Denying the Eucharistgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
How can someone deny that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Our Lord. He tells us many times and repeated it over and over that His Body and Blood are true food and drink. He also states many times as many of the early Church teachers wrote, not to recieve Our Lord unworthily. How can this be twisted into meaning faith alone? "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have everlasting lifeI await your answer.
KeV
-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez398spl@charter.net), December 17, 2003.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004
From my experience most people who argue for faith alone, tend to go to great lengths to argue that the Eucharist is symbolic. The problem with this viewpoint is that it betrays the sense that we get from scripture. After all, the jews were agast that Jesus said you had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. This was an absolutely repulsive idea to them. Even his disciples said:John 6:60
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
If it were truly symbolic would it be a hard teaching to accept?
Also, as KeV rightly points out, 1 Corinthians 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." The Eucharist is a very important part of our faith.
However, those who view it as symbolic, treat it as a very minor issue. For example, when I was a Baptist, we might have communion once per year. Very infrequently, given that it is something that Jesus actually commanded us to do.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
James, Would you mind telling your converion story? If you have already a link in fine, just woundering what it was that made you look into the catholic faith. Family co workers, sutdying catholic books? Thx, KeV
-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez398spl@charter.net), December 16, 2003.
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:29)
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God... Now where remission of these, there is no more offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:12,18).
"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. 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" (1 Corinthians 11:24,25).
Bread remains bread, wine remains wine. it is only done in remembrance. Your heart must be right with God in taking the Lord's Supper. "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" (1 Corinthians 11:27). Notice, even the writer calls it "bread" and "drink".
"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:33,51).
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:17,18).
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" (John 10:11).
"I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10:28).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53,54). Romans Catholics do not "drink" his blood and only offer the "flesh". If it was literal, you are damning yourself for not "drinking" his blood.
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:30, 31).
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
Notice how you cling to a few words.... "Every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54).
Tell me, Who are they wwho "have eternal life"? Only those who participate in the ordiance of the Lord's Supper? If by that definition, Roman Catholics are guilty of removing the wine from it, and thus damn themselves by the very own words of Jesus.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
John 6 1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
16 And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
18 And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
Notice, Verse 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. It does not say "dwelleth in bread". We dwell in him, and He dwells with us. When we believe, we are placed in the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13) as Jesus said.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
Romans Catholics (after how many years?) continue to agree with the Jews misunderstanding of Jesus' words. True Christians don't. True Christians (as did the Apostles) understand that eternal life is for those who believe in Christ. That's the "hard" teaching to accept. And it is obvious because so many add works into salvation. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
James said,"However, those who view it as symbolic, treat it as a very minor issue. For example, when I was a Baptist, we might have communion once per year. Very infrequently, given that it is something that Jesus actually commanded us to do." James, you can take the Lord's Supper every day if you want, as long as you are right with God. The thing you call the Eucharist is just a ritual, and means nothing. It becomes another habit just like waking up every sunday morning to go to church or burshing your teeth (<--- i hope that's a habit for some)
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
If a person goes without the ritual of brushing or "burshing" their teeth, a person could either gum their food all day or buy false teeth. I'm sure we can get the meaning from this imagery. ...................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
What was Jesus asking us to believe in John 6? Christ said, "This is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life"
Clearly this believing, [which he likens to eating Him] is a "once for all" act!
He doesn't say it must be done 20 times, a thousand times, once a day, or once a week.
The moment a person believes on Christ, he or she receives forgiveness of sins and everlasting life as a free gift of God's grace.
Clearly, a person who has received eternal life by once believing-- need never repeat the act. Otherwise... everlasting life is misnamed!! Because something that is everlasting, must last forever., and it need not be renewed or reinforced.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath [present possession] everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread that cometh down from heaven that man may eat thereof and not die. What is Jesus asking them to believe??
Is he asking them to believe that he is a loaf of bread? Or is he asking them to believe that he is who he claims to be...The One sent from heaven?
Take a look at the responses of some of the hearers... "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
They said, "Is this not Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
It is clear to me what they were having trouble believing.
This verse in John 6 above: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)......is a prophetic look to the cross.
Where did Christ give His flesh? Not at the Last Supper, but on the cross!!
The Jews argued among thenselves....."How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
It was and still is against the law for a Jew to partake of blood. Surely then, Christ would not require Christian or Jew to drink His literal, physical blood. That he was refering to believing in Him and illustrating it by the symbol of eating and drinking is clear....It is a consistent teaching that believing gives eternal life.., yet He says that only by eating Him can one have life. This is an irreconcilable contradiction--unless of course, eating is a synonym for believing
Christ's new body in which He now resides at the Father's right hand in heaven has no blood and cannot die. The old body whose life was in the blood no longer exists. Paul said, "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him [as he was before the cross] no more" (2 Cor. 5:16).
The fact that some of Christ's hearers were caught up in the literal words of Christ...does not mean they were right. They were missing the real meaning in Jesus' teaching, as does the Catholic Church today....
Jesus responds to their confusion by saying, "The Spirit gives life!!!!!! The flesh counts for nothing............. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet there are some of you who do not believe
Believe what????
They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who came down from heaven to die for the world!!!
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2003.
Faith-- What if you are wrong? What will happen to my Salvation, if I believe what you say and you are wrong?
........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
She is not wrong, as she just showed you. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
Before we get too involved in this discussion, Faith, let us make it very clear that there are two key points that you are using in your interpretation against "transubstantiation". 1. Jewish Tradition.
2. Gnostic overtones in the understanding of the word "eat".
I would like to know exactly how you have come to interpret "eat" as to "understand or believe" without utilizing Jewish Tradition and Gnostic reasoning. The reason I mention these two is because these two were the very ones that rejected the truth about The Bread sent from Heaven--Jesus Christ Our Saviour.
If we believe in "Transubstantiation", then we truly destroy the Jewish Tradition and the Gnosticism. If we reject it, we are aligned with the two. So, how do you circumvent the two and still maintain your belief against the Holy Eucharist?
............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
rod, Gnostic beliefs derived from a blurred Christianity.
We do not "interpret" the word eat, Jesus Christ did!
"Every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54).
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
rod, does God dwell in bread or in the Human Heart? If he dwells in the human heart, it makes no sense that he will go dwell in a normal piece of bread just so you can put it back in your mouth and eat it and he can dwell in your stomach. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
Not only "blurred", they had the arrogance to "know" what God is. They "knew" the meaning of eternal life. Their "gnosis" would one day make them a god. The "knew" because they "ate" and therefore understood. They were extremely self-enlightened thinkers and believed they could find salvation withing the self. They view Jesus as one with the answers, but not as their literal Saviour. It would follow that the "eating" of His body would be purely symbolic. Gnosticism has an intellectual way of steering people into one's damnation. It would seem to me that God would provide the way from the arrogance of men and into His Kingdom through Jesus Christ. What better way to destroy such wolves as stated in John 6:54? The same would apply for the Jewish Traditions and Laws, which were practiced in denial of His Only Begotten Son. Of course, the Jews would walk away; it was not in their nature or tradition to believe in such a thing. If we too believe like the Gnostics and the Law followers, then we too believe like them. But, if we do not, then what are we? We must not look at it from our human perceptions, but from a faithful perception.
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
Answer my question rod. I am not talking about Gnostics. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
"Normal piece of bread?" Could the same thing be considered of a normal pond of water in the Baptism of a person? It is only water, but it is something significant. Does the bread be required to be made of something more? Jesus said that it was the spirit, not the flesh. So, of what significance would our digestive system have to do with any of this? Would you actually believe that Jesus would have a role with our digestive systems? He said, "Spirit". I have seen the faithful partake in the Holy Eucharist. And in so doing, their faith became clear as a family of believers.
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
This is "The Eucharist" thread, don't bring baptism into this. The words of Jesus were spiritual.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
rod said,"I have seen the faithful partake in the Holy Eucharist."
The faithful Christian does not partake in the Eucharist. We partake in the Lord's Supper. You still have not answered my question. Does God dwell in the heart or in bread? The Eucharist does not become the literal flesh of Jesus, and Roman Catholics are leaving the Wine out, so how can that become "real" blood?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
Do you know why I mentioned the Gnostics and Jewish Traditions? It is related to accepting Christ or the denial of Him, in this case. I am trying to say that we may be missing the whole thing by subscribing to "Once Saved, Always Saved" or "Self-enlightenment". I think that John 6:54 makes a definite line to cross or to run from. Gnosticism and Law (Holy) are very much alive today. The idea of ritualized communion has also been interjected here. It would seem to be alluding to "Once Saved, Always Saved" doctrines. My question to OSAS is this: Why work at sanctification and the struggle to keep it if OSAS is true?
Faith's post seems to imply a belief in OSAS.
........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.
rod, answer the question. We are not talking about Eternal Security. I am not talking about Gnostics. We are talking about the Eucharist and if it is literal or not. It is not literal, and is only symbolic. Jesus said "do it in rememberance of me". -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
We are not talking about baptism; we are talking about the idea of symbolism and making a parallel about symbolism . Also, the insignificance of the material object: water, bread, flesh. The real significance is the spirit, Our Christ. Yes He is in our minds, our words, and our hearts. Our souls may one day be with Him.
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.
rod, Do you or Do you not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
rod, I believe you have a false view of Eternal Security. Please start another thread and tells us what you think it means. -- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
http://www.letusreason.org/OCC1.htm rod, read that one the topic of "confusing the doctrines of justification and sanctification"
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
David, you are trying to limit my discussion within specific terms, but have a re-look at Faith's post. She has opened the discussion to other specific terms. I am answering to her post. "It was and still is against the law for a Jew to partake of blood. Surely then, Christ would not require Christian or Jew to drink His literal, physical blood. That he was refering to believing in Him and illustrating it by the symbol of eating and drinking is clear....It is a consistent teaching that believing gives eternal life.., yet He says that only by eating Him can one have life. This is an irreconcilable contradiction--unless of course, eating is a synonym for believing "
My comments are aligned with her assertions. Are you saying that I should not make my views or that my views are not accepted here? Our views are different. One might have the correct belief or neither. So, let's just make that understanding. I simply question the possibility of being wrong and exactly how comes to that conclusion. My views, as stated earlier, offer the other side of the coin.
...........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.
David says: "If by that definition, Roman Catholics are guilty of removing the wine from it, and thus damn themselves by the very own words of Jesus."
We actually use wine in our Eucharist so you are wrong here David. Actually, if anyone is guilty of disregarding the words of scripture in this regard, it is the many Baptists and other Protestants who use grape juice instead of wine. After all, can anyone read the parable of the wedding feast at Cana and not determine that Jesus drank wine? But I digress.
David also said:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Here we have it, straight from David that we are all just wasting our time. Jesus died on the cross for nothing. What died on the cross, his flesh! Nothing was gained from it. I guess we should just go read the koran, maybe it has the truth.
In reality, that statement means that OUR flesh profits us nothing. The things that pertain to our flesh are really unimportant. Jesus's flesh is crucial. It was crucial that he died on the cross and it is crucial that he gives us his flesh and blood in the eucharist.
Finally, let's remember why the faith alone crowd pushes so hard on the symbolic argument. If Jesus actually meant what he said in the Bible, then the idea that I accept Jesus as my savior and then I kick back and relax until he comes or I die is false.
KeV, I will respond to your question soon, I have a real busy week this week.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
James said,"Finally, let's remember why the faith alone crowd pushes so hard on the symbolic argument. If Jesus actually meant what he said in the Bible, then the idea that I accept Jesus as my savior and then I kick back and relax until he comes or I die is false." This is not true. Kevin does not believe in "faith alone" but still denies the Eucharist. It is symbolic.
And you also said: "David also said:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." "
I did not say that, that's what is in the bible.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Is James (stinkcat) still with us?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Please see my thread, which refutes the idea of Jesus' flesh counting for nothing.John 6:63 - Does Jesus' Flesh Profit Nothing? (Refuting the Protestant argument against the Eucharist).
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.
Emily,Non-Catholics don't believe that.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
James said,"Here we have it, straight from David that we are all just wasting our time. Jesus died on the cross for nothing. What died on the cross, his flesh! Nothing was gained from it. I guess we should just go read the koran, maybe it has the truth."Did you noticed that I said no such thing? He came up with that all by himself because I posted one verse.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
David, I did not quote anyone in my post here. I know that Protestants don't believe that, but it is the logical conclusion from when they use John 6:63 to argue against the Eucharist. That is what I was saying. Please read the entire thread to which I linked, or at least my posts, and you will see. On this thread, I was actually responding to Faith's statement when she said this:The fact that some of Christ's hearers were caught up in the literal words of Christ...does not mean they were right. They were missing the real meaning in Jesus' teaching, as does the Catholic Church today....
Jesus responds to their confusion by saying, "The Spirit gives life!!!!!! The flesh counts for nothing............. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet there are some of you who do not believe
I was attempting to show that the logical conclusion of applying John 6:63 to the doctrine of the Eucharist shows that Jesus' flesh counts for nothing (which is obviously false).
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.
Emily,Look at these parallel passages in John 6:
v.40 - And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
v.44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
v.47 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
v.54 - Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Emily, your link at the Catholic Forum on support of the reasl presence of the eucharist Miracle of Lancianosomehow is just one of many the church I belonged to has used to convince people when scripture doesn't attest it.
I heard sotories from grandma like the one you used. I still don't buy it.
We are prohibted from eating human flesh. So Jesus blood and flesh cannot be physical but spiritual.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.
Elpidio said: somehow is just one of many the church I belonged to has used to convince people when scripture doesn't attest it.The problem with what you said is that Scripture does attest to it. The belief of the Real Presence is clear in Scripture, and miracles such as the one I posted only reaffirm this. I was not posting it as "proof" of the Real Presence, but because Zarove specifically asked for miracles. I just gave him what he asked for.
Let's look at Exodus 25:30
KJV: And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.
NIV: Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.
NASB: "You shall set (1) the bread of the Presence on the table before Me at all times.
Amplified: And you shall set the showbread (the bread of the Presence) on the table before Me always.(1)
ESV: And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me regularly.
NKJV: And you shall set the showbread on the table before Me always.
Young's Literal: and thou hast put on the table bread of the presence before Me continually.
Here's what my NIV Study Bible says on the issue:
"bread of the Presence." Traditionally "showbread." In this phrase, "Presence" refers to the presence of God Himself (as in Ex. 33:14-15; Isa. 63:9). The bread (twelve loaves, one for each tribe) represented a perpetual bread offering to the Lord by which Israel declared that she consecrated to God the fruits of her labors, and by which she at the same time acknowledged that all such fruit had been hers only by God's blessing. See Lev. 24:5-9.
For more verses in the OT on the "bread of the Presence" or "shewbread," see this list.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.
Emily,you are the first person I have witnessed to use the idea that the bread of the presence (shewbread) is identical with Jesus flesh and blood transformation in the mass.
If your assertion is correct, then, this negates Jesus sacrifice.
Since there was already the bread before God...
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.
No, Elpidio. It's not identical. I was using it as an example that the concept existed among the Jews too. This in no way negates Jesus' sacrifice. All of the sacrifices in the OT were insufficient, and they were awaiting the sacrifice of Jesus, the once for all sacrifice. Now His body and blood from that one sacrifice are re-presented at every mass.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.
Emily,Where does the Bible say that Christ's "body and blood" are "re-presented at every mass"???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Check out this link:Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Also check out this link:The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper:
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Hi Kevin,I noticed a couple problems with the information in the link you provided titled Refuted: the Catholic false doctine of "transubstantiation".
First, the author implies that Catholics and Greek Orthodox believe that the bread and wine are not physically bread and wine anymore. Transubstantiation and the doctine of the Real Presence is that Jesus is literally and wholly present under the physical appearance of bread and wine. That is, for all physical appearances (including the molecular level) it appears to be just bread and wine. It is only with the eyes of faith that we see Jesus truly present in the Eucharist. Therefore, use of the terms "bread" or "wine" in Scripture isn't a problem with regards to the doctrine.
The author states that Irenaeus and Justin Martyr did not believe in the Real Presence. I find this hard to believe given the following quotes:
"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. "
-from Justin Martyr's First Apology
"2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies."
-from Book 5 of Against Heresies, Ch II, Par. 2 by Irenaeus
Then there is Ignatius, who may have been taught by the Apostle John.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again."
-from Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyraeans
Use of the words "memorial" or "remembrance" are also not a problem. The Eucharist is a remembrance, but so much more.
Finally, why does the author keep referring to juice instead of wine? Wasn't wine used at the Last Supper?
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 18, 2004.
Yes, it was wine. Jesus turned the water into wine. Had it been only juice, Jesus would not have made a miracle. Anyone can make "juice" on the spot. The making of wine takes a long time for the fermentation to "take". Squashing a few fruits into water is not miracle and certainly no wine. As for the Last Supper, why would it not be wine?..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
I'm curious where the idea that juice, not wine was used at the Last Supper comes from. From what I could find, Jews celebrate Passover with wine at the Seder meals, not juice. The wine must be kosher is all I found. The references I found only referred to the removal of leavened foods for Passover. This was only after 15 minutes of looking, so I easily could have missed something. Anyone familiar with the finer details of how Passover is celebrated?
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 18, 2004.
For some reason I don't think that wine talked about then was not the same as wine today.
-- (@@@.@), May 18, 2004.
New wine can burst old winebags. Juice doesn't do such a thing, unless it begins to ferment. For some reason, why would one suspect that the wine was not alcoholic?.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Let's remember that the instruction was to avoid drunken-ness. People don't actually get drunk on apple juice or grape juice...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
If the Lord's Supper LITERALLY becomes Jesus body and His blood, how is Jesus going to LITERALLY eat His body and His blood in light of such passages as Matthew 26:29 and Luke 22:18???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Good point, Kevin.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Hi Kevin,You do bring up a good point, but Catholics believe that the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood at the "words of institution" which are "this is my body" and "this is my blood". I might have missed it because I don't want to see it, but I don't think that Scripture says he ate the bread or drank from the cup after he said those "words of institution." He took the bread and the cup and gave it to his disciples.
Even if what I say is true, you may ask then, how can the bread and wine literally be Christ's body and blood when he is there in flesh and blood in front of the Apostles handing them the bread and wine? The only answer I have is that He is God and it is a mystery. There are a lot of people out there much smarter and more holy than I am. They may have a good answer. How does Jesus raise the dead or heal the sick or defeat death and come back from the dead glorified? How He does these things is a mystery to me. I guess the only answer I have is because he is the Word of God through which all things are made.
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 18, 2004.
I too Andy, believed in mysteries: He is God and it is a mystery referring to the eucharist.The number of mysteries is decreasing: - Shroud of turin not actual burial cloth (around 1200 AD). Scripture also speaks of pices of cloth. - Image Guadalupe was painted by Indian Marcos Ipac de Aquino around 1528. He had been accused of concubinage. He had married 3 women before. As part of his penance he was asked to paint. - The sun got closer during the miracle of the sun infatima, portugal , 1917. As far as I know, people could have been scorched if it truly ever happened. - Alchemy has been a science many times used to preserved bodies, not just to make lead into gold.
Lenin, the founder of Russian Commnism was embalmed.Lenin's body has been preserved miracoulasly by science.. Is he a saint? No. I am saying this becasue the blood of San Genaro , .... and so on have been used as proofs for something being from God or being proof of someone's sainthood.
It is about time we begin so separate the facts from the fiction.
This coming from a believerin the supernatural.
I believe the 3rd secret of Fatima is true.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
My biggest misteries are these: why always Mary asks people to pray the rosary? Why she calls herself the mother of God? Why Jesus asks people to pray tohis heart? Why Hell and purgatory are places of fire or torment?Great misteries indeed.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Even God was a mistery. No more for me.
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Do Catholics believe that Christ gets in them by literally eating his body and his blood offered during the Eucharist???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Andy,If you believe that the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (as the Catholic Church teaches) to be a mystery, then you have been misled. The ONLY reason they want you to believe it is a mystery is because they CANNOT PROVE this doctrine from the word of God. There is NO real presence in the Eucharist (which is the Lord's Supper) for if this were the case, then there is a contradiction in Scripture for God has PLAINLY revealed that we (Gentiles) are to ABSTAIN from blood. (Acts 15:20, 29).
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Kevin?Are you being impersonated?
The following doesn't sound like your style:
"Do Catholics believe that Christ gets in them by literally eating his body and his blood offered during the Eucharist??? "
It doesn't seem like your style to ask a question that you would obviously know the answer to. You would quickly make your assertions clear as to the "ERROR" of their beliefs.
...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Yes Rod, I asked the question.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.
Hi all,I'm sorry using the word "mystery" to describe "how" Christ instituted the Eucharist has caused so much turmoil. I didn't mean to imply that I'm writing off the doctrine as "just a mystery." That sounds like a cop-out. I do believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence is supported by both Scripture and Tradition.
There are a lot of things that are a mystery as to how they came about or how they work. How did God form man from clay and create a living being from dust? How did He form matter from nothing? What are the mechanics of such a process? I don't know, it's a mystery. That's along the lines of what I was trying to say. If we could prove everything conclusively then we wouldn't need faith. If we knew how everything worked then we would be divine, or at least supernatural.
You all bring up good points. Elpidio, you make good points about separating fact from fiction. I try to do that, but I know I fall short at times due to my personal biases. Kevin, I see where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Scripture. Those verses from Acts refers to blood from animals (and humans too, I suppose) not the Divine blood of Christ which is something totally different. Besides, Christ Himself told us we need to eat His flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. But then, here we go again, almost right where we started at in the thread with our different interpretations of John 6.
-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 18, 2004.
At last this mystery is cleared,Andy.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Let me throw out a few more "mysteries" to chew on that I think fit in the same category of mystery as the doctrine of the Real Presence.How about the Incarnation? How can Jesus be God and man at the same time? How can this be? How could infinite knowledge that is God be contained in a finite body? How about the Trinity? How can there be three persons in one God? Is that some sort of doublespeak for Christians to get around being called polytheists? I believe that Scripture supports both the Incarnation and the Trinity, yet there are certain details that are truly mysterious about how they happened or how they can be. IMHO, certain conclusions about these doctrines we accept based on faith because our human minds cannot grasp the whole meaning of the revealed truth just yet.
Elpidio, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point of view may be that the Incarnation and Trinity aren't mysteries at all, but are really misinterpretations of Scripture. Am I describing your view correctly?
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 18, 2004.
Well, Andy, since ypou asked:Elpidio, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point of view may be that the Incarnation and Trinity aren't mysteries at all, but are really misinterpretations of Scripture. Am I describing your view correctly?
On the incarnation
Let's compare: In Catholic Dogma, God enters Mary's body. She enters her ovule and somehow he adopts human form:Jesus. No human sexual contact was evr involved to create Jesus. Later, without ever touching and tearing her hymen, just like when water passes through cracks, Jesus exits Mary's body.
I still wonder how he did it.
Protestant version: Mary a virgin. God incarnated in Mary. Jesus is born like all kids. Mary later has more kids this time with Joseph.
Arrian Version: Mary still Mary a virgin. God's word became flesh when it entered Mary's body. There was a time when the word wasn't with God, so he wasn't God at one time. Unsure as to how Jesus came out of Mary.
Jehovah's Witness version: Mary still a virgin. God sent the archangel Michael to Earth. He entered Mary. Jesus came out like all babies do.
My version:
Mary and Joseph marry. They had been told that they we going to have a son in their dreams. They are told the child is going to have a mission from God.Joseph and Mary pray for a son. Mary and Joseph had sexual relations like all couples do. Mary gets pregnant. Jesus comes out like all babies do.
Later, Mary and Joseph decide to have more kids: Jacob(James), Simon, Judas, Joseph, Shelomit(Salome),...
of these, the first 3 play an important role in the early Church. Since the Church gets dispersed due to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Gentiles make Jesus brothers and sisters his relatives. Jesus becomes God.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
My version:God Yahweh decides to send a savior into the world. Someone who would lead people to follow God. So he chooses Joseph and Mary.
Mary and Joseph marry.They had been told that they we going to have a son in their dreams. They are told the child is going to have a mission from God.Joseph and Mary pray for a son. Mary and Joseph had sexual relations like all couples do. Mary gets pregnant. Jesus comes out like all babies do.
Later, Mary and Joseph decide to have more kids: Jacob(James), Simon, Judas, Joseph, Shelomit(Salome),...
John the Baptist is told in a dream that Messiah is the one on whom a dove will sit after being baptized by him.
Andrew becomes the first discipe to recognize God had chosen Jesus for the great mission ahead.
Of Jesus brothers, the first 3 play an important role in the early Church. Since the Church gets dispersed due to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Gentiles make Jesus brothers and sisters his relatives.
Jesus becomes God.
The rest is history.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
Thanks Elipidio.
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 19, 2004.
As for the Trinity, Andy,you will see my response once I answer David Ortiz' 100 questions. This will be before the end of May.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.
"This will be before the end of May"a dream or a promise!!!!!!!!!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 19, 2004.
David, delete the previous response. You know is not mine.That is probably Tom. Look at my signature.
Then delete this response.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.
I need to correct something I said in an earlier post:First, the author implies that Catholics and Greek Orthodox believe that the bread and wine are not physically bread and wine anymore.
Actually, the author is correct. Catholics do believe the bread and wine are not physically bread and wine anymore (through "transubtantiation"). However, the rest of my post stands. It still "appears" to physically be just bread and wine.
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 20, 2004.
Reformation churches do not deny the presence of Christ during the Lord’s Supper or that it is an act of thanksgiving. Rather the objection is to the description of the elements in the meal.Traditional Reformed theology objects to the description of the Lord’s Supper as a transubstantiation from bread and wine to the localized (contained) presence of Jesus’ body and blood because is contrary to the command in Exodus 20:4-5, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…”
Just as we would not be instructed to steal or lie to be a faithful Christian, Jesus would not intend us to create an idol (a manufactured item being transformed into a god). Aquinas did the church universal no favor when he attempted to give a “scientific” explanation (with Aristotelian metaphysics) and redefined what Augustine rightly called the Sacraments as the “Word made visible” (Tanquam visible verbum) and per modum symboli–“in the manner of a symbol.”
I agree that some current American Protestant traditions view the sacrament as a “nice” thing to do – but are afraid of being “too Roman” if they are overly serious (liturgical) in their behavior or frequency with the sacrament. That sacrament “light” attitude (initially promoted by Zwingli and company) was rejected early on by all of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc).
The sacrament is a remembrance that places us with the disciples in mind and experience with Christ. As Christ served them, he serves us. The consecration (setting aside) of the bread and wine is intended to transform us by the presence of Jesus Christ and is a sign and seal of his covenant (promises) with us.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 20, 2004.
Exodus 20:4-5, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…”Which version is that?
.....
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.
Dear Rod;It is from the NRSV and it should have read, "... or that is on the earth beneath..." Sorry for the typo.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 20, 2004.
Ah! and by coincindence , that's the version I do not have. Thanks, Robert........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.
rod, try this New Revised Standard Version
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.
or this Rodhttp://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 20, 2004.
or this if you are serious about the Bible ;-))http://www.scriptours.com/bible/
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 20, 2004.