ChristiansUnite Forums

Hello. I’m new here. I want to open up with a debate me and a few of my friends have been having for a few week, perhaps start a dialog on it. I was wondering, in Communion, do believe it becomes the blood and body, or it is the essence, or is it purely symbolic, or what, and why? As for me, I’m Transubstantiationist.

Greetings Tibby,
Welcome to Christians Unite. I hope you find your stay here enjoyable. I find we have a few things in common:

TIBBY'S SIGNATURE:

When I was a young man I was a Roman Catholic, and at one time I too was a "transubstantiationalist."  Whew! my fingers get tired just looking at that word! I used to read a little philosophy, but I have forgotten what I read. I like to read theology and I still have a love for history. I also love to debate - when those involved are not too serious. At times I have found that people identify themselves with what they believe and judge one another by their doctrines. I try not to do that, but sometimes I fail. Didn't Jesus say that we would be known by our love? Nevertheless, I love to involve myself in the doctrine of the Bible - finding out things about God.

Sports: I like to watch! My body is falling apart and the most I can do is cheer (or boo) in front of the TV.

Concerning your thread: I believe that communion is for a memorial of the death of Christ. God can certainly do as He pleases. Jesus did change water into wine. Nevertheless, I do not see the point in the bread and the wine actually becoming the body and blood of Christ. If you wish to discuss this, I'll be happy to put in my two cents.

Have a great evening, Tibby, and God bless.

John1one

I'm glad to know we have so much in common. What sports do you like to watch? See I have found a good forum. Please, I'd love to debate this topic. Why do I feel in the transubstantiation is correct? Well, why don't you? I will go first, make a few points that are the mian reasons i real this way. These are not the only reasons, just the 2 main ones:
1. Jesus said so. Yes, it is that simple. Many times, when he said something that people misunderstood, he explained it to them. Case in point, on the roof top, Jesus said something about being born again, and Nicodemus was like "Come on, you can't mean a man can go into his mothers womb again?"and jesus corrected him, and explaned what he meant(John 3:1-15)But, in John 6:51-56, Jesus states five times that "whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" and never said "Oh, by the way, I'm just kidding!" or "Yeah, it is just a poor choice of words, like with the born again thing!"
2. The Early Church said so. Hey, these are the guys that spent years walking with Jesus, and the guys who where taugh by them! They beleived in the real presence. The idea of it being anything other then Transubstantiation didn't come along until Ulrich Zwingli in the 1500's! He's theory: if the bible (both Old and New Testament) did not say something explicitly and literally, then no Christian should believe or practice it. This would mean the Trinity is wrong, church buildings are wrong, modern music in church is wrong, and hey, since the bible doesn't talk about the World Wide Web, this fourm isn't of God!
Well, your turn. Why do you believe what you do about the Eucharist? Time for your two cents.

Greetings Tibby,

If your question is asking the question seeking an answer from a theological doctrinal  perspective of scripture, the answer to your question would be "remembrance"based on the words of Jesus, himself, on the other hand, if one embraces tradition, over scriptural teaching as the basis for truth, then this truth, is going to be found elsewhere.

Jesus, gave us the way we ought to understand the significance of partaking of the bread and wine, known today as the Lords supper, the day preceding His death and crucifixion.

So it is essential to read this and understand it in the light of what He said, concerning it, The Gospels give us the account from each of the writers accounts, their words hold more weight than any other sources, as they were in attendance at this Passover Feast, and have left us a written record , of the exact words spoken by the Savior, coinfirmed to us by the Apostle Paul, who was not present, yet he states, that the Lord revealed this to him. (1 Cor 11).

Mat 26:20-29, Mark 14:18-25, do not eloborate, how we are to understand the passage.


However, the passage as found in Luke 22;  sheds some light on the matter;

15  And he said unto them, With desire  I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18  For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
21  But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
22  And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
23  And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
24  And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25  And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26  But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27  For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28  Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29  And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30  That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Note, verse 19, He says "this do in remembrance of me"

And finally at 1 Cor 11, Paul the Apostle recounts what he claims wqas revealed to him, by Jesus, (vs 23)

18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24  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.
25  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.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

What is glaringly obvious concerning these scriptures, is that, when Jesus said "this is my body" or "blood" He did not change the substance AND,  he mentioned nothing concerning adoration of either of these elements , but,  explained that HE (Jesus) is the one represented by the Passover Bread and Wine.

 Just as the Old Testament Passover was a remembrance, so is the Lord's Supper (Communion) until He comes.  

Transubtantition as taught by the institution which introduced it as a doctrinal teaching, and it,  ........................ seriously departs from the literal sense of scriptural teaching.

As you can see,  there is   absolutely NO basis for any transubstantition teaching according to the scriptures which are the basis for communion , at least not in accordance with what Jesus said, and the Apostle taught.

A search of the history of what transubstantition is, and what it represents, reveals to any serious bible student, who wants to know the truth concerning this teaching, that it was introduced by the Roman Catholic church in 1215 A.D., when the Council of Trent introduced it in Session XIII, as Cannon 4.

Eleven years later, this was followed by a teaching known today as "Adoration of the Host" introduced in 1226 A.D.  As;

 "The practice of exposing the Host (bread) for adoration was started by Bishop Pierre de Corbie in celebration of the victory of Louis VII over the Albigenses. The display attracted great hordes who carried on the adoration by day and night an act subsquently approved by the Pope himself. (**See Ref source below)


And thus you have a teaching for which there is no scriptural foundation whatsoever.

In fact the Roman Catholic church admits that there is;

Quote:

"No trace of existence of any such extraliturgical cultus of the blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church.  It first appears in the later Middle Ages."

**Ref: (Catholic Encyclopedia I, "Perpetual Adoration" P. 153 (from the pamphlet "The Split between Roman Catholicism and Christ" published by; Missions to Catholics International Inc.  Pg 12)



Blessings

Petro

In addition:

Scripture does not allow the separation of the remembrance where priests, (unscriptural), partake of the juice from the fruit of the vine, and the laity, (unscriptural), partake of the bread.

Scripture authorizes all christians to partake of both as oft they can in remembrance of Christ's death till he comes.

Transubstantiation is definitely not Christ's doctrine as taught in the Bible, but an addition of mere men to support their own worldly agendas. The agendas being political power and worldy gain.

In Remembrance, very good. I’d like to praise you for bring this up and backing it with biblical Evidence. You’ve done some homework. Now it is time for the test  ;D

Let us go into the Greek for more. Jesus didn’t speak English, after all! lol. The word in the Greek is anamimnesko. What is this? The word means much more then a psychological recollection! The word means “to be present again.” It is a representation. We don’t just mentally recall Christ death; we are taken back to the time he died in spiritual and physical since. Think about the thief on the cross next to Jesus when he asked Jesus “remember” him in Luke 23:42. Surely, he didn’t just mean for Jesus to think about him every once him a while in heaven, right? Are you going to tell me that he wasn’t asking to live again, to be present again?

It truly disturbed me that you choose to quote an argument by Missions to Catholics International Inc. They are both Fundamentalism and anti-catholic. They forsake all (even truth) for their cause, which is to discredit the Catholic belief system. If you want to talk about “mere men to support their own worldly agendas.” Then Missions to Catholics are the correct group to choose. Anyways, I had to address this. Pointing out you are quoting a biased group.

One of the Church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, had several things to say about the Eucharist. In a letter to the Philadelphians, he said “Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood.” In a letter to the Smyrnaeans, when referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God” he said “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raise up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” This is the early Church, we are talking of the first centuries here. There is more. Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Origen; all of them believed in the real presence of Christ. This quote you have posted by the Counsel of Trent is taking it way out of context. For you see, the word “Transubstantiation” wasn’t said until this time, but there is historical proof to validate the fact that the Early Church did follow the belief of the Real Presence. No, the Mission to Catholics is right, the Church didn’t refine the concepts and vocabulary of the Eucharist, but the idea of Transubstantiation has been there for ages.

I am really enjoying this. Thanks for the great debate! It is your turn, I believe. Have fun, my brothers in Christ.  :)


Chris

Greetings Tibby, :)
While I am not an avid fan of any sport, I do like to watch an occassional football game. I will not miss the Super Bowl. That is an annual family get-together. I also like baseball. My favorite team is Atlanta. I also like the Yankees. Once in awhile I watch a boxing match, but I don't follow boxing since Ali and Holmes left boxing. I used to like to watch them. It was almost like watching two great dancers.

Why don't I believe in "TRANSUBSTANTIATION"? Well, like I said before, I don't see the point. What purpose would it serve, if that were true? Jesus promised to be with us personally throughout our lives. He says that He and the Father have made their abode within each of us (John 14:23), and the Holy Spirit is the other Comforter (John 14:16-17) who dwells within us, whom the world is unable to receive. If these Scriptures are so, in what way would "Transubstantiation" be something greater? How could Jesus be more present with us during communion than every other day? If Transubstantiation is true, how long is the Lord within, until the bread dissolves?

Lets speak now about things that you said concerning Communion:

QUOTE TIBBY:

"Jesus said so..." Well, this is true, but did He mean for us to take this literally? I find it interesting that the apostles didn't ask Him how this could be, just like Nicodemus ask his question concerning our being born again. Don't you think that this would have been a new thing, if it were literally true? Why didn't any of the disciples question Jesus about this new saying.

On the other hand if they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, there would be no questions. After all if you show a picture of you mother or dad to a friend saying "This is my mom!" or "This is my dad!" is it not understood that you are speaking metaphorically? You would laugh at the friend who actually thought you were speaking literally. Let me show you a few verses where Jesus speaks metaphorically and the apostles understood Him to be doing just that - and so do we!

Luke 8:5  A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
7  And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection

Here Jesus says a seed is a person who receives His Word. He says the thorns are other things that grow in our hearts such as the cares of the world.

Another scripture is Luke 13:31-32 where Jesus says that Herod is a fox. We both know that Herod was not a literal fox. Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Again in Matthew 15:12-14, Jesus says that the Pharisees are blind. The apostles knew that Jesus was not speaking literally. He was speaking of their spiritual condition. Still another Scripture is: Matthew 16:6  Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Here Jesus tells the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. The apostles misunderstood Jesus and Jesus became upset with them that they were not thinking. When they saw that Jesus was not happy with how they understood His statement, then they understood that He was really speaking of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:6-12).

Now, why do I believe that what Jesus said is a memorial? Well, BECAUSE JESUS SAID SO! ;D

Notice: Luke 22:19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Again in 1Corinthians 11:24 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. 25  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.

The Corinthian Scripture is interesting in that it goes on to explain a little more about the significance of the memorial. Notice: 1 Corinthians 11:26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27  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. 28  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

In verse 26 Paul says that when we partake of communion, we are preaching to the world about the death of Christ. This is not to be taken lightly. Often people who do not appreciate America will burn our flag (which is itself a memorial of our country). To take communion is to preach to the world that we have accepted the death of Christ as payment for our sins. To preach this in a hypocritical fashion, that is, not caring how we live ourselves, we show ourselves to be unworthy of Christ. To partake of the "Memorial" unworthily brings judgment upon our lives. Some have even died, because they keep doing this without regard to how that looks to the world.

Now let me address your second concern:

QUOTE TIBBY:

I love history. We have this in common, don't we? The early church took centuries to iron out different doctrines. This is why, I believe that we should be more concerned about the simplicity of Christ (2Corinthians 11:3) which is to love God and the brethren. It is not by our doctrines that we are identified with Christ, but by our love for one another (Matthew 7:16-20; Galatians 5:22-23; 1John 4:7-8). None of us may have all our doctrines in order, but there is no excuse for us not to know that God is Love and we ought to love one another.

In early church history many things were debated. Origin believed that Jesus was created, Tertullian didn't think Christ was equal to the Father. Some wondered if Jesus was God at all. Who did Christ save was also debated, as was Satan, hell and many other things. We cannot simply receive what the fathers said and say that this is equal to what is written in the Bible. Some of the fathers thought they had the blessing of God to kill those who disagreed with them. Often these same murderous  people supported those doctrines that we believe today. The Bible is the whole Word of God. We have the Holy Spirit to instruct us and we do not need men to teach us. It may be helpful and interesting to find out what the early church fathers said and did, but we are not compelled to say or do the same things. The Word of God is a complete product itself. We are able to understand the truth of it even, if all the historical Christian records were lost forever.

Well, my friend, that will be it for now. I may not be able to respond to another post from you until early next week (Tuesday or Wednesday). I may be going away, but those plans may change. Take care and God bless,

John1one

Chris,

I have no idea, what word you are trying to define here.



Chris,

I trust you are not disputing what the Council of Trent, cannonized concerning "Transubstantiation".

It sounds as thou you are irate because, I give you truthful, information, by quoting  a good mission organization, desiring to see, Catholics, come out bondage from the teachings of this  organization; would it make you feel better, if I had quoted the New Advent Catholic website, which is verbatim, concerning "adoration of the Host";

Well what can I say, but here it is: **Note the second paragraph; its verbatim,(although I may have left out one or two words)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:  Perpetual Adoration
...Emmanuel", practically maintains the Perpetual Adoration among its ... The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume 1 Copyright  1907 by Robert...Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/o1152a.htm

It reads, as follows;

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages,

By the way, Missions to Catholics International, Inc, is a well known respected Christian organization, which exposes, the errors taught by the Catholic church, and is chaired by ex-catholic priests and laity, (whom the Lord has seen fit to save from this institution) bringing the Gospel of Christ, which sets people free from the gospel of works..

It is useless to debate, words which are defined by others, which do not have the same meaning as what scripture teach them to have; the word "remembrance" is precisely that, not some other obscure mystic word.

Blessings,

Petro

Chris,

Since,you are going to live or die, for what you have done with will do, with every word that came out of the mouth of Jesus.

Why put your faith, in men, and the teachings of men, especially the tradition of dead men.  You don't know what they where (their traditions), yourself,

the fact is if your honest with yourself, you would at least confess, they (their traditions) have to be chewed, swallowed, regurgitated, and spoon fed to you, by your church.

The Holy Sirit knows nothing of what traditions they (Catholic church) teaches.

Deut 18
17  And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18  I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, ill require it of him.

Jesus is the prophet, spoken of herein, and he said;

Mat 24
Take heed that no man deceive you.

and again he said;

Jhn 14
26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

What value is it to look for truth in all things, or to bring all things to remembrance whatsoever Jesus said, if we seek these elsewhere....



By the way, Eucharistia in the greek means, thankgiving, it does not have some mystic connotation or meaning to it.


Blessings,

Petro

And the word;

Communion which the Catholic church knows by;

Latin Vulgate:pronounced; communio sanctorum  means;participation of spiritual goods, in english.



Blessings,
Petro

John and Petro: I’m going to answer your posts in separate replies, so as not to confuse everything. I’ll start with John.

John, yeah, I love boxing. In injured my neck and had to stop fighting (until I recover ;)) but I love to watch! Ali, I here you, he was a great fighter. It was like poetry in motion watching him. Boxing wasn’t just a sport, it was an Art and Science for him. Now, on to the debate:

Actually, John, in your reply to my first point, your logic is flawed, for the apostles DID ask him about this. See chapter 6 of John. This takes place right after the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle, and Jesus’ waking on water. Jesus beings talking about drinking his blood and eating his flesh, then in John 6:61, he realizes this offended them (and I use the word “realize” loosely, because he no doubt knew stating this would have that effect). Then in John 6:66 (um… makes you think) he disciples left “and walked no more with him” as the NKJ puts it. He never corrected himself over this. His followers were abandoning him, and he never said anything to correct himself like he had done with Nicodemus. Sure, they made up a few verses later, but he still never corrected himself, now did he? When people get upset and he is speaking metaphorically, he always explains himself. But this case, he didn’t. Think about the time He said “You shall destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in 3 days!” in Mt 26:61?  He never corrected him self. We could have though it was metaphorical, but he never corrected him self, or explained it, and was that metaphorical? I think not!

You also address the Remembrance issue, which is a repeat of what Petro asked. Read my original reply to what Petro said for the answer.

Yes, you make good points and history. Granted, Origin didn’t exactly have the fullness of the word, and he was word on a few counts, I will give you that one. You also said the bible should stand alone, if the bible should stand alone, then why are we sitting hear arguing about the meaning of a few passage in the bible? If it stands alone, then we should be able to agree on this, without any doubt. And why are their millions of Commentary, and Companions, and Devotionals to help us with the bible? If the bible can stand alone, then why do we have those annoying inserts in those Study bibles that people read while your trying to teach!? lol, those thing are so distracting, don’t you agree? And they always say the thing you already know, lol. But I’m getting off on a Rabbit trail. The point is, if the bible was meant to stand alone, then why must they have all these books to read along with the bible!? I just think reading the writings of the guys who walked with Jesus and the guy that were taught by the guys that sat with Jesus on a daily basis! He started teaching as a young boy, if you recall. 20-25 years worth of teaching, put into 4 small books. Tell me there isn’t a part we are missing! I mean, there is a lot these guys didn’t write. Most of the four gospels that tell us what we know about him were written as letters, not full biographies! No, not all of the Apocrypha are good; some of them are down right heretical! But many of them are historically and theologically correct.


It is truly a pleasure debating you,
Chris

Petro, please except my humble apology. I wasn’t very clear with the first argument. I was in a rush, and did not have time to read over it to see if everything was clear and correct. Anamimnesko is the Greek word that is translated in Remembrance in our bible. I hope that makes everything clearer for you now. It isn’t anything obscure or mystic, it is Greek, the same Greek Jesus Spoke.

Also, I was not irate. I apologies, again, if I can off that way. I believe seeing “Mission to Catholics” set something off in my head. Them, Jack Chick, and other so-called “Bible Christians” misinterpret the Roman Catholic Doctrine. Mind you, I am not ROMAN Catholic. I, after spend my first young years a Roman Catholic, and most all of my life a Charismatic, have recently joined a Catholic Denomination know as the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC). Keep in mind, the CEC in a new, young group, and have nothing to do with the United Episcopals. Anyways, my younger years as a Catholic and a strong Catholic Heritage (my father was the first of his familly to leave the Cathiloc faith for a Charismatic one, lol, and now he is back) has given my a bit of a biased again such groups. I can tell you, I have read many tracks and books from groups like the Mission for Catholics, and they seem to all have a large majority of their facts grossly incorrect. I have dealt of the mindsets Jack Chick and others have set into the minds of the Protestant Church. Do you know how hard it is to be a Protestant youth group member which Catholic back ground who tries correct his Youth Leader when he starts preaching the evils of “praying” to saints? But, I am ranting. I am sorry for anything I said that came off as irate or offended. If you would like to discuss you misgivings with Catholic Church, I would be happy to reply. Just open a new topic with your main grievances, and we can discuss them. Granted, I don’t agreed with the Catholic Church on everything either, so just keep that in mind. I look forward to replying to that post as well.

Anyways, but to the topic at hand. Your quote from the site, very good. A applude you for going to a Catholic site to support your argument, and for the great argument you are displaying. You must be a very intellectual person. I can already see it will be enjoyable talk to you, and, of course debate with you ;D! The link was messed up, but I did a search to find it. And I found that you had taken that entire phrase out of context! This isn’t talking about the real presence, but Perpetual Adoration. This is when members of a Parish, or other group, unite for a day of adoration before taking Communion. It would take much to long to explain here, do a web search for more details. No, there is no historic proof of this, you are correct. I don’t see anything sinful about, it just another way to Worship God, but it isn’t biblical at all. Just like using Pop music for Praise isn’t biblical! Anyways, I do not see how your quote doesn’t apply, because it isn’t even talking about Communion or the real presence, only the pre-Eucharistic events Catholics sometimes hold.

Again, I am truly sorry for not being so clear, and for coming off a bitter and irate. It was not my intention. I am fully aware of the fact I can sound very harsh, I just seem to get into debates, and forget about the main purpose, not to insult the other person, to convince them, or at least find a happy medium. So, please don’t take anything personally.


A pleasure debating,
Chris

Strong's Number: 363
Transliterated: anamimnesko
Phonetic: an-am-im-nace'-ko

Text:  from 303 and 3403; to remind; (reflexively) to recollect: --call to mind, (bring to , call to, put in), remember(-brance).


Strong's Number: 364
Transliterated: anamnesis
Phonetic: an-am'-nay-sis

Text:  from 363; recollection: --remembrance (again).

Anamnesis is the greek for the word Jesus uses in His "remembrance" verses concerning communion and remembering His death till He comes.

Jesus did not speak Greek, but Aramaic.


Communion:
Strong's Number: 2842
Transliterated: koinonia
Phonetic: koy-nohn-ee'-ah

Text:  from 2844; partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: --(to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship.

Here we go again. Strongs tells you the literal translation, my good man! What is wrong with that? Greek is so different from English, and words with the same denotation many times have different connotations. This is proven in the case of  “anamimnesko” for example. You must understand, Greek isn’t English Code, or English Greek Code. You can’t De-code a language. These are two totally different ways of speaking, different grammar, different punctuation, different accents, different vocabulary, different sentence structure. You can’t just look up the dictionary meaning of a word and know the full definition. The only way to do that is to learn Greek, or meet someone who does!

He spoke Aramaic, uh? Then why did he use Greek letters when saying “I am the Alpha and Omega” in Revelations?  Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and Hebrew, and yes, he did speak Greek as well. Like people in many land locked European country today, a man like Jesus would find it hard to speak only one language. He spoke several. I mena, till he was twelve, he lived in Egypt, did he not? In the bible, Jesus used Greek words, such as agape, gnosis and paraclete, to name a few (Look them up in your Strongs). Those words and others have no Hebrew or Aramaic counter-part, so he at least had to speak Greek some of the time. On top of that, the New Testament was written in Greek all Greek, so when we read what Jesus said, we are really reading the Greek translation, so to us, he might as well have been speaking Greek, because we don’t have it in Aramaic! Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic. But keep in mind, a large majority of the people in this world are multilingual.

I fail to see what the translation and definition of the word “Communion” has to do with anything?

Enjoy you Sunday, my friends. Hope Church fares well. Speaking of which, I must be heading in that direction.

Always a pleasure,
Chris

Chris,
I am sorry, I asked the question using the word irate, your disappoint seemed to be in my choice of quoting from thye Missions to Catholics as opposed to the Roman Catholics official New Advent encyclopedia website.
If you reread my post you will see, I stated, the  new dogma of "transubstantiation" in 1215, led to the new dogma of "adoration of the host (bread) 11 years later in 1226, for which their is no biblical basis, which agrees with what the catholic encyclopedia confirms, nothing is said concerning "transubstantiation" having no biblical foundation, for which there isn't either, but by adding one teaching upon another, the follwoing one confirms the preceding in the eyes of the faithfull, and then to them it matters not whether it is biblical.

This is where I have to disagree with you, Jack Chick, has a good grasp as to what the Roman Catholic church teaches, and he exposes it for what it is; doctrinal teachings which lack biblical support and attributed to traditional teachings, it is a system of religious worship based on keeping people ignorant of biblical theology, while overwhelming them with a teaching designed to keep them in bondage to an institution, rather than setting them free from the prison house of sin, that thery might serve God, all the days of their lives, instead of introducing them to the freedoms proclaimed in the Gospel of Jesus Chris, they burdem them down with a teaching designed to keep them working and toiling for theis own salvation, and having done this all their lives, they are never sure, if they've done enough or all that is necessary.

The fact is, it is the Word of God that converteth the Soul, not any institution, nor its teachings.


I can't comment of what you have stated about perpetual adoration, since I don't have any idea what purpose it would serve, nor what it has to do with music, or anything else for that matter, especially when everyone is agreement, that , it has no historic evidence for it, just as there is for other dogmas, held in high esteem, within this institution.

However, when you say;  
"I don't see anything sinful about, it just another way to Worship God, but it isn't biblical at all."
It leaves me wondering, if you have ever read the verses which states;
Jhn 4
23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.  

It would seem to me, that anyone who has a desire to worship God, would at least do it, in "knowledge and truth", the Word of God tells us how to worship God in such a fashion,  worshipping in a away which is not  in knowledge, would not be true, and if it isn't true, how can it be biblical and if it isn't biblical, it has no value, in as much that it is not  according to the will of God.  And if this is so, it can be nothing other but, SIN.... So then,  [/b]worshipping[/b] makes no difference if one is willing to Not do it according with the word of God.
For instance, the second commandment, not only tells us, how we should worship, and what we should not worship, and the reasons for the consequences of worshipping,  not inaccordance with the will of God; this then, is the "knowledge" and the "truth" of what Gods will, is concerning worshipping things made by for the purpose of worshipping them.
Satan himself, in trying to deceive Jesus, said to him;
Mat 4
8  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9  And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

So according to Jesus, the Lord thy God is ONLY to be worshipped, and served.
Now, I know an have heard all the arguments, of what the Catholic church worships, an especially, how the words are twisted to be given other meanings to words, for instance; ADORATION, as in "adoration of the host" the word adoration , defined mean worship; Worship of the Host (bread).
What is sinfull about this is, that the host is not just a run of the mill, craker, that one can buy at a supermarket or corner 7-11, it is something that is made specifically for worship, even made with symbols and superscription on it; and this is what is contrary to the known will of God.
Many other argumenst will be placed to try and show that there is nothing wrong with this, by Catholics, when some one brings this up, exhausting one argument, another point will be raised, and it is a case, which will never be resolved, unless they are willing to believe and agree with what God says.  He says, image worship is idolatry, and the making of anything for the express purpose of worship is not to be done.  (Ex 20:4-5)
I trust this viewpoint will be of help to you

PS ******** I will have to think long and hard about your statement, concerning Jesus speaking Greek, we know for sure the OT was written in Hebrew, the Septuagint was a translation of the OT into Greek, made during the diaspora, but it was never used at Jerusalem, it seems it was very popular in Alexandria, so I think there might not be any truth to your statement, but thats neither here nor their, the words have been defined from long ago, and we can accept the definitions already made of them, and be leary of new defifnitions which try and define them by todays, modern languages.

Blesssings,

Petro

Tibby:
 "I fail to see what communion has to do with anything?"

Have you forgotten your subject?

Speaking of languages:
One cannot find "transubstantiation" in the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Or English. It is not in the word of God.

Ollie: What I meant was what possible reason could you have for posting the definition of Communion up? I am truly sorry,  I should have been more clear. lol, I should have said it in the first place! Anyways, I see no point in posting the differencing, we are agreed on that part of it. Lol, just drop if, forget I said I thing. Sorry

Find Trinity in the Bible. Find internet in the bible. Is it found in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Or English? If not, then by your own logic, they aren’t words of God and we should not use then are consider them a possibility at all, right? Well? According to you:

A. transubstantiation not in bible
B. Therefore, transubstantiation must not be of God

Also according to you:

A. Trinity not in bible
B. Therefore, the Trinity must not be of God

Also by your logic:

A. Sunday Church not found in bible
B. Therefore,  meeting in a Church building on a Sunday is not of God.


Petro: It is getting late. Thanks for the detailed reply, and of course, I disagree with you :D, but you know how Monday mornings can be. I’ll try to reply to you later.

Let me just add that Jack Chick doesn’t have a clue that he is talking about. I’ve found with members of my own Church who used to pass out Chick Tracks. I’ve read most of what he has to say, and he takes things so out of context! Read some of Karl Keating writings. He is a Catholic Apologist who “converted” from the Baptist Domination, a group know for their hated of the Catholics (I know, I date one :D). Other then that, I say again I would love to debate General Catholicism with you in an separate post. Just make a post listing a few of your best points against the Church. You seem like an intelligent guy.  lol, I guess it isn’t as late as I though. Let us take the general Jack Chick/MFCI debate to another post so to not clog up this one. I’ll post the rest of my reply to you tomorrow.

Thanks guys, it’s been fun,
Chris

Chris,

I am afraid we will not agree, about anything, you claim to be a charismatic catholic, this is just another name for a disgruntled Roman Catholic. Who have disassociated themselves from mand become indenpent, so as to have a little more local control over your own church building and finances.

But the fact is nothing has changed, you still use all the roman catholic utensiles to continue, in the same old teachings.  In other words you have repackaged old catholicism in a new wrapper, and have added some popular visible protestant doctrines, which appeal to the senses and make you feel good.

The strongest case against the Roman Catholic church is their official teaching of the worship of idols, images and bow or making obiance to them, this includes the teaching of using  dead men (saints), and seeking their intercesscion thru prayer, contrary to the commandment, all the while trying to justify the practice, teaching the commandments of men (as it were) for the commandments of God.

You can start your own thread on this subject if you want, and I'll participate if I am inclined to do so.

Thanks anyhow,

Petro

I thought since the subject is "Communion"; it might be helpful to have a transliteration of the Greek.


 No need to be sorry, we are just exchanging thoughts and learning and teaching. Anyway it is ok and I accept the apology if that is where you are coming from. However it wasn't necessary.


 What do you mean by differencing. Don't grasp what you are saying here.   ???


RIGHT ON!
Not "Trinity", but "Godhead". Trinity is a word from man used to define what God has already defined.
Internet?  ??? Bible is silent.

RIGHT ON!
Below is what is in the Bible and of God!

Matthew 26:26.  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
 27.  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
 28.  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14: 22.  And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
 23.  And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
 24.  And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
 

 Luke 22:19.  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
 20.  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.



1 Corinthians 11:23.  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
 24.  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.
 25.  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.
 26.  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
 


RIGHT ON!
The Godhead is of God.

"A"-True, Christians according to God's word come together on the first day of the week. It is equivalent to man's Sunday which is the first day of his calendar week.
"B"- A building for Christian assembly is an expedient and not necessary in all instances. Christians meeting in a building or any place on the first day of the week is of God. However first century Christians assembled daily. Most of their gatherings were in homes.


Have a good day,
Ollie

Greetings Tibby,
I hope you have been well. My business did not take as long as I had thought. It seems you have been busy with others. Good. I am glad you are enjoying your stay here.

QUOTE TIBBY – POST  #11

No, Tibby, my logic is not flawed. Let’s quote the text:
John 6:60  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.

As far as correcting Himself, you are correct Jesus does not correct Himself. HE NEVER CORRECTS HIMSELF anywhere at any time. Nevertheless, He does EXPLAIN what He is saying, at times, when the disciples misunderstand. This particular Scripture is no different. Notice:

• the disciples are offended (v.60) at Jesus’ speech.
• Jesus is aware of the difficulty they have with His words (v.61).
• Jesus goes on to explain that the words He is speaking are spiritual (v.63).

They are not to be understood in the fleshy manner. That is, there is a spiritual meaning to them, and not to be taken literally.

Indeed, many walked away from Him (v.66), but I fail to see where they returned a few verses later. These people were not the apostles (vv.67-70). Nevertheless, this is off the topic.

QUOTE TIBBY – POST #11 AND PARTIAL POST #6

I  am not certain that it means a great deal, but your choice of the Greek word is incorrect. You chose ANAMIMESKO which seems to be S.363. The correct Greek word is ANAMNESIS which is S.364. This second word is used in Luke 22:19, 1Corinthians 11:22, 25 for the remembrance of or memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is also used in Hebrews 10:3 for the animal sacrifices causing  the worshipper to remember his sin. The Lord’s Supper is to cause us to remember what Christ did for us to cause us to realize that our sin(s) are forgiven. Christ’s sacrifice is one that gives a good conscience (compare 1Peter 3:21 where Peter shows that baptism is a sign of the death and resurrection of Christ and answers to a good conscience on our part toward God).

Concerning what the theif said on the cross, it is a different Greek word altogether MNAOMAI (S.3415). It means to recall to memory etc. but whatever significance this may or may not have had with the theif, it bears no significance upon the Greek word used by Chirst for the Lord's Supper.

MORE TO COME

Continued to Tibby,

As for your word ANAMINESKO (S.363), it too is used to call to mind as in:

• Mark 11:21 where Peter remembered that the Lord had cursed the fig tree;
• Mark 14:72 where Peter remembered that the Lord had said that he would deny Him three times;
• 1Corinthians 4:17 where Paul sends Timothy to the Corinthians so he could recall to their remembrance what Paul’s way were like;
• 2Corinthians 7:14 we find that Titus remembers how well the Corinthians received him;
• 2Timothy 1:6 Paul seeks to encourage a fearful Timothy by recalling to his mind the gift of the Holy Spirit that is within him (i.e. Timothy);
• Hebrews 10:32 Paul is encouraging the Jewish Christians in that they are going through some grievous trials. He calls to their remembrance how in previous trials they had endured. He didn’t want them to throw all their works away.

QUOTE TIBBY POST #11

Tibby, I believe we have the complete Word of God. His Word is not deficient. Am I curious of some details that have not been revealed? Certainly! Are their phrases that are difficult to understand? Yes! This is one reason why we are having this debate. However, we do not NEED commentaries or other Bible helps. They are certainly helpful in that it is always good to understand how another brother in Christ understands the Word of God. Nevertheless, the Word of God would exist undiminished if I never had a commentary. On the other hand, if all I had were commentaries and did not have the Word of God, concerning which these same commentaries were written, I would indeed be handicapped. I would have to take the words of men as though they were the Word of God. This would indeed be a tragedy.

Concerning Jesus teaching since he was 12. There is nothing to indicate this. He did not make his public debut until He was 30 years old. At age 12 he confounded the Jewish rabbis, but that does not mean that Jesus publicly taught from that point onwards. Are their things that could have been reported concerning Jesus life? Yes, John makes this abundantly clear in John 21:25, but John also says that what we have is sufficient  to show that Jesus is indeed the Christ and that we have eternal life through Him (John 20:30-31).

Tibby, I would like for you to answer my question. I don't see the point in Transubstantiation. What purpose would it serve, if that were true? Jesus promised to be with us personally throughout our lives. He says that He and the Father have made their abode within each of us (John 14:23), and the Holy Spirit is the other Comforter (John 14:16-17) who dwells within us, whom the world is unable to receive. If these Scriptures are so, in what way would "Transubstantiation" be something greater? How could Jesus be more present with us during communion than every other day?

God bless,

John1one

John,

I suspect Tibby is not implying that the complete Word of God has been revealed. What becomes problematic however is precisely how that Word is to be interpreted. Consider the following scripture passages and how they are used to shore up the Catholic position on communion:

I. Old Testament

(a). Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jerusalem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise is considered fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is considered fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.


b). Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 -none of Jesus' bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 - they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.


II. New Testament
 
(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4, 11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:24 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass.

John 6:23-53 - here we learn that a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like those of our day who deny teh eucharist, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So one cannot find one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts

concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.[/i]

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Cathlolics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding.

Mark 14:38 - here Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural.

1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal. 5:17 - here again we see the "spirit/flesh" comparision being used to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Some often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, they must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Isaiah 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault.

John 6:54 - thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Some point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation


(b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. God does not declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the more than 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, others must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, being guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies if we partake unworthily, is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me."

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are apart of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for over 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and "pitched His tabernacle" among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed" His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

1 Cor. 12:13 - we "drink" of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is sinful. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or "ecclesia" (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus' sprinkled blood if it was no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.


(c). Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten

Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus does not complete the Passover seder meal in the upper room by drinking Fourth Cup (the "Cup of Consummation"). Jesus omits the Fourth Cup. The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to emphasize that the new Passover sacrifice of the Lamb was not yet completed. The consummation must follow the sacrifice.
 
Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover was not finished.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29 - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the passver Lamb must be eaten.

Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30 - Jesus drinks the final Passover cup. The sacrifice is finished. God's love for humanity is manifested.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - "sacrifice of praise" or "toda" refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus' Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread."


d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." This literally means "offer this as my memorial offering." The Eucharist is a sacrificial offering. Moreover, the Greek word "anamnesis" means to really or actually make present the offering. It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew is "azkarah" which means to actually make present. Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - further, Jesus' command to offer the memorial in remembrance of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice. In this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author refers to the heavenly "sacrifices" in the plural. Jesus died once. Therefore, the sacrifice is continually offered around the world by priests of Christ's Church. These "sacrifices" fulfill Mal. 1:11, where a pure offering is to be made in every place from the rising to the setting of the sun.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase "table of the Lord" in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase "Table of the Lord" to refer to an altar of sacrifice.

Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12 - for example, the phrase "table of the Lord" in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Commu'nion

Text:  fellowship with God (Gen. 18:17-33; Ex. 33:9-11; Num. 12:7, 8 ), between Christ and his people (John 14:23), by the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1), of believers with one another (Eph. 4:1-6). The Lord's Supper is so called (1 Cor. 10:16, 17), because in it there is fellowship between Christ and his disciples, and of the disciples with one another.

Matthew Henry on 1 Corinthians 11:17-22.


17-22 The apostle rebukes the disorders in their partaking of the Lord's supper. The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be apt to make us worse. If the use of them does not mend, it will harden. Upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms. Christians may separate from each other's communion, yet be charitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, yet be uncharitable. This last is schism, rather than the former. There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper, which adds to guilt. Many rich Corinthians seem to have acted very wrong at the Lord's table, or at the love-feasts, which took place at the same time as the supper. The rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. What should have been a bond of mutual love and affection, was made an instrument of discord and disunion. We should be careful that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table, appears to make light of that sacred institution.The Lord's supper is not now made an occasion for gluttony or revelling, but is it not often made the support of self-righteous pride, or a cloak for hypocrisy? Let us never rest in the outward forms of worship; but look to our hearts.
23-34 The apostle describes the sacred ordinance, of which he had the knowledge by revelation from Christ. As to the visible signs, these are the bread and wine. What is eaten is called bread, though at the same time it is said to be the body of the Lord, plainly showing that the apostle did not mean that the bread was changed into flesh. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bid them all drink of the cup, ch. xxvi. 27, as if he would, by this expression,provide against any believer being deprived of the cup. The things signified by these outward signs, are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice. Our Saviour's actions were, taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving both the one and the other. The actions of the communicants were, to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and to do both in remembrance of Christ. But the outward acts are not the whole, or the principal part, of what is to be done at this holy ordinance. Those who partake of it, are to take him as their Lord and Life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. Here is an account of the ends of this ordinance. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds his dying for us, as well as to remember Christ pleading for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. It is not merely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered; but to celebrate his grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and plead it as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. The Lord's supper is not an ordinance to be observed merely for a time, but to be continued. The apostle lays before the Corinthians the danger of receivingit with an unsuitable temper of mind; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while professing to renew and confirm the covenant with God. No doubt such incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to spiritual judgements. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance. The Holy Spirit never caused this scripture to be written to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this use of it. The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves. It is better to bear trouble in this world, than to be miserable for ever. The apostle points our the duty of those who come to the Lord's table. Self-examination is necessary to right attendance at this holy ordinance. If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements. The apostle closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which the Corinthians were guilty at the Lord's table. Let all look to it, that they do not come together to God's worship, so as to provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves.

Alot is made of the word "eucharist", as though it has a mystic or mysterious meaning.

It simply means "thanksgiving", it has nothing to do with what some weant it to sygnify.

Blessings

Petro

ollie,

Mr. Henry's opinion is certainly interesting on this matter and presents what I suspect would be a fine bit of preaching. It remains nonetheless what it is...an opinion, and on that level he and I will simply have to disagree. If Mr. Henry is being quoted as an authority on this issue, then I question where scripture fits into his position, if it is as I am told, the only source of revealed Truth

If however, he would care to comment on the scriptural references that's a whole 'nother ball 'o string.

Corpus

Good lord, I leave for a few days, and I miss all the fun stuff! Thanks for Standing in Corpus, you made me proud  ;D lol

One thing I would like to address:
Petro: You misunderstand what I said early. I am by no mean “disgruntled” by the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that I join another group (The CEC, as I said in the other post ) is because I are more comfortable with Charismatic teaches that I have grown up with. This group is not an Independent Catholic Church. I am very much against these Non-aliened Catholic Churches that keep popping up. As we all know “Catholic” means “Universal” I think by separating your self from all other Catholics, you undermind one of the core pillars of the Catholic system! The International Church Government is what makes Catholics Catholic! I am not an “independent” Catholic, my Patriarch just doesn’t live in Italy (He lives in California, as a matter of fact). The CEC has Bishops and diocese and even their own Branch of the Chaplin’s Corp in the US military! We have a website, if you wish to know more about us before you rant about “disassociated” Catholics.

Greetings Corpus,
Welcome to ChristiansUnite. It is always a pleasure to speak with my Catholic brethren. However, I was unaware, as Tibby seemed to imply in an earlier post that the charasmatics have split from Rome. Am I understanding him correctly?

Are you one of the "friends" with whom Tibby was conversing just before he began this debate on this forum?

QUOTE CORPUS: POST #23

I do suggest that we have the complete Word of God. I don't mean that everything God ever said or will say is in the pages of the Bible, but as it pertains to salvation, we have ALL WE NEED! There is nothing lacking - IT IS COMPLETE!

QUOTE CORPUS:


We agree here, however, I wished to bring this out in the beginning, because we shall disagree on many things in your posts. So I don't wish to begin with a negative comment.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Concerning Genesis 14 and Psalm 76 we are in agreement. However, we begin to disagree with Psalm 110:4. Psalm 110 foretells the coming of the Messiah who is also an Eternal Priest. This Scripture says nothing of bread and wine. The sacrifice that Jesus offers is Himself. The bread and wine is a memorial or a remembrance of that Sacrifice. How the Catholic Church views this Scripture is a matter between that organization and God. It is not a matter between this organization and me. Each of us has his own thoughts as to how the Word of God should be rendered; and we must do this with fear and trembling, knowing that we should not go beyond what is written:
1 Corinthians 4:6  And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The words "of men" have been supplied by the translators to help us in understanding God's Word. I believe that in this case the supplied words should be left out. It is not just men of whom we must beware. We need to take caution as to how we receive the Word of God. I know I do not take it lightly when others put words in my mouth. Imagine the disrespect we show our Lord when we put our own words into God's mouth and call them His!

QUOTE CORPUS:


Let me quote this Scripture:
Malachi 1:11  For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

This Scripture is speaking of the universality of the Sacrifice of Christ. The name of God will be great from the east to the west… i.e. all around the world. Why? Because in every place "incense" (the prayers of the saints) is offered in the name of God (in the name of Jesus) and a pure offering - which is the Sacrifice of Christ. This is not speaking of bread or wine. They indeed are symbols of that great Sacrifice, but there really is ONLY ONE SACRIFICE (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12). The Cross affects all people around the world and all time before and after Christ.

Going on in the Scripture, "for my name…" that is the name of Jesus, for as Philippians 2:10-11 says, we pray (bow, worship, offer incense) in His name, AND we confess that He is Lord (compare also Romans 14:11 quoting Isaiah 45:23). All this is speaking of Christ. There is no mention or reference to the bread and wine. The only connection the bread and wine has to this is that Jesus made it a memorial of His pure Sacrifice. We naturally think of what He did when we contemplate the bread and the wine. To say that bread and wine is prophesied and that IT is the pure offering is to miss the point.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Agreed! The PASSOVER LAMB prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ. He is the LAMB that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 35-36).

QUOTE CORPUS:

Of course you know that I would disagree with you here. The children of God make up A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS. As far as the priesthood of God is concerned, there is no distinction between a man who gives a sermon or who evangelizes a city and the ordinary believer. We are all priests before our God (Revelation 5:10), daily offering our sacrifices (Romans 12:1). Would you have me believe that only Catholic priests are to be involved in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6)?

MORE TO COME

Continued to Corpus,

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #23

Agreed! I have no argument with anything you posted in the above quote to this point. The baptism matter, however, I believe is a matter of denominational administration. It may and does differ from denomination to denomination. This difference should not separate brethren.

QUOTE CORPUS:

We are not in agreement here, my friend. This foreshadows the True Bread from Heaven which Jesus says is Himself. Notice:
John 6:33  For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world… 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… 47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48  I am that bread of life.

Jesus is that Bread of Life. To partake of that Bread (Jesus) is to trust or believe Him. When I say that He is my life (Colossians 3:4), I am saying that I am abiding in Jesus (the Vine of Life - John 15:5; 14:6). To bring forth the fruit of Christ is to live not my physical life, but His Spiritual life within me; then the fruits will be that of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) not of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). The life of the Spirit and the life of the flesh, cannot be lived at the same time. One or the other animates my body (Galatians 5:17). Who or what animates my body is a choice I make (Galatians 5:16), but the works or fruits I bear are not my own but that of my Master (or master). Either the life I have from Adam will require satisfaction, or the life I have from Christ will require satisfaction; but I cannot permit BOTH to bring forth fruit in my life simultaneoulsy. It is one or the other. When I am bringing forth those fruits (whether the flesh or the spirit), I am PARTAKING of or EATING that life (bread). Notice:
1Corinthians 15:44 …There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

To PARTAKE of or EAT the Body of Christ is to yield to Christ within, trusting that there is more than this life; and to lay myself down for Him (Romans 12:1) is indeed my reasonable service.

QUOTE CORPUS:

While I agree that the Israelites ratified the First Covenant through a meal; and the apostles (our representatives) ratified the New Covenant with a meal, I do not endorse your conclusion that the bread and the wine are the actual elements of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbols that prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:1-6). It is only logical that the bread and the wine would also be a figure or memorial of Christ as well. By what logic would it be otherwise? Where is the premise in God's Word to indicate such an interpretation?

MORE TO COME

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #24
We can agree that these Scriptures prophesy of the Bread of Life, who is Jesus. Where we disagree is that you believe that there is a prophesy that finds its fulfillment specifically in partaking of the elements of bread and wine. I do not believe there is any such prophecy. To me that would be like saying that there was a prophecy in the time of Noah that foretold the Israelites partaking of the Passover Lamb. The shadows do not prefigure other shadows. The shadows speak of the actual BODY which is Christ, Himself (Colossians 2:17).

MORE TO COME

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST 24:


Again, I do not wish to appear negative toward you. I only disagree with your interpretation that this is referring to the elements - bread and wine - actually changing their composition into the real body and blood of Christ. Your claim above that John 6 eliminates any claim to metaphorical possibilities is simply not so. In John 6:63 Jesus says plainly that the words that He speaks are to be understood spiritually and not literally. Moreover, by comparing John 6:53-54 with John 6:47-48 one can plainly see that Jesus is speaking metaphorically when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is speaking of our believing in Him.

The Greek word phago (S.5315) may literally mean "to eat" or "physically consume" but it is not without its metaphorical sense as can be seen in 1Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 10:3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Here Paul explains that the spiritual food which the Israelites ate in the wilderness was Christ. The next few verses in 1Corinthians explain that all that went on there happened as an example for us. Here we have an example of eating and drinking that REPRESENTS Christ. Why would we assume that the bread and the wine would be any different?

QUOTE CORPUS:

Corpus, my disagreement with you is not that Jesus is "true" or "real" FOOD, of which we must partake to live. Our disagreement is that you believe that John 6:55 is saying that the Eucharist is the same thing as Jesus. It is not. That ALETHES (S.230) can be use metaphorically is seen in:
Luke 21:3  And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

It cannot be understood that the widow cast in a great sum of money. She cast in only two mites, but it was all her living. Jesus spoke metaphorically of the reality of her greater sacrifice; because all the others gave to God out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Again, Corpus, this argument is flawed as can be seen in James:
James 5:3  Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

The word "eat" is PHAGO (S.5315) and "flesh" is SARX (S.4561). Here those who do not have the interest of their brethren at heart will find that their own wealth will eat up their life like a fire does fuel. The same two Greek words are used again in Revelation 17:16 for the Beast destroying the Harlot.

MORE TO COME

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25
Corpus, I am neither scandalized with the words of Jesus, nor am I anti-Catholic. As I have begun my post so I continue. Though I disagree with you, I have received you as a brother in Christ

As for John 6:61-63, it seems plain to me that Jesus is speaking metaphorically. He says that the words He is speaking are "spirit" - that is, they are to be spiritually understood and not to be taken literally like they were doing. Concerning faith, we do not need "great faith" to do this. When the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith, He told them that the smallest faith is sufficient, because faith grows. When people stumble it is not because thy have little faith, it is because they have NO FAITH. Faith comes by hearing or reading or contemplating the Word of God. In other words, faith grows as we spend time with Jesus (Romans 10:17).

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

Corpus, how can one "teach" a blind man to see or a deaf man to hear? It cannot be done. The significance of 1Corinthians 2 is that the "natural" man will not receive what is of God. The "spiritual" man will. To understand the Word of God, one must have the Spirit of God, just as to see one must have the gift of natural sight. One cannot command it or teach it. It is given by God. When Jesus speaks of the "spirit/flesh" comparison in John 3:6, He is speaking of the "natural" v/s the "spiritual" man. In Mark 14:38 He was speaking of the conflict of the Spirit and the Flesh within the spiritual man as is indicated in Galatians 5:16-17. The "natural" or "carnal" man has no such conflict, He is simply not subject to the Law of God nor can he be (Romans 8:7).

Concerning John 6:63 and my argument that Christ is speaking metaphorically when saying we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, it must be understood as the Word of God teaches that there is a "natural" man and a "spiritual" man (1Corinthinas 2:12, 14-15). Jesus is speaking of His words and says they are spirit (S.4151 - Greek = pneuma). Hebrews 4:12 speaks of how powerful the Word of God is, dividing even the soul and the spirit (S.4151). Notice the effect of the words of Joseph upon his father Jacob in Genesis 45:27. Words have a spiritual effect upon man. Jesus' words were no different. They were spirit and must be understood by those who were spiritual as 1Corinthians 2 claims. Now in Revelation 13:15, the second beast has power to make a "image" to the first Beast and not only so, but to give it life (S.4151). Are you going to tell me that this is not metaphorical? Does a man (even one possessed by Satan) have the power to give life? Only God can give life. Therefore, Revelation 13:15 MUST be metaphorical, and so too MUST the same Greek word (spirit) be taken metaphorically in John 6:63.

QUOTE CORPUS:


Jesus already claims that His words are "spirit" in John 6:63. These people cannot understand the Word of God without the Spirit of God, they are carnal. Notice in John 6:26 Jesus says that these carnal people were not interested in spiritual things but only in a "free meal." In verse 27 He tells them to get their minds off that which perishes and put them on eternal things. In verse 28 they ask Jesus what the work of God is. In verse 29 He tells them that the work of God is to believe or trust Him (as Messiah). Then in verse 30 they have the unmitigated insolence to ask for a sign - this immediately following the miracle of feeding so many people with a boy's lunch. NO! these people were carnal, natural men. There was not a spiritual man in the bunch. They didn't know how to take Jesus' words (which were spirit) and understand. To them, Jesus was either a lunatic or a very foolish man (1Corinthians 2:14).

QUOTE CORPUS:

Concerning Mark 4:34, how is this to be understood in the light of Matthew 13:10-11? Jesus did not speak plainly all of the time. When He spoke metaphorically, He revealed all to the disciples, privately.

MORE TO COME

CONTINUTE TO CORPUS

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

I have already addressed Jesus' speech in John 6 and that He did, in fact, warn the carnal followers of their error. Nevertheless, concerning His tying the response of the crowd with Judas' betrayal, if this is in fact a parallel, Judas' activity is reflected in the crowd's activity. They both walked away from Christ. They both thought that Christ was foolish. Neither had any real use for Him. It had nothing to do with the Eucharist. That was not even instituted until the night in which He was betrayed.

QUOTE CORPUS:


Was not the Passover Lamb to be eaten? Is not Jesus our Passover Lamb (1Corinthians 5:7)? Are we not to keep the Feast by partaking of spiritual unleavened bread like "sincerity" and "truth" and put away the old "spiritual" leaven of "malice" and "wickedness?" How are we to receive these?

How about Luke 14:24, what are we to make of the fact that the unworthy shall never taste of the supper prepared by God? Is not Christ this Spiritual Meal? The unbeliever, the carnal or natural man, is unable to partake of Him. They reject Him, counting it foolishness to trust Him.

QUOTE CORPUS:


We have no argument here.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Concerning John 6, as I have made clear above, it is my believe that Jesus did, in fact, tell those who were leaving Him that they were not understanding correctly, that His speech was "spirit" and must not be received logically.

Concerning becoming like little children, this is true. We must have a childlike spirit concerning learning the things of God. Children love to learn and participate in new things, and it is in this "spirit" that we must become like a child. Nevertheless, we must not understand as a child (1Corinthians 13:11). Otherwise, we might take something like Mark 9:47 or Luke 14:26 literally. I am certain you and I would have no argument that these verses MUST be taken metaphorically and cannot be received with childlike understanding.

MORE TO COME

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

The verb esti (S.2076) is the third person singular of the verb "to be" (S.1510). Jesus says in John 10:7, 9 "I am the door…" In Revelation 5:12 all of heaven is declaring "Worthy is (S.2076) the Lamb that was slain…" We both know that Jesus is not an animal. Of course, this is metaphorical and the fact that the verb "to be" is used in the above Scriptures (even in the third person singular form) has nothing to do with it being literal or metaphorical. It can be either, grammatically speaking. However it is used, it is understood with the Spirit of God, given to His children.

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #26

The Greek word is ekcheo (S.1632) and means "to pour" or "to pour out." Jesus used this expression of Himself on the cross, as He began to sing Psalm 22 "My God, My God, why have you forsake Me…" In verse 14 the song continues "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels…" It is used of Jesus "shedding" His blood and often of the Holy spirit being poured out upon man. The word is used in Jude 1:11 for "ran greedily after" (S.1632). It has no special significance for the Eucharist, other than the wine is a memorial of the "poured out" life of Christ. It is not literal as pertaining to the wine.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Moses had sacrificed an oxen (Exodus 24:5). All these offerings were shadows of Christ. The blood represented Christ's blood and the service foretold Christ's death (Luke 24:26-27). The wine is no different. It is symbolic of the true Reality, Christ.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Let's quote the Scripture:
1 Corinthians 10:15  I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (S.2844) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (S.2844) of the body of Christ? 17  For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18  Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers (S.2844) of the altar?

The first thing to notice is that these words are for men made wise by the Spirit of God (v.15). The cup of blessing that we bless is our fellowship in the blood (or suffering) of Christ. (v.16). When John and James tried to get Jesus to let them sit on the right and left of Him in the Kingdom, Jesus asked if they were able to drink of the cup that He would drink (Matthew 20:22). He was speaking of His suffering and dying. 1Corinthians 10:17 speaks of us the Body of Christ being the bread because we all partake of THAT ONE BREAD which is Christ. We fellowship in His life and in His death. We identify with Him.

Israel (and in particular the Levites), according to the flesh were given the sacrifices as part of their inheritance and their labor. Their service made them partakers of the altar i.e. they fellowshipped in the altar (v.18). This is understood in the fact that as we fellowship in the suffering of Christ, so shall we partake of His rewards (2Corinthians 1:7). Again as we witness the suffering of Christ in our own lives, we shall be partakers of the glory that shall be revealed (1Peter 5:1).

MORE TO COME

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS:

I think it might be better to quote the Scripture here:
1 Corinthians 11:23  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24  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. 25  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. 26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27  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. 28  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Thee times Paul says that this is a memorial. In verse 24 he says the breaking the bread is a memorial. In verse 25 He says the drinking of the wine is a memorial. Finally in verse 26 He says that eating the bread and drinking the wine proclaims the Lord's death until He comes.

As far as murder is concerned, you try to make a point of murdering a symbol, but the subject is not murder nor is murder mentioned. The subject is treating the Lord's Supper in an "unworthy" manner; and that such a one is "guilty" of the body and blood of Christ (v.27). Notice this person is not guilty of the "bread and the wine" but "the body and blood of the Lord." Therefore, treating the symbol irreverently doesn't make one guilty of a symbol, but of the reality which the symbol represents.

Concerning this you imply that punishment would be unjust, if the bread and wine were just symbols. If you or I would desecrate the American Flag, what would we be doing? If we did so in front of a U.S. Marine or a Navy Seal or a Soldier in the 101st or 82nd Air Division, what kind of response could we expect for our recklessness?

Nadab and Abihu died because they substituted their own fire in their censers. God killed them for their indiscretion. Was that also unjust? God is a God of ceremony. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy make this plain. To abuse the symbols that God gives to us to represent a greater Reality is to abuse that Reality.

The remainder of your Scriptural references in this section from Acts 2:42 to Revelation 22:14 cannot be compared with your arguments thus far. You are reaching here Corpus and that is not worthy of you. I understand that the Catholic denomination will have different doctrinal beliefs than those who call themselves Protestant, but I know that the Catholic Church does not teach what you are pushing here.

MORE TO COME

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #26

Except for possible oversights such as the fact that the Passover Lamb (and Jesus) were examined from the 10th of the first month to the 14th, I have no disagreement with your presentation of these Scriptures and commentary. Of course, you understand these things to foreshadow the Eucharist, while I would say that both these Scriptures and the Eucharist are symbols/memorials of Christ's suffering and death. Concerning the fourth "CUP OF CONSUMATION" I was not aware of this significance and the fact that it was consumed upon the cross itself. Thank you, I appreciate your insight. I'll have to study this further to see if everything is indeed as you say. Nevertheless, it seems to fit and is a beautiful commentary.

MORE TO COME

John,

First and foremost I must apologize if some of my posts seemed a bit abrasive. I did not intend them to be.

Secondly you've not offended me in any may with your replies. It's genuine discussion and disagreement and you present it admirably.

Thirdly, I appreciate in ways you might not understand your reference to the word 'brethren.' It is far too easy to become jaded after a time spent on boards like these.

I'll let you finish, but thought I'd respond to a couple of your questions first:


Not that I'm aware of?? There are Charismatic Catholics within my town that are in full communion with Rome. I suspect some of those in Tibby's group are separated for reasons other than the charismatic element.


No, I'd never even read any of his posts prior to this topic.

All for now...

CONTINUTED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #27

I admire your enthusiasm for your denomination, Corpus, but you know you are taking liberties with the Greek by saying that these words "literally" mean what you say. No! They CAN mean what you say. That is, the grammar is not violated by what you say. A "literal" translation would be something OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAY. The truth is understood in the context. I believe that I have shown that the context reveals not a literal changing of the substance but represents the greater Reality of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. Nevertheless, you are welcome to your own interpretation. This is what "denominations" do.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Again, you are taking great liberties with the Greek and applying what God instituted under the First Testament to apply to what you want the Greek to mean for the New Testament. Like I said above, I admire your enthusiasm for your denomination. Nevertheless, you are reaching here. You are indeed mistaken, if you think that what you are saying will convince anyone except those who wish to believe in transubstantiation.

QUOTE CORPUS:

The plural here has to do with a "figure of speech" known in the Greek as "heterosis." It exchanges one voice, mood, tense, person, number, degree, or gender for another. It is quite common in both the Hebrew and the Greek. For example, consider Psalm 51:17 where it says that "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit…" The plural "sacrifices" with the singular object "spirit".

QUOTE CORPUS:

This is another reach, Corpus. Too often I see my brethren writhing off the Jews as the people of God. All the Scripture that has always been for the Jews has suddenly been absorbed into blessings for the Gentile believers. All the Scripture EXCEPT FOR THE CURSES AND THE JUDGMENT that is still for the Jews. Well, I'll wait for the King of the Jews to return and see what He says.

QUOTE CORPUS:


The sacrifice of praise is the fruit of our own lips. We do this when we worship in song and testimony before the brethren. What are you implying here, Corpus? Concerning 1Peter 2:5-6 Peter is speaking of our being built up into the Holy Temple of God. We are living stones and Christ is the Chief Cornerstone (compare Ephesians 2:20-22). As far as the sacrifices mentioned is concerned, Paul mentions this as well in Romans 12:1. We are to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice. This is our fitting service.

CONCLUSION COMING

CONCLUDING TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS:

As I said above, this Scripture says that if we suffer with Christ we shall also reap the rewards of Christ. That is what fellowship or being partakers of the altar means. Identity with Christ in His suffering reaps identity with Him in His glory when He returns.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Corpus, you keep preaching your denomination as though believing as you do is the ONLY valid interpretation of the Scriptures. As I said before, the elements of bread and wine are memorials to the ONE SACRIFICE - NEVER AGAIN TO BE REPEATED, SACRIFICE. If God were to do something that would not be repeated, but wanted us to remember what He did, what might He do?

• For creation He gave the Sabbath
• For the coming out of Egypt, He gave the Passover
• For the Law and later the outpouring of the Spirit, He gave Pentecost
• For the wandering in the wilderness and living in tents, He gave Tabernacles
• For the Crucifixion, He gave the bread and the wine.

Each are memorials. What more could He do or say so people would understand?

QUOTE CORPUS:

I agree! The Lord's Supper proclaims the death of Christ. It is set up as a MEMORIAL to Him for what He did.

QUOTE CORPUS:


Leviticus and Ezekiel are both speaking of the Table of Shewbread  in the Holy Place of the Temple. Upon it were unleavened cakes that the priests must eat. This had to do with identifying with the altar.

Malachi spoke of what was brought to the altar as being "seconds" or what we might consider flawed produce on the market. We might get things like this at "bargain" prices. You get what you pay for. Nevertheless, this is the type of animal and produce that was brought to the Temple. The "table of the Lord" is that part of the animal and the produce that was not burnt upon the altar. It was considered the priest's portion. The "reward" he received for his fellowship with the "altar". Your interpretation that Paul is using 1Corinthians 10:21 to show that the Lord's Supper is a sacrificial offering in simply not true. The problem is that if you go to Scripture with an idea of what it means, usually you can make it mean what you desire.

QUOTE CORPUS:

Some of what you have posted, Corpus, I have found very interesting. Some other matters show you are really "reaching" to make Scripture say what you want in order that your doctrine would be true. Still other matters show an honest approach to Scripture that simply differs with my own. I have found your commentary both interesting and refreshing in that when I was still Roman Catholic, the Scriptures were not suggested reading. If this has changed, I applaud the change. If this is a personal commitment on your part, than I applaud your interest in God's Word. It has been fun for me to fellowship with you in this way. Too bad we are not neighbors.

The sense of Hebrews 13:10, 15 has to do with the Jewish brethren leaving behind the very religion that brought them to Christ.

• Verse-1 calls us to love for the brethren.
• The chapter speaks of our union with Christ (v.4);
• He will provide for us (v.5),
• so that we can live in confidence (v.6).
• We are to remember those who guide the rulership of Christ over us, knowing that Jesus is always the same; God never changes (v. 7-8).
• We must not be carried away with strange "doctrines" which is linked with meat in verse nine.
• Then in verse 10 the writer says that we who serve the Temple of God have an altar which they (the Jews in this context) have no right to partake.

Doctrine is meat or food and is linked to the altar of which others have no right to partake. Only the Levites had a right to the altar. The other tribes of Israel had no right to it at all.

The sense is that we need to fix our eyes upon Jesus who is the Author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2). We are told to bear the reproach of Christ and go to Him who is outside the camp (Hebrews 13:11-13). The religious organizations of today whether Christian or Jewish should not have the great appeal that they have upon us, for we have no permanent "city" or "church denomination" here. We look for one to come (Hebrews 13:14). Through Christ, i.e. in His Name we offer the sacrifice of praise which "the fruit of our lips" to our great God, in all circumstance and every day.

This is the day that the Lord has made. We shall rejoice and be glad in it. God bless, Corpus.

John1one

Hallelujah John!

I applaud you for your temerity, thoroughness and patience in exploring my post. But most especially for your graciousness in addressing a topic over which, elements of, we might disagree.


You are correct that for a time they were not suggested reading. Please understand though, that much of the reason behind this stemmed not from the church being afraid the congregation would find out the truth on some matters (claims I've read elsewhere), but rather to avoid errors of misinterpretation and the divisions it can lead to. Should the church have had more confidence in the laity? Certainly, and more importantly it then becomes the church's responsibility to provide the tools for proper interpretation. This they've since done, and since Vatican II have openly and aggresively encouraged reading of scripture for inspiration, knowledge, wisdom and edification.

As to the difference in interpretations, we shall perhaps have to agree to disagree, something I feel can be done while witnessing an apparently close relationship you possess with Christ.



Agreed. God's blessings upon you and yours.

Hi:

I'm coming to this discussion somewhat late and I don't have the patience to read through 3+ pages of discussion.  I don't believe that the elements of the Holy Communion somehow change their substance when a priest utters the words "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body) but I believe that Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

Our church has formulated the following theological foundations regarding Holy Communion:

The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ himself (1 Cor 11.23-25; Mt 26.26-28).

In Holy Communion the crucified and risen Christ is present in word and action.  This presence is a mystery.

Holy Communion is a means of grace through which the crucified and risen Christ awakens faith, saves, forgives, unites, gives life, comforts and strengthens God's people for the work to which they are called in the world.

Holy Communion is also a great and joyous thanksgiving (Eucharist) for everything accomplished by God in creation, redemption and sanctification.  In the Eucharist, God's people give thanks for all of God's blessings.

Eucharistic celebrations incorporate the whole Christian church in every time and place.  The whole church is involved in each local eucharistic celebration (1 Cor 10.16-17).

In the Lord's Supper, but the power of the Holy Spirit, we remember and experience anew the creative and redemptive acts of God, receive the gift of the presence of Christ, and look forward in anticipation to our future with God.

Participation in the Lord's Supper empowers and compels us to imitate the example of our Lord who is both host and servant and to embody and reflect the unity which the Lord's Supper symbolizes (Lk 22.24-27; Jn 13.1-20; 1 Cor 10.17).

In Baptism we are incorporated into the body of Christ, the church.  In Holy Communion the church is nourished and strengthened.  Therefore we speak of and practice communion of the baptized.

Shalom

I voted for consubstantiation, but that only comes closest to expressing my postion on the Holy Eucharist.  There was no really appropriate choice in the poll for me.

Pastor Tom, am I correct in thinking the the Lutheran church also does not beleive in con..., even though the term is often applied to Lutherans by outsiders?

For me, Jesus "said this is my body and blood" and that is enough, I take him at his word without delving into the philosophy of Aristotle with it's talk of substance and accidents.

For those of you that believe in symbolic-only communion, how does "do this to remember me" erase "this is my body and blood", or change it into this is not my body and blood?

texs...

Why does anyone have to change anything??

What can not be changed anyhow..

What you call symbolic is a remmebrance celebration of "Thanksgiving".

! Cor 11
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.


Why do religious people make more of it than what it is.

Because the natural man in them, wants to add his own two little mites into it..and turn it into something which gives tangible evidence,  of their hand in the matter.

This is why men proudly proclaim, this is the way, we do it at our church.

No more no less,


Petro

I thought this would be relevant to the topic at hand:

"He [the Holy Spirit] is not revealed, however, in His essence, for
nobody has ever seen or declared God's nature, but in the grace, power and
energy common to the Father, Son and Spirit. Each has His own hypostasis,
and the characteristics seen to belong to that hypostasis. They have in
common not only Their undisclosed essence, which is above all names and in
which we cannot share, but also the grace, power, energy, radiance,
incorruption, kingdom, and everything else by which God has communion with
the holy angels and with men. He is united with them through grace without
losing His unity and simplicity either by the division and difference
between the hypostases, or the diversity and variety of the divine powers
and energies."

- St. Gregory Palamas (The Homilies Vol. 1, Homily Eight para. 10

4676169.

Also consider this relevant passage from St. Irenaeus of Lyons'
Against Heresies, IV, 20, 5:

"The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by
men; as the Lord also says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God.' [Matt. 5:8] But in respect to His greatness, and His
wonderful glory, 'no man shall see God and live,' [Exod. 33:20] for
the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and
kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those
who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also
predict. 'For those things that are impossible with men, are possible
with God.' [Luke 18:27] For man does not see God by his own powers;
but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He
wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been
seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen,
too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally
in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of
God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too,
confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every
one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light
are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those
who see God are in God, and receive of His splendor. But [His]
splendor vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive
life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and
boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible,
and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify
those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness
is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by
which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is
not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found
in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to
enjoy His goodness."

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are
to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift
of God are perishing in their disputes" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake
of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has
been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for
regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as
Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by
the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the
blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood,
from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is
not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of Him?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, 5:2).

Please note that St. Ireneasu was a Bishop of the church in the 2nd century.

Id like to see the responses.

I know at first look you might think "What has this verse to do with the topic", but I think there is a valid link-


We all know that the communion is a symbol linked to Passover which was a Biblical festival that points to the Messiah's death atonement to free us from sin.  The Passover is filled with symbols that God implemented to teach the message of God's salvation through the Messiah.  The symbols themselves are a shadow of the body of Messiah and are not the body themselves, but represent the body.  The presence of God over the Lord's table was taught in Israel from before the advent of Jesus in regards to the alter at the Temple (also refered to as the Lord's table).  The idea that a repentant person could come and "eat" with God and that God would accept his sacrifice as a meal was what God was teaching Israel through this practice.  The Passover was unique among the festivals in that it was the only festival where a non-priest could eat God's sacrificial meat outside of the temple.  They would take the Lamb to the temple and have it slaughtered, and then take it to their quarters (most people were from out of town since it was a pilgramige festival) and eat it.

With the Passover on the night of the crusifixion, our Master identified himself as food that God sent to sustain us (by cleansing us of sin). I often wondered why Jesus didn't take some of the lamb and say "this is my body..." since John often speaks of him being the Lamb.  Recently I found that it was normal to identify the whole meal by the bread, which is why they would bless God for the bread at the outset of the meal.

This was the closure of a difficult teaching that Jesus gave earlier-

Reading on down the above chapter, the disciples were distressed about this (since they knew that God had told them not to drink blood), and I think at the last supper, they sighed a sigh of relief about that since the Master clarified it.

I think overall, that Jesus wanted His disciples (including us) to understand that Passover was about him and that was the reason for calling the unleavened bread, wine, and by extension the lamb and other food, His body.

Perhaps another reason he didn't choose the lamb directly is because it is really flesh, and he didn't want people to think they were eating human flesh, or that eating human flesh was acceptable.

Any thoughts?

In John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31), Transubstantiationist and Cosubstantiationist apologists emphasize the literal reading of John 6:54-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54-56;&version=31;). Specifically, these apologists see John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) as representing the physical Eucharistic elements, while viewing John 6:54, 56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54,%2056;&version=31;) as representing the consumption of the physical Eucharistic elements.

However, this is non-sequitur reasoning, for while John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) mentions real sustenance, John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) does not mention physical sustenance. To the contrary, in John 6:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:27;&version=31;), Jesus instructs the crowd to seek food that does not spoil, as opposed to food that spoils. Likewise, in John 4:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:13-14;&version=31;), Christ Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman to seek water that permanently quenches thirst. This is significant, for all physical food spoils after providing temporary nourishment only, thereby indicating that the subject is literal spiritual food, not literal physical food. Christ Jesus verifies this interpretation in John 6:30-33, 49-50, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:30-33,%2049-50,%2058;&version=31;), where he contrasts desert manna with bread from heaven.

With this in mind, notice that Christ Jesus parallels belief in him (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:29,%2035,%2040,%2047;&version=31;)) with eating him as the "bread of life" (John 6:50, 51, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:51;&version=31;)) throughout John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31). Each item results in obtaining eternal life, in and of itself, thereby indicating that these things are same thing. Otherwise, Christ Jesus would be contradicting himself by advocating different means of obtaining salvation.

This parallel reaches its full logical extension in John 6:53-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:53-56;&version=31;). Specifically, Christ Jesus parallels belief in him with eating his body and blood. This dual form of food describes a two-fold form of spiritual nourishment:
(a) The body is what bears the sins (ref. Leviticus 16:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:21-22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus bore our sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:24;&version=31;)). Hence, Christ Jesus's body eliminates our spiritual burden of bearing sin (Romans 6:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:5-7%20;&version=31;)).
(b) Blood, or lifeblood, is forfeited for the payment of sins (Leviticus 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11;&version=31;), Hebrews 9:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus spilled his lifeblood for our sins (Matthew 26:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:28;&version=31;), 1 Peter 1:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:18-19;&version=31;), 1 John 1:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:7;&version=31;), etc.). Hence, Christ Jesus's blood eliminates our spiritual burden of sinful guilt (Hebrews 9:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:14;&version=31;), Hebrews 10:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:22;&version=31;)).

At this point, remember that Christ Jesus observed Mosaic Law, which prohibited the drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:10-12;&version=31;)). The Apostles followed this observance by teaching believers to abstain from drinking blood (Acts 15:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:20;&version=31;), Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29;&version=31;), Acts 21:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2021:25;&version=31;)).

Further, God the Father prevents Christ Jesus from experiencing decay (Acts 2:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:27;&version=31;)). However, in consuming transubstantiate or cosubstantiate communion wafers and wine, one's body digests or "breaks down" the said materials.

This New Testament imagery of consuming Christ Jesus to internalize his saving power (ref. John 6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:50-51,%2053-54,%2057-58;&version=31;)) parallels the Old Testament imagery of consuming God's words to internalize their meaning (ref. Jeremiah 15:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2015:16;&version=31;), Isaiah 55:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:1-3;&version=31;), Ezekiel 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%202:8;&version=31;), Ezekiel 3:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%203:1;&version=31;)). Plus, this cross-Testament parallel includes the imagery of Matthew 5:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:6;&version=31;), where one's desire to intake nutrition illustrates one's desire for righteousness.


"Because they say so"? Why should I accept the theological authority of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus?