Paul, in 1 Corinthians, makes several references to the cup of the Lord, sometimes referring to the blood of Christ.
Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament) says that it is important for our understanding of early Christian practice to know that it was customary for an association to acknowledge the purpose of its gathering by making some reference to its patron god at an appropriate juncture, such as when a round of wine was poured and toasts were to be made. A small libation was poured from a cup and some form of invocation uttered, sometimes referring to the wine as blood.
Evidence of Mack's meaning can be found in 1 Corinthians 10:21: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils", which can be understood to mean that you can not acknowledge both Jesus and the devil in your libations.
Jesus's blood is the cup of wine and the bread is his body
Wine (Jesus' Blood)It's disputed. Catholics and most orthodox churches believe that it was wine transformed into blood, whereas other Christians insist it is only symbolic of Jesus' blood.
Jesus offered the cup of his blood to his apostles at the last supper, that is where it began.
A small fragment of the consecrated bread ( host) is put into the cup. Originally meant as a sign of unity with the Pope, it is interpreted as a sign of the resurrection of Jesus, reuniting the body withthe blood.
A challis is a cup where, in Catholicism, wine is put in and blessed as the Blood of Jesus Christ. Those in the mass who have received Holy Communion will drink a little from this cup.
It is a cup which holds the wine of Jesus' blood in the sacrament of Holy Communion. It can also be any large cup or bowl for liquids, or to drink from.
the body is the body of jesus and blood is jesus blood... ! :))
For the last supper , the cup of wine stands for the blood of Christ shed on the cross.
the holloy cup
The Blood of Jesus was created in 1941.
No.Some believe that Jesus turned the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his blood. However, Jesus' fleshly body was still intact when he offered this bread. Were Jesus' apostles really eating his literal flesh and drinking his blood? No, for that would have been cannibalism and a violation of God's law. (Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10)According to Luke 22:20, Jesus said: "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (KJV) Did that cup literally become "the new testament"? That would be impossible, since a testament or covenant is an agreement, not a tangible object.
Jesus was born with a body and blood.