The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#57
Here.

Matthew: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Mark:  And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke: In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
1 Cor:  In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

So, in Luke and 1 Cor we have an invalid Mass reflected, right?

Or are Matthew and Mark invalid because they don't mention the chalice?

Or all we all screwed because in Luke, Christ only meant He shed His Blood for the Apostles present at the time?

If you can tell me why there are "invalid" confections in the Gospels and Epistle of Paul according to your logic, then I'll start to believe that "for all" makes the confection invalid.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-20-2010, 09:05 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)