Communion

[Petro]

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

[Corpus]

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

[Tibby]

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

[John1one]

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 suspect Tibby is not implying that the complete Word of God has been revealed.

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:

What becomes problematic however is precisely how that Word is to be interpreted.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

[John1one]

Continued to Corpus,

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #23

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

[John1one]

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #24

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.

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

[John1one]

Continued to Corpus:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST 24:

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.

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:

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… 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, 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:

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.

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

[John1one]

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

[John1one]

CONTINUTE TO CORPUS

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

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.

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:

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.

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:

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…

We have no argument here.

QUOTE CORPUS:

…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

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

[John1one]

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #25

(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."

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

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.

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:

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

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:

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.

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

[John1one]

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS:

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.

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

[John1one]

CONTINUED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #26

(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.

POST #27
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."

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

[Corpus]

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:

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?

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.

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

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

All for now...

[John1one]

CONTINUTED TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS - POST #27

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

[John1one]

CONCLUDING TO CORPUS:

QUOTE CORPUS:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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