Bread Worship

[Doubting Thomas]

Mike,

After comparing the specific differences in the Scriptures between the "Door" and "Vine" metaphors on one hand with the teaching regarding the bread/wine being the Body/Blood on the other I said this...

"So, Mike, I hope when you look at all the relevent Scriptures you can see the difference between the "door" and "vine" metaphors on the one hand, and the identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood on the other."

You replied

Jesus Christ corrected His followers when they mistakenly thought they were to physically eat Jesus in order to have everlasting life, grow as christians, or anything else they might have thought.

As soon as they got that wrong idea, Christ told them...


Quote:
"It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The only "correction" Christ gave was the caveat that the words He was speaking were "spirit" (ie spiritual) and not of carnal understanding. That's what He meant by juxtiposing "spirit" and "flesh" in this verse (which is indeed the case through out most of the NT). In other words, "spirit" doesn't mean "metaphor" nor does "flesh" equal "physicality" in this verse. Obviously, Christ didn't mean that HIS physical "flesh" profited nothing since He had just said that He was about to give it for the life of the world...which of course He literally did on the cross. It was this flesh that He said was "food indeed" and that we must eat, along with His blood being drink indeed.

Christ, never said to the departing disciples: "Hang on, don't you know I'm just speaking metaphorically?" Nor does John make a comment that the remaining disciples understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically. For example, Matthew mentions that after Jesus "corrected" their misunderstanding about what He meant by the "leaven of the Pharisees" that the disciples then understood that by "leaven" He was referring to their teachings. However, John doesn't make a similar comment about the bread discourse to the effect of, "and the disciples understood that by Christ's flesh and blood He was referring to His teachings" or the like. This would be odd if John had actually understood Christ to be speaking only metaphorically, because John had already written such an explanatory note when interpreting what Christ meant by "destroying this temple and raising it up in 3 days" in chapter 2 by saying that He was actually referring to His physical body (2:19-22)

Also, compare the John 6 discourse to the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 regarding the new birth. After Christ told Nicodemus that one must be born again (v3), he responded by asking how an old man could enter a second time in his mother's womb and be born again (v4). Christ of course, corrected him by saying one must be born of water and the Spirit thus indicating he was speaking of a spiritual birth, and not a physical re-birth. (He of course did not say that "Most assuredly unless one enters his mothers womb a second time and is reborn from her, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven").

Contrasting this with the "bread of life discourse, in John 6:51 Jesus said that the bread He was giving was His flesh that he was giving for the life of the world, and we know that that Christ was referring to His actual physical flesh which He was to give on the Cross (unless one wants to entertain Docetic notions about His "flesh"). The Jews responded, in a somewhat similar fashion to Nicodemus, by asking how Jesus could given them His flesh to eat (v52). Instead of answering by saying something like, "Assuredly you must spiritually consume My teachings and My truths to have My life in you", He became more emphatic by actually saying, "Most assuredly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you (v 53)." Again, the flesh Christ is speaking of is His physical flesh which He was going to literally give for the life of the world. About this flesh Christ proceeded to say, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" and "for My flesh is food indeed and My blood drink indeed" (v54-55). So although Christ had the opportunity to correct them there--if He really only was speaking metaphorically of some spiritual consumption of His teachings--He did not, and He allowed many of His disciples to walk away without any further explanation other than the caveat that the words He just told them had to be understood by the Spirit rather than carnally (ie only thinking in terms of gross cannibalism). The faithful disciples, who knew He had the words of life, finally learned the fulfillment of these particular words at the Last Supper when Christ identified an actual physical drink (the wine) with His blood and an actual physical food (the bread) with His body right before they were then instructed to physically drink and eat of the same.

I had then said this regarding the belief and practice of the early Christians:

"It's also helpful to recall that none of the early Christians thought Christ was referring to a literal wooden door or a literal growing vine, nor were there ever any ordinances practiced in the early Church involving walking through literal wooden doors or attaching oneself to a literal plant. On the other hand, when the early Christians physically partook of the literal empirical bread and literal empirical wine in Holy Communion, they believed they were actually also supernaturally partaking of the body and blood of Christ--body and blood He had given for the life of the world on Calvary."

You responded by saying this...

It might sometimes be interesting to read church history, and what the early believers taught and believed. But it ie 100% irrelavent regarding doctrinal conclusions and scriptural learning. Totally irrelavent.

I don't see how it's "irrelevant" given the fact that they were a lot closer in time to the apostles than us, and that they also were the ones who came to a common agreement as to the exact contents of the scriptural Canon in the first place.

The scriptures tell us that even as the epistles were being circulated decievers were propagating false teaching, idolatries, and destructive doctrines.

And these deceivers were the heretics such as the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Docetists, the adoptionists, the Marcionites (etc) against whom the early Christians were diligent to combat.

anything[/b] that came along decades after that would somehow be absolutly true simply because christians were believeing it or practicing it?

It's not a matter of "anything that came along decades later" being "absolutely true". It's a matter of a consensus of early Christian belief and practice regarding a specific issue giving one pause before automatically assuming the absolute truth of his particular modern day scriptural interpretation on the same issue.

[

 

[DHK]

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Funny, I have never conceived Christ as being a literal six and half foot by three foot piece of wood with a knob on it that swings on a hinge. I had the distinct impression that Christ looked like a person, and not like a door.
But then again, maybe he was a loaf of bread.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Principles of Self Examination in the Lord's Supper

In the Lord’s Supper, we present neither Christ nor His sacrifice to the Father. In the Lord’s Supper, we set forth a thanksgiving memorial to the sacrifice of Christ before men, not before God. This is detailed in I Corinthians 11:17-34. In verse 16, we are instructed to continue this memorial ordinance “till He come.” This is more than a detail of duration. It is also a reminder that He is coming to earth again, and it looks forward to that coming.

In verses 27-34, Paul details the solemn occasion of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper has deep and sacred meaning and should only be participated in with reverence and seriousness. One central theme of the Lord’s Supper is accountability, first to God and, then, to fellow believers in the local church.
In verse 27, “wherefore” stresses consequence. There are serious consequences to participating in the Lord’s Supper “unworthily.” “Unworthily” means to participate without careful examination of our lives before God for any known or unknown sin and for any failure or disobedience. The Lord’s Supper should be eaten in the fear of the Lord. It is a celebration of restored fellowship. Anyone that refuses to hold himself accountable to God for anything that might hinder that fellowship is eating “unworthily.”

To refuse to “examine” our lives for un-confessed and, therefore, un-forgiven sin is to bring upon ourselves blood guiltiness. To be flippant about personal sin, or its consequences and effects, is to belittle the life and death of Jesus Christ, because He came to die for sin.

According to verse 28, we correct our deficiency (unworthiness) by serious, detailed accountability before God in self-examination. This involves the examination of thought life, actions, relationships, faithfulness to God and in our responsibilities to others and even our motives. This is done to find any area of our lives that might miss the mark of God’s standards and correct that area by repentance and confession.

To “eat of the bread” and “drink of the cup” (v 29) without careful consideration of the price Christ paid for the sins that we so carelessly commit is a serious offense. God wants us to remember what sin cost Him. When we fail to “examine” ourselves before God, we necessitate God’s chastisement (v 32) on us.

Taking the Lord’s Supper “worthily” means a solemn time of self-examination before the Lord, Who already knows everything we’ve done. It is not for His benefit as much as for our own. He wants us to recognize that sin always costs us more then we can afford to pay.

God’s chastisement (v 30) for disgraceful desecration of the Lord’s Supper by a flippant attitude about sin and selfishness carries enormous consequences both to the individual and the local church he belongs to. There were many in the Church who were “weak and sickly” because of it. Many were dead (“sleep”) directly because of it. Flippancy about sin strikes out in hostility against the very love of God Who has gone to enormous extremes to remove its consequences. To participate in a memorial feast to what Christ has done and yet be flippant about sin is an enormous contradiction. God hates sin, but yet He is reasonable about it.

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18).

Accountability and repentance are our way of becoming reasonable about sin.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Mike,

After comparing the specific differences in the Scriptures between the "Door" and "Vine" metaphors on one hand with the teaching regarding the bread/wine being the Body/Blood on the other I said this...



You replied


The only "correction" Christ gave was the caveat that the words He was speaking were "spirit" (ie spiritual) and not of carnal understanding. That's what He meant by juxtiposing "spirit" and "flesh" in this verse (which is indeed the case through out most of the NT). In other words, "spirit" doesn't mean "metaphor" nor does "flesh" equal "physicality" in this verse. Obviously, Christ didn't mean that HIS physical "flesh" profited nothing since He had just said that He was about to give it for the life of the world...which of course He literally did on the cross. It was this flesh that He said was "food indeed" and that we must eat, along with His blood being drink indeed.

Christ, never said to the departing disciples: "Hang on, don't you know I'm just speaking metaphorically?" Nor does John make a comment that the remaining disciples understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically. For example, Matthew mentions that after Jesus "corrected" their misunderstanding about what He meant by the "leaven of the Pharisees" that the disciples then understood that by "leaven" He was referring to their teachings. However, John doesn't make a similar comment about the bread discourse to the effect of, "and the disciples understood that by Christ's flesh and blood He was referring to His teachings" or the like. This would be odd if John had actually understood Christ to be speaking only metaphorically, because John had already written such an explanatory note when interpreting what Christ meant by "destroying this temple and raising it up in 3 days" in chapter 2 by saying that He was actually referring to His physical body (2:19-22)

Also, compare the John 6 discourse to the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 regarding the new birth. After Christ told Nicodemus that one must be born again (v3), he responded by asking how an old man could enter a second time in his mother's womb and be born again (v4). Christ of course, corrected him by saying one must be born of water and the Spirit thus indicating he was speaking of a spiritual birth, and not a physical re-birth. (He of course did not say that "Most assuredly unless one enters his mothers womb a second time and is reborn from her, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven").

Contrasting this with the "bread of life discourse, in John 6:51 Jesus said that the bread He was giving was His flesh that he was giving for the life of the world, and we know that that Christ was referring to His actual physical flesh which He was to give on the Cross (unless one wants to entertain Docetic notions about His "flesh"). The Jews responded, in a somewhat similar fashion to Nicodemus, by asking how Jesus could given them His flesh to eat (v52). Instead of answering by saying something like, "Assuredly you must spiritually consume My teachings and My truths to have My life in you", He became more emphatic by actually saying, "Most assuredly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you (v 53)." Again, the flesh Christ is speaking of is His physical flesh which He was going to literally give for the life of the world. About this flesh Christ proceeded to say, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" and "for My flesh is food indeed and My blood drink indeed" (v54-55). So although Christ had the opportunity to correct them there--if He really only was speaking metaphorically of some spiritual consumption of His teachings--He did not, and He allowed many of His disciples to walk away without any further explanation other than the caveat that the words He just told them had to be understood by the Spirit rather than carnally (ie only thinking in terms of gross cannibalism). The faithful disciples, who knew He had the words of life, finally learned the fulfillment of these particular words at the Last Supper when Christ identified an actual physical drink (the wine) with His blood and an actual physical food (the bread) with His body right before they were then instructed to physically drink and eat of the same.

[

So, do you believe there is an ongoing sacrifice for sins in the Catholic Mass or is the sacrifice for sin "finished"?

 

[lori4dogs]

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Funny, I have never conceived Christ as being a literal six and half foot by three foot piece of wood with a knob on it that swings on a hinge. I had the distinct impression that Christ looked like a person, and not like a door.
But then again, maybe he was a loaf of bread.

Well, there it is again. Same old tired argument that Jesus MUST have been speaking metaphorically when He spoke the words of instituion of the Eucharist.
Just doesn't wash biblically or by what the church has always believed.

DHK, I have been reading your posts on the BB for years. I read one of your posts years ago that stated you didn't think much of the early church fathers. You still feel they were all spouting heresy in regards to the Lord's Supper?
Wouldn't there have been people challenging this widely held position of the church in it's infancy?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Somebody
"But Jesus is spiritually Really Present in them as His Body and Blood."

GE
Were you present when Jesus said, This is my body? No? So how do you know what He meant with this? Did he not tell the disciples, You take the bread (and wine), You eat it? Then - was it not - was it that He declared - This is "My Body" - this here going on : My Church!

 

[Chemnitz]

Somebody
"But Jesus is spiritually Really Present in them as His Body and Blood."

GE
Were you present when Jesus said, This is my body? No? So how do you know what He meant with this? Did he not tell the disciples, You take the bread (and wine), You eat it? Then - was it not - was it that He declared - This is "My Body" - this here going on : My Church!

What are you talking about, it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Well, there it is again. Same old tired argument that Jesus MUST have been speaking metaphorically when He spoke the words of instituion of the Eucharist.
Just doesn't wash biblically or by what the church has always believed.

DHK, I have been reading your posts on the BB for years. I read one of your posts years ago that stated you didn't think much of the early church fathers. You still feel they were all spouting heresy in regards to the Lord's Supper?
Wouldn't there have been people challenging this widely held position of the church in it's infancy?

GE
As we say in Afrikaans, He made mincemeat of them. That was Luther now, who made mincemeat of those who sort of worshipped the 'Church fathers' -- like you it seems to me.

Luther said the Church Fathers' understanding and presentation of the Gospel was like milk strained through a coal sack. Lekker drink!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What are you talking about, it makes absolutely no sense.

Ge

No, what I say makes perfect sense; it's you who cannot make the sense out of it.
Picture the occasion: Jesus give the bread and wine TO the disciples -- they, handle it; they, eat and drink --- NOT, Jesus. Da Vinci was clever enough to have noticed this fact from the Scriptures; but the RCC ever since is on the hunt after the 'holy (lost) grail'. Tji-tji ...

Point I want to make is, Jesus speaks and means, these disciples here in front of Him eating and drinking, pointing to them, supposing them, says, THIS - these disciples eating and drinking - THEY, are My Body, My Church.

 

[DHK]

Well, there it is again. Same old tired argument that Jesus MUST have been speaking metaphorically when He spoke the words of instituion of the Eucharist.
Just doesn't wash biblically or by what the church has always believed.

1. What "church" has always beieved that? I assume you refer to the RCC. They are the only ones that have consistently "always believed" transusbstantiation.

2. Take out your American one dollar bill. Who do you see on it? Is it George Washington? I don't think so. It is not George Washington at all on that one dollar bill. Washington is dead, buried and in the grave. That, sir, is only a picture of George Washington, a resemblance, an image of him.
When Christ held up a piece of bread in the same manner he said "This is my body." In the same way that one holds up a dollar bill and says "This is George Washington." It is a picture of George, and it was a picture of Christ, nothing more. How could it be anything more. The door was a picture of Christ, as was the bread and the wine. All of the other symbols that Christ used you accept. All the other metaphors you accept. You make an exception for one alone which you take literally. This is very inconsistent. As Christ is not a door; neither is He a loaf of bread or a cup of wine. See the inconsistencies in your theology, or the theology of the RCC. It makes no sense whatsoever.

DHK, I have been reading your posts on the BB for years. I read one of your posts years ago that stated you didn't think much of the early church fathers. You still feel they were all spouting heresy in regards to the Lord's Supper?

In regards to the Lord's Supper, and in regards to many doctrines. The early believers were scattered by persecution. They didn't have much time to write. They were fed to the lions. They were torched. They underwent severe persecution. The first epistle of Peter is written to suffering Christians. So who had time to write? Those who were not a threat to the present government--mostly heretics.

Origen was declared a heretic even by the standards of the RCC. Some say that he was the actual father of Arianism.
The doctrine of Purgatory actually began among the church fathers.
Tertullian at one time believed in infant baptism
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to the ripe old age of 80.
Eusbius, a follower and disciple of Origen, mixed Greek philosophy with the Bible.

No, I don't have much confidence in the writings of the church fathers and have no need to. There were many false teachers at that time. The school of Alexandria where Origen taught was a hotbed of false teachers. I believe the Word of God. It is infallible in its teachings. It is God's revelation to mankind. Why believe in man's interpretation of it when I have God's interpretation in my own hand?

Wouldn't there have been people challenging this widely held position of the church in it's infancy?

As I mentioned, the true believers were being persecuted for their faith. Satan doesn't attack his own.

 

[lori4dogs]

So, DHK, the 'true believers' were busy getting martyred while the ones, apparently of the devil, were the only ones with time on their hands to write anything? Interesting. I guess Ignatius was to be counted among the heretics as well?

As I mentioned before, I have been reading your posts and others on this board for years now. When I started visiting this site I was a hardshell Baptist. I used to believe "The Trail of Blood" was accurate and true. It took time but eventually I realized that the positions presented by the Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox that have contributed to this board have been the closest to those held by the early church. I jumped ship!

No I think the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist goes all the way back to St. Paul. You just can't get around I Cor. 10:16 without lots of spin can 'ya?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Lance,
Apparently in response to my post to Mike ("D28guy") on the John 6 discourse, you asked me the following question:

So, do you believe there is an ongoing sacrifice for sins in the Catholic Mass or is the sacrifice for sin "finished"?

I believe that Christ sacrificed himself once for all our sins on Calvary. However, in Holy Communion we actually participate in that one Sacrifice whenever we "do this in remembrance" of Him.

You quoted some from 1 Corinthians 11. Let's turn back a chapter and see what the Apostle Paul said about Holy communion in chapter 10:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

(Now what follows are some comments I had already made about this earlier in this same thread with additional underlining and bolding for emphasis....)

Notice that grammatically Paul states that it's the bread that's "the communion of" (or "participation in" or "sharing in") the body of Christ and the cup that's the "participation in/sharing in" the blood of Christ. In other words, our communion with Christ's body and blood are effected by the elements consumed--the bread and wine. For further proof of this notice verse 18:

"Observe Israel after the flesh: are not those who partake of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18)

In the OT, those who ate the sacrifices ate the actual sacrifice not a disconnected visual aid that merely represented a previously given sacrifice. In including this statement Paul is making the comparison between the Old Covenant sacrifices and altar and the New Covenant Sacrifice and Table. When we partake of the bread and wine of the Lord's Table we too are partaking of the Lord's Sacrifice as the bread and wine are the actual 'participation in' (communion of/sharing in) Christ's body and blood respectively, and not merely disconnected visual aids of the same.

Similarly, in the OT Passover the Jews actually ate of the Passover lamb (not a mere representation of it), while in the NT we partake of the Passover Lamb "who takes away the sins of the world" when we partake of Holy Communion. Granted, we're not eating empirical flesh nor drinking empirical blood, but since the bread and wine is the communion of Christ's body and blood we are actually partaking of the Paschal Lamb just the same. Hope this helps.

(I hope you don't mind me cutting and pasting my own material, and I hope this answers your question)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Funny, I have never conceived Christ as being a literal six and half foot by three foot piece of wood with a knob on it that swings on a hinge. I had the distinct impression that Christ looked like a person, and not like a door.
But then again, maybe he was a loaf of bread.

You may not have noticed but I responded to the same type of post from Mike (D28guy) back in post #24 regarding the Door/Vine metaphors vs. the bread and wine being the body and blood. Here it is again in case you missed it since it is still relevent...

The difference, Mike, (and this has been pointed out before) is that although Christ said He was the door (John 10), he never turned around and said:

"And this door is a hole in body which you must walk through to have eternal life"

Nor did He point to a literal wooden door in the upper room and say:

"This is Me. Walk through it, all of you, to enter into life eternal"

Nor did Paul ever say of a literal wooden door:

"This door that we physically walk through, is it not the entrance into Christ?"

Similarly, although Christ did say "I am the Vine", he never said:

"And this Vine which you must attach yourselves to is my physical flesh, to which you must physically graft yourselves if you want to bear fruit"

Nor did He in the upper room point to literal plant and say:

"This is Me. Attach yourselves to it, all of you, in order to abide in Me."

Nor did Paul write anywhere regarding a literal plant...

"This vine which we graft ourselves to, is it not our abiding in Christ?"

However, Christ not only said that "I am the bread of life" (John 6), he also proceded to say the bread He was giving was His flesh which He was giving for the life of the word (v.51)." He also said of this flesh you must eat it (and in verse 54 the Greek word is "trogo" which is "munch, or chew") AND drink His blood to have eternal life and abide in Hiim (v.54,56) and that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed (v.55).

In the upper room, Christ identified a physical food and drink (a literal loaf of bread and a literal cup of wine) with this body and blood--the same that He earlier had said that they must eat and drink to have eternal life AND which He was about to give for the life of the world. He then commanded His disciples to physically eat and drink this bread and wine so identified:
"Take eat, this is My Body" and "this is My blood of the New Convenant". (Mark 14)

Of this literal bread and literal cup of wine, Paul said to the Corinthians:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

So, Mike [and DHK], I hope when you look at all the relevent Scriptures you can see the difference between the "door" and "vine" metaphors on the one hand, and the identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood on the other.

It's also helpful to recall that none of the early Christians thought Christ was referring to a literal wooden door or a literal growing vine, nor were there ever any ordinances practiced in the early Church involving walking through literal wooden doors or attaching oneself to a literal plant. On the other hand, when the early Christians physically partook of the literal empirical bread and literal empirical wine in Holy Communion, they believed they were actually also supernaturally partaking of the body and blood of Christ--body and blood He had given for the life of the world on Calvary.

God bless.

 

[Chemnitz]

Ge

No, what I say makes perfect sense; it's you who cannot make the sense out of it.
Picture the occasion: Jesus give the bread and wine TO the disciples -- they, handle it; they, eat and drink --- NOT, Jesus. Da Vinci was clever enough to have noticed this fact from the Scriptures; but the RCC ever since is on the hunt after the 'holy (lost) grail'. Tji-tji ...

Point I want to make is, Jesus speaks and means, these disciples here in front of Him eating and drinking, pointing to them, supposing them, says, THIS - these disciples eating and drinking - THEY, are My Body, My Church.

It makes no sense because it doesn't even fit the text. There is no evidence that he meant the disciples. Besides which your argument fits even better if he is offering his body and blood because he wouldn't need them.

 

[mrtumnus]

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Funny, I have never conceived Christ as being a literal six and half foot by three foot piece of wood with a knob on it that swings on a hinge. I had the distinct impression that Christ looked like a person, and not like a door.
But then again, maybe he was a loaf of bread.

John 10:6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

Scripture is clear that the 'door' analogy was a figure of speech. Can you find something similar regarding the bread and wine being only a figure of speech for the body and blood?

If the NT authors felt it necessary to point out that the 'door' reference was a figure of speech, why would they not have done the same for the bread and wine?

 

[mrtumnus]

So, do you believe there is an ongoing sacrifice for sins in the Catholic Mass or is the sacrifice for sin "finished"?

There is no belief in the Catholic Mass that there is an 'ongoing sacrifice' for sins. At least, not in the way you mean.

There is also an understanding that in the realm of God, the sacrifice for sin is never 'finished'. That is a human distinction of time -- past, present, future.

God is outside of time. God is omnipresent. All of time is one perpetual, continual, present for God. Thus, the day He created the world, the day the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the day Christ was born, the day Christ died, the day Christ returns -- are all present continually with God.

The recognition of this truth is what Catholics understand in the 'sacrifice' of the Mass. It is a joining to the one, always present sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Eliyahu]

The recognition of this truth is what Catholics understand in the 'sacrifice' of the Mass. It is a joining to the one, always present sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

No, they deny or disbelieve the Sacrifice by Jesus at the Cross when they perform the Mass.

IN the Mass they all the time ask God to forgive their sins without mentioning that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they declare that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross, it doesn't make sense that they repeatedly request God to forgive the sins.

There is a Huge, Huge difference between Catholic Mass and the Gospel Message.

The Transubstantiaton goes together with such misunderstanding, disbelieving that the Blood was to be offered to God, instead of human drinking.

 

[DHK]

So, DHK, the 'true believers' were busy getting martyred while the ones, apparently of the devil, were the only ones with time on their hands to write anything? Interesting. I guess Ignatius was to be counted among the heretics as well?

As I have mentioned before I don't waste my time spending hours studying the early church fathers. I have all of their writings on cd, and of course access to them on the net as does everyone. To me it is a waste of time when we have the Word of God placed right into our hands. So I don't really know what Ignatius believed and it really doesn't matter to me.

Study the history of the RCC and find out who was persecuted, tortured, and put to death, and the reasons why.

As I mentioned before, I have been reading your posts and others on this board for years now. When I started visiting this site I was a hardshell Baptist. I used to believe "The Trail of Blood" was accurate and true.

The premise of "The Trail of Blood" is true: that in every age since the time of Christ there have been bodies of believers (churches) that have believed essentially the same as Baptists believe today thought they may have been called by some other name. Unfortunately some of Carolls information, as you say, was inaccurate. There are far more accurate Baptist History books which can demonstrate the same premise through verifiable history.

It took time but eventually I realized that the positions presented by the Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox that have contributed to this board have been the closest to those held by the early church. I jumped ship!

That is unfortunate. If you have been consistently reading posts by D28GUY (Mike), Bob Ryan, myself, and quite a few others, you would see that, using the Bible alone, the many extra-Biblical doctrines that they believe are not only extra-Biblical but unScriptural and heretical.

No I think the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist goes all the way back to St. Paul. You just can't get around I Cor. 10:16 without lots of spin can 'ya?

Yes I can, and without any spin. Can you? In fact do you understand the verse at all. I will take the time to explain it to you if you wish. But to do so, one must start all the way back in chapter eight. To take a verse or two out of the Bible, out of its context and try to build a theology around it, is something a cult would do. It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."
Now take a look at these Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge.
1 Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

These are some of the key verses we need to look at. From the first verse of chapter 8 to the last verse of chapter 10, Paul's concern is idolatry. He sums it up very concisely in 10:14, "Wherefore...flee from idolatry." That sums up the teaching of these three chapters.

In 8:1 he speaks about things that are offered to idols.
And again in verse 4 he speaks about those things that are sacrificed to idols. Generally speaking he is speaking about our liberty, and how much we have in the light of a weaker Christian. He discusses that in quite a bit of detail in chapter 8.
The concern of many of the Christians of that day was: If they ate of the meat of that which was offered to idols were they somehow participating in the worship that was offered to that idol. This is the question that Paul was dealing with.
In that context then, what were the rights a Christian had; or how much liberties could one take?

In the first 12 verses of chapter 10 Paul discusses the history of the nation Israel, and warns of the dangers of ingratitude, discontentment, dissatisfaction with the circumstances that God has given us.

Then he gives a couple of warnings:
1 Corinthians 10:14-15 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

And we come to this verse (all in the context of idolatry):

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

What is Paul speaking about? He indeed refers to the Lord's Table. The word for communion is literally koinonia, meaning "fellowship." The teaching here is that the Lord's Table is a symbol of our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the source of our spiritual life; and the source of the fellowship that we as believers have with one another. That fellowship is exemplified as we gather together in a service and celebrate the Lord's Table remembering his death and resurrection. There is no greater unity than the unity that comes through the blood of Christ.


1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Paul gives a parallel illustration out of the OT when he says in verse 18:
1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
--The Israelites also had fellowship together one with another as ate of sacrificed meat and fellowshipped together around the altar. What a magnificent parallel that is to the Lord's Table.


The emphasis is on fellowship with one another and with the Lord. It is based on sacrifice; the sacrifice of our Lord. It is in remembrance of that sacrifice that we celebrate the Lord's Supper. The event has already taken place 2000 years ago. The bread and wine are elements by which we remember what he has done for us. They are symbolic only. Don't make idols out of them. That is what transubstantiation does. Flee from idolatry.

 

[Chemnitz]

As I have mentioned before I don't waste my time spending hours studying the early church fathers. I have all of their writings on cd, and of course access to them on the net as does everyone. To me it is a waste of time when we have the Word of God placed right into our hands. So I don't really know what Ignatius believed and it really doesn't matter to me.

It is sad that you wish to remain in ignorance that you would wish to divorce yourself from the insights of past Christians.

Yes I can, and without any spin. Can you? In fact do you understand the verse at all. I will take the time to explain it to you if you wish. But to do so, one must start all the way back in chapter eight. To take a verse or two out of the Bible, out of its context and try to build a theology around it, is something a cult would do. It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."

This ought to be fun, as I have never seen a memorialist tackle these verses without doing gymnastics that would make a Cirque de Sole performer wince in pain.

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

What is Paul speaking about? He indeed refers to the Lord's Table. The word for communion is literally koinonia, meaning "fellowship." The teaching here is that the Lord's Table is a symbol of our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the source of our spiritual life; and the source of the fellowship that we as believers have with one another. That fellowship is exemplified as we gather together in a service and celebrate the Lord's Table remembering his death and resurrection. There is no greater unity than the unity that comes through the blood of Christ.

First your translation of koinonia is an over simplification. It also means "participation" (Friberg). This hampers your argument because it can indicate something which goes beyond mere fellowship. Second, since koinonia can mean something more than getting together for coffee, donuts and a boring sermon on how to be a better person (tongue in cheek) it is a likely possibility that what is meant is that they are actually taking part in the Blood by receiving it which is made all the more likely when they are latter warned in chapter 11 about profaning Christ's blood. Thirdly, your argument of fellowship only does not make sense because more than Christ's body is mentioned. Not once, does Paul ever use Christ blood as an image of the church, he does how ever use Christ's body as an image of the church. Therefore, the addition, of the blood in this case must mean that he is referring to something greater than fellowship.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

I said...

"Christ indwells and ministers to us, and ministers through us to others, through the indwelling and working of the Holy Spirit, not through a cracker and grape juice/wine..."

And you said...

"Careful! You seem to be conflating the Second the Third Persons of the Trinity here*; they are not the same. We're talking about Christ's Presence here, not the Holy Spirit's."

No need to worry. I'm not "conflating" anything. I'm sharing with you the scripturally identified way in which Christ manifestes Himself in us, and lives His life through us.

It is through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Christ taught us this...

" "15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

Paul said...

"It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me."

This is not conflating anything. This is not complicated. This is "Spiritual Life 101".

Jesus does not come to us through crackers, pieces of bread, wine, or grape juice. He "comes" to us, and lives His life through us, through faith...and faith alone...with the avenue of enabling being the Holy Spirits indwelling in our life.

The elements of the Lords supper are memorials and "pictures" of spiritual reality. They are in no way an avenue of indwelling.

We do not eat Jesus. Jesus lives in and through us through faith.

When his followers mistakenly thought they were to eat Jesus, He corrected that error by saying...

"The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life"

God bless,

Mike