|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 10/31/2009 10:23:40 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
A great question and one repeatedly left unanswered.
Is Jesus a gate? He said He was. Is He made out of wood or iron? Does He need to have His hinges oiled?
He would if he was “a gate”. Actually he is “the Gate”, literally.
[quote’Is Jesus a Lamb? He said He was. Does He have black wool or white? How often does He need to be sheared?
He would if he were a lamb. He is “the Lamb”, who was sheared.
quote:
Is Jesus a vine? He said He was. What kind of fertilizer does He prefer? How often do we need to water Him?
Why do you keep altering the Scriptures? He is not “a vine”. He is literally “the Vine.”
quote:
Why is it that these statements are understood symbolically as they were intended, but when Jesus said His body was bread, we have to take it literally?
If you don’t want to accept Jn 6:51-57, just remove it from your Bible. But don’t pretend it is just symbolism, when the Church has never believed this.
[qupte]Jesus is present through the Holy Spirit in all believers at all times. Jesus is physically in "heaven" right now, as He has been since His ascension.
The Scriptures do NOT teach that Jesus is only spiritually present to us. “Lo, I am with you always.” This Jesus has a Body. Do we believe in the Resurrection, or not?
quote:
He doesn't sneak in the back door of the church building disguised as wheat bread and grape wine. When He physically returns to Earth, we will ALL know about it.
He is here Bodily, but we don’t see it, except with the eyes of faith. “Parousia” means presence. The only difference is that at the end, we will see the Eucharist Whom many have denied, for lack of insight or faith..
May we all become as little children and just believe!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 10/31/2009 1:08:00 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2719
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
He would if he was “a gate”. Actually he is “the Gate”, literally.
I don't think you understand what the word "literally" means. That, or you change your definition.
When you he is literally bread, you mean the very substance changes into flesh. I am assuming that you don't think that my front gate also turns into flesh.
quote:
Why do you keep altering the Scriptures? He is not “a vine”. He is literally “the Vine.”
And he is not "a piece of communion bread" he is "the Bread of Life."
Why do YOU alter the Scriptures?
quote:
He is here Bodily, but we don’t see it, except with the eyes of faith.
How does that make any sense at all? People SAW Jesus' resurrected body, but we can't?
quote:
“Parousia” means presence. The only difference is that at the end, we will see the Eucharist Whom many have denied, for lack of insight or faith..
So, when you have taken Eucharist, you have SEEN flesh, veins, sinew, organs, nerves, etc?
quote:
May we all become as little children and just believe!
Another misapplication of Scripture.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 10/31/2009 1:46:38 PM
|
|
|
AskSeekKnock
Posts: 35
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
ASKSEEKNOT WROTE:
quote:
When was communion instituted?
At the Last Supper.
Wasn't communion instituted at the time of the earthy sanctuary?
Table of showbread? And the drink that was in the pictures and bowles? Was it food? Indeed Was it drink? Indeed
Why would Jesus speak to them this way? He was showing them that He is everything in the earthly sanctuary. Everything pointed to Him. When He said I am the gate, I am the lamb, My body is food and My flesh is drink, I am the light, He was telling them I am the earthly sanctuary in a way that they would understand. That is why everyone said if you are the Christ tell us plainly, and He said I told you, and you do not believe. (John 10:24-25) It is because of Jesus you are able to come before God, have forgiveness of sins, are able to be washed clean, are able to have the Holy Spirit, are able to have communion with God, and are able to come and pray.
Matthew 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
_____________________________
1 Cor. 4:7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 10/31/2009 3:39:47 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 681
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Hi ManimalX,
quote:
With all due respect, I didn't respond because Hebrews 8:1-6 does not refute anything I wrote in post #5230: http://forums.crosswalk.com/fb.aspx?m=4597531
In fact, by bringing it up you actually reinforced my point.
I don't see how Heb. 8:3 reinforces your point. Christ must have something to offer in order to be our Eternal High Priest. He eternally offers His Perfect One-Time Sacrifice just as Catholic Christians believe.
quote:
I asked patricius79 about his unbiblical claim that Jesus has to "offer Himself" on a repeated basis.
Christ's Sacrifice is eternal, not "repeated."
quote:
Making ONE sacrifice for ALL TIME and making a NEW sacrifice EVERY DAY are mutually exclusive positions.
No devout Catholic believes or has said that the Eucharist is a "NEW sacrifice" of Christ. I think you have misunderstood our position.
quote:
In other words, Roman doctrine that claims Jesus is being re-sacrificed every day is completely contrary to plain Scripture that teaches Jesus as making an all sufficient one-time sacrifice after which none other is required.
Good thing that is NOT what the Church teaches. Where do you find this "Roman doctrine?"
quote:
In fact, that is exactly the point in the passage from Hebrews you wanted me to respond to: the old system of repeated sacrifices is over. The new system of an all sufficient one-time sacrifice has come. The passage of Hebrews 8 to which you wanted me to respond concludes thus:
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:13"
And the Lamb's Sacrifice is eternal. He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world and the Lamb standing as if slain at the end of it. He is our Eternal High Priest Who must have something to offer....His One-Time Perfect Sacrifice. It is our Lord's ministry as High Priest and Victim that Catholic Christians participate in at His Eucharistic Table....the Banquet of the Lamb.
Peace,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 10/31/2009 3:45:58 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
"Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3."
For more of this article: "Christ in the Eucharist." Catholic Answers 2004 San Diego]:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asphttp://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
RAWRBEN WROTE:
quote:
quote:
No one has ever claimed that some book made of pages made from a tree is literally flesh.
1.Christians believe Jesus is the one and only Word of God.
2.protestants believe that the Bible alone is the one and only Word of God.
3. therefore protestants believe that what appears to be an ordinary book is Jesus Himselff.
You call the Bible Jesus. There’s nothing wrong with that, though it requires faith in what you cannot see. It is the same with the Mystery (“the Sacrament”).
If you say that the Bible is not Jesus, then you say that we are not saved by “Jesus alone”, since you believe—as I do—that we are saved through the Scriptures.
In this case you say we are saved through Jesus AND the Bible. But actually, the Bible is Jesus, as all Christains know. As we say,
"The Bible is the Word of God."
We can't call the Bible "the Word of God" and then say that the Bible is not literally Jesus!
quote:
If you can understand the metaphor of Yeshua being "The Word" then why can you not understand the metaphor of Him being "The Bread?"
Jesus being “the Word” is literal, and implies that all human words are symbolic of Jesus, the true Word. Jesus being “the Bread of Life” is literal, and implies that ordinary bread as a symbolic of Jesus, the true Bread.
KJB wrote:
quote:
Exactly! Jesus claims He is the Word........do they suppose their priests are going to change Jesus into Words now?
Please explain yourself better. It is God who transforms ink and paper into the Word. It is God (the Holy Spirit) who transforms ordinary bread and wine into Jesus.
RAWR.Ben Wrote:
quote:
I don't think you understand what the word "literally" means. That, or you change your definition.
Literally means honestly or actually. Jesus is actually “the Gate”, Who is symbolized by ordinary gates.
quote:
When you [say] he is literally bread, you mean the very substance [of ordinary bread] changes into flesh.
Yes.
quote:
I am assuming that you don't think that my front gate also turns into flesh.
How is this pertinent? Jesus is not an ordinary gate. He is “the Gate”, literally. We literally pass through Him to the Father.
quote:
And he is not "a piece of communion bread"
No, he is not. But He is the one Who appears as an ordinary piece of bread.
quote:
he is "the Bread of Life."
Yes!
quote:
“He is here Bodily, but we don’t see it, except with the eyes of faith.”
How does that make any sense at all?
How does it not make sense to your faith?
quote:
People SAW Jesus' resurrected body, but we can't?
I see Jesus’s Resurrected Body. The common word for Him is “the Catholic Church”, the Universal House of prayer. (cf Mk 11:17.
As Scripture says long before the Resurrection,
“I AM the Resurrection.”
And again:
“The Church, which is His Body.”
quote:
““Parousia” means presence. The only difference is that at the end, we will see the Eucharist Whom many have denied, for lack of insight or faith.”.
So, when you have taken Eucharist, you have SEEN flesh, veins, sinew, organs, nerves, etc?
Yes!-but not with my mortal eyes. I see through certain faith.
ASKSEEKWROTE:
quote:
“At the Last Supper.”
Wasn't communion instituted at the time of the earthy sanctuary?
In prefiguring way?
quote:
Table of showbread? And the drink that was in the pictures and bowles? Was it food? Indeed Was it drink? Indeed
Yes, but was it Jesus’s Body? (cf. Jn 6:55, Mt 26:26)
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/1/2009 9:33:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/4/2009 11:36:43 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
How does the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical Councils and faithful understand the Mass?:
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
Has the Catholic Church ever taught that Christ is tortured or killed again in the Mass? By no means!. As the Catholic Scriptures say,
“for by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are sanctified.”
But just as Christians recieve the Sacrifice of the Word day by day in the Scriptures—offering their own bodies as “living sacrifices” in return (cf. Romans 12:1)-- so do Christians receive the blood of Christ day by day in the Mass.
As Scripture says,
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?”
So is a purely figurative interpretation of Jn 6:30-71--and especially verses 51-56--credible?
“The Greek word for "body" in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for "eats" (trogon) translates as "gnawing" or "chewing." This is certainly not the language of metaphor.”
[“The Institution of the Mass”. Catholic Answers San Diego 2004:]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
Is Jesus really “the Gate”? Often protestants argue that Jesus is not literally “the Gate”. But of course he is, since there is no way to God except through his flesh. (cf.Heb 10:19-22). A denial of the bodily meaning of this and one becomes a gnostic, like Elaine Pagels.
What did the Original and Apostolic Church believe? The earliest Church fathers, such as St. Paul (cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17, 11:29) and St. Irenaeus taught what later was termed “Transubstantiation.”
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
“The literal meaning can’t be avoided except through violence to the text—and through the rejection ofthe universal understanding of the early Christian centuries.”
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp’’
Is there an Aramaic word for “represents”? Yes. In fact there are dozens. If the Apostolic had intended to teach Gnosticism or symbolism—such as that of Zwingli--it would have been easy to do.
What about prophecies?
“The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God using the elements of bread and wine…. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine….
http://www.catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb. 13:8).
Jesus’s One Sacrifice is therefore present to God now, which is why Jesus is called
"a priest forever”
This is why Paul wrote:.
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26).”
http://www.catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
And as Isaiah says,
“Their sacrifices and burnt offerings will be accepted on my altar” Is 56:7.
Here Isaiah uses the language of appearance (similar to how angels are sometimes called “men”, since they appeared as such). Likewise the Liturgy appears as many discrete acts (though it is really only one living Sacrifice), just as Christ’s Body appears to be ordinary bread.
What do even non-Catholic scholars, like J.N.D. Kelley say about the early Church’s understanding of Sacrfiice?.
"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
For even earlier fathers on how the Lord’s Supper is an unbloody yet sacrificial presentation of Calvary:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
As Scripture says,
"Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life within you."
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/6/2009 11:18:57 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/5/2009 8:35:44 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
WILDBYNATURE WROTE:
quote:
“1.Christians believe Jesus is the one and only Word of God.
2.protestants believe that the Bible alone is the Word of God.
3. therefore protestants believe that what appears to be an ordinary book is Jesus Himself.”
Clearly, unless you are saying you eat the Bible during mass, you have an agenda.
I do believe in the Catholic understanding of Holy Communion. I am not sure how to formulate the relationship of the Liturgy of the Eucharist to the Liturgy of the Word, except to say they are inseparable, and that the Church has always “venerated the Scriptures as She does the Body of the Lord.”
But I admit, my syllogism is fatally flawed, if you are right in saying that protestants admit that the Bible alone is not the Word of God, since--you seem to be saying--protestants do not actually believe the Bible is literally the Word of God.
quote:
We are NOT saved through the Scriptures
Interesting.
quote:
we are saved by grace, through faith in whom the Scriptures testify of -- Jesus.
So clearly you are saying that the Bible is not actually the Word of God, but is the symbol of the Word of God, or a collection of written symbols about the Word.
quote:
”As we say, ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’ Likewise, if we say the Bibe is not literally Jesus, then we must admit that the Bible is not actually the Word.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
Yes, though I don’t think anyone has a full grasp of what a metaphor is.
If one goes by Scripture alone, where does Scripture say what a metaphor is?
quote:
”We can't call the Bible "the Word of God" and then say that the Bible is not literally the whole Resurrected Jesus!”
Why not?
You are right. But why give it the Bible precedence over the oral Gospel, as if it could be separated from the oral Gospel? Is there something about pen and ink and paper that God can gaurantee inerrancy through them "alone"?
(Do we not realize that the Bible could have been and can be mis-copied or mis-translated, but for the grace of God? Then cannot God equally preserve and honor the oral Word (cf Is 59:21), in union with Writ?)
quote:
That’s a good argument that I made, there.
You think so? Do I detect a bit of pride? Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back like that.
I wanted a reaction to my argument, and I got it, and a piece of humble pie.
“Let the just strike me. It is a kindness.”
However, the fact that my syllogism about the Bible fails does not indicate that the historic Christian interpretation of Jn 6, or related verses, is false, let alone impossible.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/6/2009 5:18:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/11/2009 2:04:50 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
St. Cyprian in the 200s:
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/13/2009 6:23:23 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 592
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
MANIMAL WROTE:
quote:
Patricius79: For the love of all things Holy, will you PLEASE stop using 2nd Peter 1:20 a a "proof" text against "private opinion"?!?!?
hmm… well….I think it is a good proof text against private interpretation…as is Acts 8:31, 2 Pt 3:16…, and others… and the lack of any texts in Scripture supporting private interpretation…
quote:
It is teaching about the trustworthiness of written Scripture as it is written.
I think I agree…but why change the words of the text…? In the context of the verses about the ritual of the Lord's supper, I think this is not a matter for interpretation apart from teh Church's constant tradition....
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/13/2009 6:29:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/21/2009 7:41:14 AM
|
|
|
souljaboy
Posts: 23
Joined: 11/3/2009
Status: offline
|
As I don't get involved in communion or mass as it is called because it is not in scripture, I don't get hung up on the transubstantiation or symbolic thing.
I have worked in the Catholic Education system where masses were regular occurrences, so I decided to give it a go. I have to admit that the body of Jesus tasted and felt extremely similar to a piece of bread and the blood of Jesus tasted like a very good red wine.
One thing is sure, it didn't taste like my blood which I have tasted when I was injured and wiped the wound with my hand and then licked it off.
I asked my university lecturer who was an anglican priest "did the NT church have communion?" The answer was no. They started meeting together over breakfast and then changed it to an evening meal in the home and it wasn't until much later that the church turned it into a religious ritual.
If we want to be really honest with ourselves, the passage in Corinthians is telling us about a MEAL the church had together, not holy communion.
In addition, only one gospel says to "do this in rememberance of me" and the Greek word means to do this once. There is another greek word that means "keep on doing this".
So all the evidence is firmly against the religious ritual we have today but we should not be surprised that scripture is being ignored as most denominations put their traditions on a higher plane than the scriptures, just like the Pharisees did when Jesus was around and Jesus made quite clear that he was having none of it.
< Message edited by souljaboy -- 11/21/2009 7:49:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 11/21/2009 9:15:20 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6319
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: souljaboy
As I don't get involved in communion or mass as it is called because it is not in scripture, I don't get hung up on the transubstantiation or symbolic thing.
I have worked in the Catholic Education system where masses were regular occurrences, so I decided to give it a go. I have to admit that the body of Jesus tasted and felt extremely similar to a piece of bread and the blood of Jesus tasted like a very good red wine.
One thing is sure, it didn't taste like my blood which I have tasted when I was injured and wiped the wound with my hand and then licked it off.
I asked my university lecturer who was an anglican priest "did the NT church have communion?" The answer was no. They started meeting together over breakfast and then changed it to an evening meal in the home and it wasn't until much later that the church turned it into a religious ritual.
If we want to be really honest with ourselves, the passage in Corinthians is telling us about a MEAL the church had together, not holy communion.
In addition, only one gospel says to "do this in rememberance of me" and the Greek word means to do this once. There is another greek word that means "keep on doing this".
So all the evidence is firmly against the religious ritual we have today but we should not be surprised that scripture is being ignored as most denominations put their traditions on a higher plane than the scriptures, just like the Pharisees did when Jesus was around and Jesus made quite clear that he was having none of it.
SOuljaboy from several of your posts I take it you are a student. Maybe you need to study scripture a little more in debth. If you ask you university professor if the Trinity or the rapture is in scripture I would suspect he/she will tell you no. In fact if referring to the terms alone they would be correct. However, both concepts are in scripture. THe terms are just words we assigned to a scriptural concept. Trinity = God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit. THere are three of them. Three = Triune=Trinity so it is in the Bible. The Bible also teaches that those who remain will be called up to meet him in the air. THis is the rapture. THe same holds true with communion. Although communion is not mentioned in the Bible the concept is clearly there and was instituted by Jesus Himself. If you study further you will find that it was not a mean but something He did after the Passover Meal was finished. Also there are several people on here that read Greek quite well. SOme even are fluent in Hebrew if you are interested. The instructions were to eat the bread and drink of the cup and do so in remembrance of jesus. THere is no indication as to how often it should be done. We can do it every day, every wee, pnce a week, once a quarter or once a year, it does not matter as long as we do it in remembrance of Jesus.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
