Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Walter]

Man has been fighting with God about the efficacy of man's works for salvation ever since Cain tried to pay for his sin with vegetables instead of innocent blood. Those orthodox(?) have been disputing baptism and communion for hundreds of years.

The payment for sin is still innocent blood. Only blood washes sin. We are now being told that somehow the water of baptism washes sin. Something is flagrantly contradictory.

Moving on to the trans-sub, con-sub, no-sub trilogy: there is still no agreement as to what happens and how with the bread and fruit of the vine. Supposedly someone properly authorized says certain words in Latin over the fruits of human labor and there is a magical change of the molecular structure to divine flesh and blood. This sounds a lot like what Cain tried to do with his veggies. One cannot be saved without this sacrament--and you have to receive it from a duly appointed man with the authority to do a mass. Sure sounds a lot like salvation by works.

The con-sub crowd has difficulty defining what that(consubstantiation, love those 17 letter words) might mean: somewhere between trans and con(pun intended). Apparently they are having trouble with the chemistry too.

The no-sub people are happy with the words of Jesus, "This do in remembrance of me."

There is only one means of salvation: faith in the shed blood of Jesus.

Any admixtures and additions of man are so much hell bound prittle prattle.

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

You have to contradict and 'spin' scripture in order to say that baptism is simply a symbol. Baptism is a 'work' but it is a 'work' of God. You cannnot get around the FACT that the bible says 'believe AND be baptized for the remission of sins'. Of course, there are a lot of other scripture references that clearly point to the nature of baptism and you have to 'spin' those as well. It is obvious what the Church taught in regards to baptism from the very start. But you insist history be ignored.

Anyone reading it without the Baptist 'spin' put to it understands exactly what it says. I'm glad to hear you say ' Those orthodox(?) have been disputing baptism and communion for hundreds of years.' You can't say thousands of years, can you? Your interpretation and 'spin' of scripture was an invention of the Reformation and was clearly never believed by the Early Church.

 

[The Biblicist]

:applause:

:applause::applause: All you can do is show what scripture plainly says. It is Biblicists that must twist scripture to mean what it does not. Anyone with common sense can understand what the scripture plainly says. Mark 16:16 has to be twisted in the same way to support their un-biblical position on baptism. If a person picks up a bible and reads the passage and has never been taught Mark 16:16 does not mean what it clearly means, they understand that faith AND baptism are necessary to be saved.

If that is so, then why is it that neither Matt, Thinkingstuff or you can deal directly with the contradictory evidence that I have repeatedly placed square in your faces????????

My interpretation of John 6:51 is perfectly consistent with my interpretation with what precedes and follows that section in John 6.

In contrast you guys simply IGNORE the entire context that precedes and follows and jerk one section of verses out of this context and arbritarily force a meaning on it that the overall context rejects!

Deal with the evidence presented or be embarassed enough to be quiet until you can deal with it directly, honestly and frankly.

You fella's remind me of democrats who believe if they repeat a lie enough times people will believe them.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have to contradict and 'spin' scripture in order to say that baptism is simply a symbol. .

"the like FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us" - end of story.

You have texts that clearly state that baptism saves and remits sins but none that delcare HOW! 1 Pet. 3:21 declares HOW - in "FIGURE" -

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If that is so, then why is it that neither Matt, Thinkingstuff or you can deal directly with the contradictory evidence that I have repeatedly placed square in your faces????????

We all have dealt with your "supposed" contradictory evidence. We find that your evidence is moot because you can't even determine the right tense of the passage. If you can't understand the simple plain meaning of a passage then you have the issue not us. I'll tell you what your problem is using your own words. Your problem with the passage is that it is according to you:

My interpretation .

indeed it is. And that is where you are failing. The problem we face is when we show you the direct meaning of the passage you ignore it an reitterate your error. You have nothing else to offer other than re-itteration. Nothing new. And any reader can plainly see your argument falls as I showed you before at 1 word. And the tense of that word. IE "will". But why argue with someone who doesn't want to look at the simple meaning of the passage? I find it a waste of time.

 

[The Biblicist]

We all have dealt with your "supposed" contradictory evidence.

That is a bare faced lie and you know it. Your posts have dismissed it, pitted another text against it but NEVER directly addressed it.

We find that your evidence is moot because you can't even determine the right tense of the passage. If you can't understand the simple plain meaning of a passage then you have the issue not us.

This is another bare faced lie. I have explicitly pointed out the present tense verbs"

1. "I AM the bread of life"
2. "EATETH...DRINKETH.....BELIEVETH"

I have explicilty pointed out that Christ in direct contact with verse 35 rebukes those in verse 36 for having not partaken of him by faith in verse 36.

I have been perfectly consistent, presenting the very same evidence over and over and over again simply because you fella's ignore it over and over again and make unsubtantiated assertions.

I'll tell you what your problem is using your own words. Your problem with the passage is that it is according to you:

What a joke! So your view is not an interpetation???? The differnce is that my interpretation is based upon contextual facts and yours upon contextual fantasies that can easily be disproven with mere common sense.

And any reader can plainly see your argument falls as I showed you before at 1 word. And the tense of that word. IE "will". But why argue with someone who doesn't want to look at the simple meaning of the passage? I find it a waste of time.

Another complete joke based upon presumption. No one denies the future tense of the cross from John 6. However, your position is that they cannot eat of him as clearly defined in John 6:35 prior to the cross. As clearly defined in John 6:60-67. That is the absurdity of your vain interpretation of "will" in verse 51.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is a bare faced lie and you know it. Your posts have dismissed it, pitted another text against it but NEVER directly addressed it.

I dealt directly with you and the passage in question.

This is another bare faced lie. I have explicitly pointed out the present tense verbs"

1. "I AM the bread of life"
2. "EATETH...DRINKETH.....BELIEVETH"

Nothing about those words or the contexts of the passage requires the person to be eating at the moment of Jesus words which makes your premise wrong to begin with. Especially since Jesus said that "the bread I will give" indicates that it will be at a future date which throws your whole view out the window.

I have explicilty pointed out that Christ in direct contact with verse 35 rebukes those in verse 36 for having not partaken of him by faith in verse 36.

This is at best a diversion. At worst a deceptive plan to move us from the topic of the discussion. The discussion is about eating his flesh which your contention was as you put it

Jesus rebuked them for not PRESENTLY eating (him)

which, I pointed out to you that when Jesus said in verse 51

And the bread that I will give

throws your premise out. You then try to make the whole discourse about rebuking which 1) it is not. and 2) I also mention the times which he rebukes and not one time does he rebuke some for not eating him presently not even in verse 36. Which has nothing to do with eating Jesus presently. In fact, Jesus hasn't even mentioned eating him at this point in his discourse. At this point of his discourse He's just trying to get them to believe that he is the bread (manna) that comes down from heaven which your verse shows he acknowledges that they even though they see him with their own eyes still don't believe him

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe

So like I said at best this is a diversion away from the actual discussion. You have failed to prove that Jesus rebukes any one for not at present eating him. And you still can't deal with the fact that he plans on giving them this bread at a future point which vs. 51 plainly shows.

I have been perfectly consistent, presenting the very same evidence over and over and over again simply because you fella's ignore it over and over again and make unsubtantiated assertions.

You have been perfectly consistent reitterating yoursef despite what has been plainly shown you from the text.

Another complete joke based upon presumption. No one denies the future tense of the cross from John 6.

Now that you agree with the tense of the passage you can dropped the criticism that Jesus requires them to eat his flesh presently. But remember what Jesus also said.

And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh

Bread=his flesh. Bread = his crucified body which makes the following passages clear.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

And 1 year latter Jesus institutes the Eucharist and dies on the Cross thus making his statement fulfilled in that he gave his flesh and provides a means to eat of it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Then I really can't help you further. I am exiting this dialogue of the deaf and shaking the dust from my feet as the Lord advised.

And you are wise to do so.

I agree with his position, but I condemn his method of defending it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I'll say one more thing about this subject and then be quiet: The first century Jews were always getting confused about the teachings of Jesus, always putting a physical meaning to them when He was talking about a spiritual meaning and using metaphors and other such literary devices to make His points. Roman Catholics and others make the same errors.

 

[The Biblicist]

I dealt directly with you and the passage in question.

Tell the truth! You mentioned it in passing but NEVER dealt with the details of the passage and the details are what exposes your interpetation of verse 51 as completely false.

Nothing about those words or the contexts of the passage requires the person to be eating at the moment of Jesus words which makes your premise wrong to begin with.

You are right IF you ignore what he says, ignore the grammar, ignore the direct and immediate connection between verse 35 and verse 6 and the common theme between them. That is precisely what you do - IGNORE what he says. Your argument is like someone saying that a white horse is not white but only a horse!

Your reasoning is flawed, illogical, and irrational and that is the only way you can escape complete expsoure and condemnatio by verses 30-36. Verses 36-39 condemns your overall position even more but you nor any of your friends who embrace a false gospel have dared address the two threads on that text. (if you dared address it, you would do the very same thing, ignore the words, ignore the grammar and call black white and white black).

Especially since Jesus said that "the bread I will give" indicates that it will be at a future date which throws your whole view out the window.

A complete red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the present application before the cross that is spelled out in black and white in verses 30-36 and spelled out clearly in verses 60-68.

Your use of the future tense here is like saying Abraham could not be justified by faith in his day because he believed the redeemer was yet future! Absurd reasoning because the future tense does not deny present application.

This is at best a diversion. At worst a deceptive plan to move us from the topic of the discussion.

You talk about out right deception and a deciever!!! The subject introduced in verse 36 positively is still the subject continued in verse 36 negatively. He is rebuking them for not believing on him and "believeth on him" (PRESENT TENSE - v. 35) is precisely what he describes as "eateth...drinketh" (PRESENT TENSE) or partaking of the PRESENT TENSE "I AM" bread of life (v. 35) in the very same verse! It does not take a rocket scientist to see you are intentionally being deceptive.

To say that the direct connection between verses 35-36 is a "diversion" at best and worst "deception" is intentionally perverting the Words of Christ to suit your own belly!

The discussion is about eating his flesh which your contention was as you put it which, I pointed out to you that when Jesus said in verse 51throws your premise out.

The discussion about eating him does not begin in verse 51!!!!!!! It begins with identifying himself in the present tense "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE" in verse 35 joined directly with present tense "EATETH.....DRINKETH" being defined by Christ in the very same verse to mean PRESENT TENSE "beleiveth on me." Simple, clear and unmistakable!

You then try to make the whole discourse about rebuking which 1) it is not.

The subject of believing on Him begins in verse 29 and its is his audiance who introduce the subject of manna in the wilderness and Jesus then proceeds to claim that he is PRESENT TENSE "bread of Life" - that is the meaning of the term "AM" in verse 36. He then IMMEDIATELY speaks in the present tense of "eatheth" in direct connection with Himself as the present tense "bread of life" which he immediately defines in present tense to mean "beleiveth" on him. That is precisely what he rebukes them for not doing in the very next verse and the rebuke is MEANINGLESS if they could not obey the present tense exhortation found in the word "eateth" following "I AM the bread of life".

In fact, Jesus hasn't even mentioned eating him at this point in his discourse.

So the word "eateth" in verse 35 does not mean "eateth"??? Tell me, what is there in verse 35 that one could eat? "I AM the bread of life" is the answer. According to your theology Jesus should have said "I WILL BE the bread of life and he that SHALL....."

Just like the old whore of Babylon you rashly pervert the scriptures to make them mean whatever you like. Anyone can see that eating is introduced in verse 35 in spite of your denial that "Jesus hasn't even mentioned eating him at this point in his discourse."

At this point of his discourse He's just trying to get them to believe that he is the bread (manna)

. He "is"????? Or do you mean He "SHALL" be (v. 51). If "he is" the bread of life in verse 35 as you admit, then why is it connected with "EATETH" defined as "beleiveth on me"???????? if "is" not bread of life that one can "eateth" right then and now as defined by "beleiveth." To eat here means to partake by faith and it is obvious to anyone without bias.

Bread=his flesh. .

He is PRESENT TENSE "Bread" in verse 35 and you admit "bread=flesh" then what does present tense "eateth" in the very same verse equal?????? Jesus says it equals "believeth" PRESENT TENSE!

 

[Matt Black]

:applause:

:applause::applause: All you can do is show what scripture plainly says. It is Biblicists that must twist scripture to mean what it does not. Anyone with common sense can understand what the scripture plainly says. Mark 16:16 has to be twisted in the same way to support their un-biblical position on baptism. If a person picks up a bible and reads the passage and has never been taught Mark 16:16 does not mean what it clearly means, they understand that faith AND baptism are necessary to be saved.

Indeed. And someone who responds with un-Christian insults and accusations of lying is really not worth engaging with.

 

[The Biblicist]

Indeed. And someone who responds with un-Christian insults and accusations of lying is really not worth engaging with.

The bottom line is that not one of you have honestly and directly dealt with evidence presented and that is simply the truth.

Thinkingstuff says that Christ has not even introduced the idea of eating until after verse 51 but THE TRUTH IS that the very werd "eateth" is introduced in verse 35 in direct connection wiith 'I AM the bread of life."

All of you claim that the future tense in verse 51 (of which we all agree refers to the cross) denies that eating him in the sense already defined in verse 35 is possible presently when THE TRUTH IS that every verb in verse 35 is present tense including the word "eateth" and those in verse 36 are rebuked for not alreadying having done so while those in verses 60-68 have already claimed to understand what he means and have confessed they already have partaken of the "WORDS of life."

If you fella's were really consistent with your interpretation of verse 51 you would have to also deny they partook of him in Mattehw 26 when the Lord's Supper was instituted as that also is BEFORE the cross, thus BEFORE he gave himself on the cross - so in the Lord's Supper there was no eating of him either.

Jesus defines what he means by "eateth" and "drinketh" (vv. 35, long before verse 51-58 and defines it again after verses 51-58 but you fella's simply repudiate his own definition. Peter understood him perfectly that eating and drinking him was partaking of him by faith and it was his words received by faith that were actually "THE WORDS OF LIFE."

Jesus bluntly tells you that his words were not to be understood in a MATERIAL sense but in a "spiritual" (Non-material) sense (v. 60).

Only Roman Catholic dogma void of common sense and basic rules of interpretation can persist in embracing such an irrational interpretation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are right...!

You should have just left it at that, because the rest of what you said is in error. But it doesn't matter how many times I show you; you will continue to be rude. So I agree with Matt Black.

 

[The Biblicist]

You should have just left it at that, because the rest of what you said is in error. But it doesn't matter how many times I show you; you will continue to be rude. So I agree with Matt Black.

Simple denial does not change the facts. If your position was true then no one could obtain eternal life by faith in Christ prior to the cross as Jesus explicitly states that believing in him AS THE BREAD OF LIFE obtains eternal life presently as does partaking of him as the bread of life:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

jesus repeatedly claims that present tense believing obtains present tense eternal life BEFORE the cross - Jn. 3:16, 36; 5:24

 

[Walter]

Simple denial does not change the facts. If your position was true then no one could obtain eternal life by faith in Christ prior to the cross as Jesus explicitly states that believing in him AS THE BREAD OF LIFE obtains eternal life presently as does partaking of him as the bread of life:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

jesus repeatedly claims that present tense believing obtains present tense eternal life BEFORE the cross - Jn. 3:16, 36; 5:24

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. ... (future tense)

 

[DHK]

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. ... (future tense)

"I am the door, by me if any man shall enter in he shall have eternal life." (future tense).
Does Jesus look like a door to you??
Why is it you can see the metaphor in one passage of Scripture but not the other?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

"I am the door, by me if any man shall enter in he shall have eternal life." (future tense).
Does Jesus look like a door to you??
Why is it you can see the metaphor in one passage of Scripture but not the other?

Because the RCC hierarchy has decreed that one is a metaphor and the other is not, and that no RC is permitted to see a metaphor where the RCC has decreed that one does not exist.

 

[Walter]

"I am the door, by me if any man shall enter in he shall have eternal life." (future tense).
Does Jesus look like a door to you??
Why is it you can see the metaphor in one passage of Scripture but not the other?

As has been presented on this board over and over and which is NEVER adequately answered, in John 6 we find that this is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."
DHK and others on the board have compared verses like John 10:9 "I am the door" and John 15:1 "I am the true vine". The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. 'Thomas Helwys' seems to think the Roman Church determined one reference to be literal and the other metaphor in order to make it fit the doctrine of the Eucharist. I believe Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" John 6:55.

 

[The Biblicist]

As has been presented on this board over and over and which is NEVER adequately answered, in John 6 we find that this is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

And it has been answered over and over again that is precisely what he did say to them "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

In the scriptures the words of "eateth" and "drinketh" are used to convey LITERAL MATETIAL PHYSICAL substances or used to convey SPIRITUAL NON-PHYSICAL substances.

Isaiah 55:1-5 is a perfect example as is John 6:35. The analogous use is obvious:

1. Hunger and thirst EQUAL physical or spiritual desires
2. Eateth and drinkeht EQUAL partaking of physical or spiritual substances
3. coming to someone can be PHYSICAL (geographical) or SPIRITUAL (faith)

His words are to be understood as "spiritual" not physical and "life" is obtained in understanding His words refer to the "spiritual" desires, substances, and partaking by faith as Peter clearly interprets "the words of life" to be spiritually partaking of him by faith or believing on him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

You can't get the clear analogous use any clearer than in John 6:35

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

1. They wanted this bread of life RIGHT THEN - v. 34
2. Jesus identified himself as this bread of life RIGHT THEN - v. 35a
3. Coming and believing in him RIGHT THEN was Christ's response to FOREVER satisfy their hunger and thirst for that bread of life. Thus they are told to partake of that bread by faith right then and there.
4. They saw and refused to satisfy their hunger and thirst by partakng of the bread of life by faith - v. 36.

Can't get it clearer that Jesus is using eating and drinking, hungering and thirsting as words to convey SPIRITUAL truths rather than PHYSICAL food.

Peter understood it completely as he identiied the "WORDS OF LIFE" that must be partaken of by faith:

thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

It is Rome's interpetation that has the greater problem. Jesus says that one's hunger and thirst for eternal life can be IMMEDIATELY satisfied by faith in Him as the bread of life - Jn. 6:34-35; 48-49 BEFORE he goes to the cross and he says this repeatedly from John 3:16, 5:24, ETC. Hence, eternal life can be equally obtained by faith in Christ as the spiritual bread of life as it can by Rome's interpretation of Christ as literal physical material food. However, Rome's interpretation of John 8:51 denies both equally.

 

[BobRyan]

As has been presented on this board over and over and which is NEVER adequately answered, in John 6 we find that this is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out?

As has been pointed out over and over again on this thread without any substantive answer - the text of John 6 states that IMMEDIATELY after the unbelieving unfaithful disciples claim to take Christ too literally - Christ gives the answer to the "saying" the "hard saying" that they themselves are complaining about by saying that literal flesh was worthless - and that the WORDS He spoke are true Spirit and Life - the very source of LIFE that John 6 was saying that they must have to live.

The other obvious point is that the faithFUL disciples "did not bite Christ" in John 6.

And again - NOTHING in John 6 says "in the FUTURE I will some day be the bread that comes down from heaven".

And again - NOTHING in John 6 saying "some day in the FUTURE you must eat that bread" - but rather NOW you must eat.

And again - NOTHING in John 6 saying they are then and there having a communion service.

DHK and others on the board have compared verses like John 10:9 "I am the door" and John 15:1 "I am the true vine". The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life."

Indeed they all stand as full and complete claims "I AM" - the idea of taking one of them literally and then admitting that the others were mere symbols EVEN though those in John 6 admit this is a "hard SAYING" - is to ignore a mountain of inconvenient details in the text itself.

The unbelieving and slow-to-believe examples in John 3 (taking Christ too literally on the subject of being born-again) and Matt 16 (taking the symbol of bread too literally) is hard to ignore again - in John 6 where the faithless disciples leave in vs 60and IMMEDIATELY in Vs 61- 63 Christ gives the solution.


And as soon as they say "this is a hard SAYING - who can hear it" -

Jesus responds with the answer to the symbols.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64But there are some of you that believe not.




The very solution some have claimed does not exist in the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My point in the post above is not that a Cradle-Catholic cannot ignore those details all day long - my claim is that a Baptist that is considering the option of becoming a Catholic and is NOT YET Catholic - IS going to notice those details if someone points them out.

in Christ,

Bob