, you might possibly have been justified in believing in such a God, but not since the Master lived and died among your fellow mortals. Moses taught the dignity and justice of a Creator God; but Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.
188:4.5 The animal nature—the tendency toward evil-doing—may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child. Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and the Sons' laws by an individual will creature.
188:4.6 Jesus lived and died for a whole universe, not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Urantia, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the certainty of mortal survival after death in the flesh.
188:4.7 Though it is hardly proper to speak of Jesus as a sacrificer, a ransomer, or a redeemer, it is wholly correct to refer to him as a savior. He forever made the way of salvation (survival) more clear and certain; he did better and more surely show the way of salvation for all the mortals of all the worlds of the universe of Nebadon.
In this way we see how Jesus affected our salvation, witnessing the truth of the soul's potential immortality and spirit-destiny beyond the fleshly veil,....the promise of eternal survival and the prosperity of all sons of God who remain loyal to God's will.
pj
meaning of the cross.....part 1
~*~*~
From Paper 188, "The Time of the Tomb", sub-section 4, "Meaning of the Cross" -
188:4.2 Jesus desired to live a full mortal life in the flesh on Urantia. Death is, ordinarily, a part of life. Death is the last act in the mortal drama. In your well-meant efforts to escape the superstitious errors of the false interpretation of the meaning of the death on the cross, you should be careful not to make the great mistake of failing to perceive the true significance and the genuine import of the Master's death.
188:4.3 Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evildoing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master's death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of mankind had come to owe him.
188:4.4 Before Jesus lived on earth, you might possibly have been justified in believing in such a God, but not since the Master lived and died among your fellow mortals. Moses taught the dignity and justice of a Creator God; but Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.
188:4.5 The animal nature—the tendency toward evil-doing—may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child. Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and the Sons' laws by an individual will creature.
188:4.6 Jesus lived and died for a whole universe, not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Urantia, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the certainty of mortal survival after death in the flesh.
188:4.7 Though it is hardly proper to speak of Jesus as a sacrificer, a ransomer, or a redeemer, it is wholly correct to refer to him as a savior. He forever made the way of salvation (survival) more clear and certain; he did better and more surely show the way of salvation for all the mortals of all the worlds of the universe of Nebadon.
In this way we see how Jesus affected our salvation, witnessing the truth of the soul's potential immortality and spirit-destiny beyond the fleshly veil,....the promise of eternal survival and the prosperity of all sons of God who remain loyal to God's will.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
meaning of the cross.....part 2
meaning of the cross.....part 2
~*~*~
Paper 188: 4: 8-13....
188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
188:4.9 All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one's fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer's chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one's fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
188:4.10 Neither do genuine believers trouble themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.
188:4.11 Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.
188:4.12 The great thing about the death of Jesus, as it is related to the enrichment of human experience and the enlargement of the way of salvation, is not the fact of his death but rather the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.
188:4.13 This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth, the brotherhood of man. It is true, after all, that you are to be "forgiven your debts, even as you forgive your debtors."
This section gives us the papers clear view of the meaning of the cross, from this particular collective of celestials. One can of course, take it or leave it,...but it fits within the greater context of the Revelation itself, and purports to hold its value for some time for humanity, at least many centuries to come.
pj
meaning of the cross.....part 2
~*~*~
Paper 188: 4: 8-13....
188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
188:4.9 All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one's fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer's chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one's fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
188:4.10 Neither do genuine believers trouble themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.
188:4.11 Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.
188:4.12 The great thing about the death of Jesus, as it is related to the enrichment of human experience and the enlargement of the way of salvation, is not the fact of his death but rather the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.
188:4.13 This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth, the brotherhood of man. It is true, after all, that you are to be "forgiven your debts, even as you forgive your debtors."
This section gives us the papers clear view of the meaning of the cross, from this particular collective of celestials. One can of course, take it or leave it,...but it fits within the greater context of the Revelation itself, and purports to hold its value for some time for humanity, at least many centuries to come.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
Bullocks. God sent Him for JUST this reason: to shed His Blood...
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus knew (way better than you OR Urantia, what He was doing. The Apostles didn't write fiction. The Holy Bible is God's Word. You believe the WRONG BOOK. :duh:
Without Jesus' Blood we are covered with and completely immersed in sin. He washes us clean. Completely clean.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Partaking of the elements......
Partaking of the elements......
The former commentary stands in its clarity on this matter. To assume Jesus came 'JUST' to be a blood-sacrifice is indefensible, and only 'believed' in this sense by those who hold this kind of theology. As shared previously various 'atonement' concepts can be connected to the cross of the Lord, but its a matter of how that event is 'interpreted'.
The 'Eucharist' can be variously translated, and could have originated with Paul actually, and later incorporated into the gospels, but we've covered that elsewhere. Nevertheless, the partaking of the fruit of the wine (grapejuice or whatever liquid) symbolizes the life of God, which by its very nature is purifying,....it nourishes/revitalizes. Both blood and bread are life-giving elements, symbolic of the Source of life. The Eucharist was more of a thanksgiving meal celebration (one of 'remebrance'), partaken by early believers as a 'love feast' of sorts....which became merged with earlier and later 'atonement' concepts. The papers present it more like that, regarding the kingdom of heaven, a 'communion' of believers joined in spiritual unity. No blood-atonement concept is incorporated in the ceremony, but the mutual sharing of the life of God in the Spirit, is the focus. It is life in the Spirit that is shared, with the remembrance of the Lord Jesus at the heart.
The Last Supper
pj
Partaking of the elements......
The former commentary stands in its clarity on this matter. To assume Jesus came 'JUST' to be a blood-sacrifice is indefensible, and only 'believed' in this sense by those who hold this kind of theology. As shared previously various 'atonement' concepts can be connected to the cross of the Lord, but its a matter of how that event is 'interpreted'.
The 'Eucharist' can be variously translated, and could have originated with Paul actually, and later incorporated into the gospels, but we've covered that elsewhere. Nevertheless, the partaking of the fruit of the wine (grapejuice or whatever liquid) symbolizes the life of God, which by its very nature is purifying,....it nourishes/revitalizes. Both blood and bread are life-giving elements, symbolic of the Source of life. The Eucharist was more of a thanksgiving meal celebration (one of 'remebrance'), partaken by early believers as a 'love feast' of sorts....which became merged with earlier and later 'atonement' concepts. The papers present it more like that, regarding the kingdom of heaven, a 'communion' of believers joined in spiritual unity. No blood-atonement concept is incorporated in the ceremony, but the mutual sharing of the life of God in the Spirit, is the focus. It is life in the Spirit that is shared, with the remembrance of the Lord Jesus at the heart.
The Last Supper
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
You couldn't be more perfectly mistaken, since the holy communion is designed to show forth His sacrificial death...
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
If you were to partake of holy communion with that thought in mind you might get weak, sick or even die. One must examine oneself and discern The Lord's Body when one takes the elements, or you are considered guilty of putting Him to death yourself. You eat and drink damnation unto yourself. It isn't surprising, considering what you have accepted as 'truth' by following Urantia and other demonic doctrine.
It was your sin, my sin, whomever is taking holy communion, we must realize that it was our sin that cost The Lord His Life. He paid our sin-debt. We drink His Blood to be forgiven of sin. We eat His Body to be healed of sickness.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
If you were to partake of holy communion with that thought in mind you might get weak, sick or even die. One must examine oneself and discern The Lord's Body when one takes the elements, or you are considered guilty of putting Him to death yourself. You eat and drink damnation unto yourself. It isn't surprising, considering what you have accepted as 'truth' by following Urantia and other demonic doctrine.
It was your sin, my sin, whomever is taking holy communion, we must realize that it was our sin that cost The Lord His Life. He paid our sin-debt. We drink His Blood to be forgiven of sin. We eat His Body to be healed of sickness.
Jesus and Melchizedek shared the same TA:
(1016.1) 93:2.7 This incarnated Melchizedek received a Thought Adjuster, who indwelt his superhuman personality as the monitor of time and the mentor of the flesh, thus gaining that experience and practical introduction to Urantian problems and to the technique of indwelling an incarnated Son which enabled this spirit of the Father to function so valiantly in the human mind of the later Son of God, Michael, when he appeared on earth in the likeness of mortal flesh. And this is the only Thought Adjuster who ever functioned in two minds on Urantia, but both minds were divine as well as human.
Colter
(1016.1) 93:2.7 This incarnated Melchizedek received a Thought Adjuster, who indwelt his superhuman personality as the monitor of time and the mentor of the flesh, thus gaining that experience and practical introduction to Urantian problems and to the technique of indwelling an incarnated Son which enabled this spirit of the Father to function so valiantly in the human mind of the later Son of God, Michael, when he appeared on earth in the likeness of mortal flesh. And this is the only Thought Adjuster who ever functioned in two minds on Urantia, but both minds were divine as well as human.
Colter
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
the emblems as tokens of life-giving substance......
the emblems as tokens of life-giving substance......
According to Paul this is emphasized and quoted as below. Note that Paul claimed he received this as a revelation from the Lord, - it was likely one of the many 'revelations' he claimed to receive....but he is the one who gave it its specific entailments and 'interpretation' per 'his gospel'. If this really originated by Paul and was later incorporated into the gospels, then it 'props' Jesus as instituting such as a 'eucharist', although originally this might have been merely a sacred communal meal, with the emblems representing certain spiritual meanings. As time went on, these 'tokens' took on deeper significance or symbolism which played into the relating belief-concepts of 'communion', 'atonement' and 'sacrifice' of those times. In any case a 'covenant-relationship' was a vow of loyalty, faith and spiritual sharing with any given deity or pantheon of deities
Again, this is Paul's own revelation or opinion on the 'eucharist' as he formulated or knew it. The view of the papers on this have already been shared, and it suffices adequately in its explanation, with no further improvising or redactions needed. One can accept the papers view or not, and other views exist on the 'eucharist' so that its how one interprets it.
pj
the emblems as tokens of life-giving substance......
According to Paul this is emphasized and quoted as below. Note that Paul claimed he received this as a revelation from the Lord, - it was likely one of the many 'revelations' he claimed to receive....but he is the one who gave it its specific entailments and 'interpretation' per 'his gospel'. If this really originated by Paul and was later incorporated into the gospels, then it 'props' Jesus as instituting such as a 'eucharist', although originally this might have been merely a sacred communal meal, with the emblems representing certain spiritual meanings. As time went on, these 'tokens' took on deeper significance or symbolism which played into the relating belief-concepts of 'communion', 'atonement' and 'sacrifice' of those times. In any case a 'covenant-relationship' was a vow of loyalty, faith and spiritual sharing with any given deity or pantheon of deities
Again, this is Paul's own revelation or opinion on the 'eucharist' as he formulated or knew it. The view of the papers on this have already been shared, and it suffices adequately in its explanation, with no further improvising or redactions needed. One can accept the papers view or not, and other views exist on the 'eucharist' so that its how one interprets it.
pj
- Status