Communion

[Tibby]

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.

[John1one]

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:

Religiously, I come from both Non-Denominational Charismatic, and Roman Catholic. I enjoy reading and studying Philosophy, Theology, and History.  I also love to debate. I love weight lifting. I'm also into Boxing, Karate, and pretty much any sports I can find to play.

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

[Tibby]

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.

[Petro]

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

[ollie]

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.

[ollie]

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.

[Tibby]

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  

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

[John1one]

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:

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!"

"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!

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:

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!

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

[Petro]

Posted by Tibby
The word in the Greek is anamimnesko.

Chris,

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[Tibby]

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

[Tibby]

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 ! 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

[ollie]

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.

[Tibby]

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