The Church

Your right Christ didn't say "This is my real body. . .," rather He said "This IS my Body . . . This IS my Blood." I'm sure you know "IS" is a state of being. It is not the Clinton iffy 'is is'.

The disgusted walked away, you do recall that don't you? They, in effect, turned their back on Christ going back to Capharnaum. Those remaining had nowhere else to go, you do recall that don't you? They believed Christ when He handed them HIS Body and His Blood.

. The Seder meal was a commandment of God. As we just posted, Seder is a remembrance or a commemoration. It is held on the day before pasch as the celebration of the unleavened bread.

You can say it as many times as you need, nevertheless the Real Presence of Christ has the appearance of bread and wine, an unbloody sacrifice.

Indeed I do, they say they abide in their victims. Jesus said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." [John 6:54] But then continued to say, "
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." [John 6:57]. It seems He didn't have any delusions about what He was saying.

How do you 'abid' in a symbol?

Now, we have insight to the mind of "Particular"! God wouldn't ever do anything that offends Particular. Consequently, Christ takes the form of bread and wine to keep from offending you.

That's not true see Luther's "(Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper". 1528. Luther did indeed believe in the real presence, except that bread was over and under Christ. Which of course is an another error in itself.

JoeT

 

To have an intelligent conversation, we must work with the evidence as it presents itself. Where does it say the thief was NOT baptized?

The Apostles and other disciples were all over Jerusalem prior to the Crucifixion. Where in Scripture does it say it would be inconsistent to believe that the thief was baptized? Isn't it true that the only Christian tradition is written in Scripture?

In John 3:5 Christ says, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." If the Kingdom is only in heaven how then did the thief enter heaven unless he was baptized in some way.

JoeT

 

Do you therefore admit to being a cannibal?

Since the disciples were there and they didn't actually eat Jesus flesh or drink his blood (no evidence of Jesus slicing off a flank of his leg or draining a pint of his blood for people) it is clear that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally.
Understanding the figurative language of Christ takes nothing away from His atoning work. But, it does remove the false teaching that communion is a means of receiving God's gracious salvation, over and over and over and over again.
Christ died once, for all (all being the elect). No need for continual re-dying in order to be restored and receive more grace.
We remember Christ in the cup and the bread.

 

The Bible says Jesus drank wine, "the fruit of the vine" (note, it is identified as wine after Jesus drank it). And, the Bible said Jesus called bread (i.e. it is bread) his body. I wonder what gymnastics goes on in someone's head that prevents them from accepting that something that IS WINE and IS BREAD is wine and bread (and, therefor, anything is is symbolism).

And, what kind of reasoning is it to convince oneself that wine and bread are literally anything else, after being consumed in Communion? Taste it, that's wine and bread, not blood and flesh. That's wine on your breath, not blood. Throw it up, and it'll be wine and bread.

Why the desire for some people to latch onto dogma that contradicts all reason? (Baptists are guilty, also, of dogma over all reason, when they deny Jesus drank wine.)

 

Protestants view the Eucharist in the same way Jews and Muslims view the Incarnation: God shouldn't, couldn't and wouldn't become man.

 

Nope. Your assertions are sometimes comical. Like this one for example.

 

I'm glad I am able to provide you with humor.

When you are done laughing, perhaps you can offer an objection and or formulate a refutation?

 

Why would I? Your claim is so ludicrous that no one would believe you.

 

You presume too much and you read alone.

Pneuma is a Greek word most always translated as "spirit", it’s meaning however is more an inner force that reaches and units us to God. Catholics are one pneuma with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). And, as in John 6:64 and in Paul’s Galatians 3 we receive this power from God, you might say as a quickening.

Sarx refers to the flesh or the physical body of a person. Thus, in john 6:64 we see it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Again, pneuma (the inner force) is moved toward God. Continuing Christ said it does nothing for the sarx, i.e., the physical body; and how can it? The words He speaks, say Christ are pneuma (about the inner force), the inner force that binds us to life, i.e. God.

Let’s be even clearer still, soma is a Greek word for body as well, however it is the whole person, more literally, ‘the thing that is self’ or person. In Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 we hear Christ say this is my Body; soma, “the thing that is His Person”. To be a person requires body, soul, intellect, and will. Actually he is saying “toútó estin tó sómá mou”, (this is my body) which means this is His Person; Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity, the whole or the essence of what Jesus Christ is.

My person is not a symbol, pinch me and I protest. One commandment is given by Christ, either partake of the Real Presence in Christ (His Person) else you do not have life in you [John 6:54]. Conversely, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]. Whereas, eating symbols does nothing but put excess weight on the sarx.

JoeT

 

There is no gymnastics, it's straight line. HE SAID of the bread, "this IS my Body" and of the wine, "this IS my Blood". I could understand it if some dumb Catholic said it, but do you not believe Scripture itself?

The same kind of reasoning that gives us Scripture.

Truth is the binding agent to Catholic dogma.

JoeT

 

I know a lot of Catholics who are one pneuma with a liquor bottle. They place their hope in their infant baptism and occasional partaking in communion to make their good works better than their bad works.
Of course none of that has to do with God's sovereign choosing to save by grace alone.

Jesus doesn say to participate in the "real presence" of body and blood. These are assertions based upon your church dogma.
Now, if you want to hold the dogma, that's your business. Just don't teach that continual partaking somehow makes you more saved or that it gives you better comprehension skills as you did when we got on this subject.
Take communion. Remember that Christ substituted his life as a sacrifice for our sin. We no longer live, but Christ lives within us. (Galatians 2:20) Remember the debt that was paid for you. Just don't imagine Jesus has to keep dying all over again in order to keep you in the faith.

 

The ONLY thing that has been granted by God to save lost sinners is the Cross of Christ, and His resurrection period! Trust fully in that, and you are saved, but if trusting in Mass or water baptism to save you...

 

I'll bite (pun intended)...

 

Do you therefore admit to being a symbolic cannibal? Unless you believe the command to eat was itself symbolic, and not literal, you are advocating symbolic cannibalism. To refute this, please demonstrate anywhere in salvation history (via the Scriptures) where eating a body (not some other “object” / red herring) was a metaphor for something other than that.

Let's see what you come up with...

 

The entire sedir meal is symbolic. So, no symbolic cannibalism. I recognize Jesus use of figure of speech.
The symbol is the Passover lamb, which saved the people from God's judgment and ushered in the journey to the promised land.
However, to claim literal eating of Jesus flesh and literal drinking of Jesus blood is indeed cannibalism.
Definition of CANNIBALISM
Definition of cannibalism

1: the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

 

I believe the church is made up of seven unique congregations. So different that some of them doesn’t even like one another.

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 1:20 - Revelation 2:1

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

Candlesticks - Seven church congregations
Stars - Individuals within the congregations, all held in the right hand of Christ
Seals - The seven seals sealed each congregation within the lambs book of life

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. - Revelation 5:4

If this interpretation is not correct why all the ado?

 

And, I know a lot of Baptist who are one pneuma with a beer jug.

So?

What I said was "comprehension is quite enhanced" by partaking of the communion. I don't consider communion a "good work", rather it is a grace of God through the Church.

We place our faith in Jesus Christ.

Everything I said in my previous post has to do with with our eternal life.

These are the assertions of the Apostles.

Thank you very much, I want to hold to teaching of the Church.

Thank you.

Am I to understand that you believe your Christ made a penal substitution for our sins? How odd that you would believe God would punish His begotten son for your sins?

 

The Last Supper took place in the context of the passover meal. It was the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant of Exodus 24. To believe otherwise would render the Eucharist the FIRST TIME in all of Scripture when the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.

Exodus 24 (The figure) ---> The hill, the altar, the twelve, the blood, Moses, the covenant, the eating the drinking and communion with God ---> Points to the reality of the new now being fulfilled by Jesus Christ ---> The Upper Room, the altar, the twelve, the blood, the New Moses, the new covenant, the eating and drinking and communion with God.

Cannibalism involves the consumption of the dead. Christ is the "living bread which cometh down from heaven", not the dead bread.

Once again, if you believe He instructed His followers to eat something that symbolizes a body, then you are advocating symbolic cannibalism.

To refute this, you would need to demonstrate how eating a body was a metaphor for something other than that. Make your best case and demonstrate by way of example(s) from the Scriptures.

Let's see what you can come up with...

 

They aren't assertions of the Apostles. It the dogma of your church, which needs reform because it no longer follows scripture above its traditions.

 

Which is it, a symbol or a remembrance, a commemoration?

JoeT