Communion

[Petro]

 posted by 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

[ollie]

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

Have you forgotten your subject?

[ollie]

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.

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

[Tibby]

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 , 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 ). 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

[Petro]

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

[ollie]

Ollie: What I meant was what possible reason could you have for posting the definition of Communion up?

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


 

I am truly sorry,  I should have been more clear. lol, I should have said it in the first place!

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.


 

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

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

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:

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

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

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.
 

Also according to you:

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

RIGHT ON!
The Godhead is 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.

"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.

Thanks guys, it’s been fun,
Chris

Have a good day,
Ollie

[John1one]

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

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!

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

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. [FROM POST #6 - 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?]

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

[John1one]

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

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.

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

[Corpus]

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.

[Corpus]

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

[Corpus]

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."

[Corpus]

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.

[Corpus]

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.

[ollie]

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.

[ollie]

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.