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

[Walter]

Matt, the philosophical mechanics of how Romes explains and thus justififes transubstantiation is not found in scripture but only in pagan philosophy.

You still have TWO flesh bodies co-existing in Matthew 26 at the point of eating and NEITHER is the Divine Spiritual omnipresent nature of Christ!

The Real Presence is absolutely found in scripture. In several places. Biblicists simply tells us "it isn't literal". This does not change what the text does say. And if we fast foward to John 6:66, it is the people who refused to take Jesus literally who are the ones that abandon him. Why if it was so plain that Jesus meant a symbolic eating would it be such a hard saying to accept, as those who abandoned him lamented. The confusion of the audience is nonsensical if Jesus meant to simply believe in him just as the Jews had believed in God for so long. For that and a multitude of reasons, the symbolic-only interpretation of John 6 thus cannot stand as sound interpretation in accord with the text.

Your 'symbolic view only' was an invention of the Reformation not known in the Early Church and certainly not shared by Martin Luther.

Further, Paul tells us that in the bread, we must see Christ's body:
1 Cor. 11:27-29 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.' Pretty strong words for something that is 'just a symbol'!
See bread with your eyes. Discern the body. The bread is his body, seen only with the eyes of faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Real Presence is absolutely found in scripture. In several places.

You either misunderstood my challenge or are intentionally perverting my words. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and regard you misunderstanding it.

I asked where else in Scripture apart from scriptures used by Rome to interpret the Lord's Supper can the principle of Transubstantiation be found, where anything changed in substance is without change in its appearance, smell, or taste???

I am saying the mechanics of your doctrine is derived from paganism not scripture as the Spirit teaches by comparing spiritual things with spiritual things but your doctrine is derived from a combination of scripture dependent upon pagan philosophy to explain its mehanics.

Biblicists simply tells us "it isn't literal".

On the contrary, I am going along with Rome's interpretation of "this is my body" and demanding it is literal and is real. Thus this interpretation demands TWO real and TWO literal bodies of Christ at the point of eating the bread in Matthew 26 when the Bible limits Christ's real literal physical flesh and blood body to but "ONE" rather than TWO. You have the literal flesh and blood body of Christ SEATED at the table and yet phyiscally literally present in their mouth at the same time by transubstation!

This does not change what the text does say. And if we fast foward to John 6:66,

Matt made me give up referring to John 6:66 but rather to "move on" and I said in response that I did not believe those who took his side would honor that committment not to return to John 6 and you prove my point.

1. The analogous use of food terms has biblical precedent (Isa. 55:1-5)

2. The analogous use of food term in introduced by Christ in John 6:35, 47-48.

3. The physical sense of his food terms is repudiated by Christ in John 6:60

4. The physical sense of his food terms is repudiated by Peter in John 6:68-69

Hence, the context of John 6 completely repudiates that Jesus intended his use of food terms in John 6:51-58 to be understood in the PHYSICAL sense but rather in the SPIRITUAL sinse (Jn. 6:60).

Therefore, Rome's interpretation of John 6:52-58 is not the only interpretation possible but really is the very interpretation that Jesus is repudiating because Rome interprets the FOOD TERMS in John 6:52-58 in the PHYSICAL sense whereas Christ asserts his use is in the "SPIRIT" sense (Jn. 6:60) and it is this spiritual or analogous sense that Peter applies in John 6:68-69.

Further, Paul tells us that in the bread, we must see Christ's body:
1 Cor. 11:27-29 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.' Pretty strong words for something that is 'just a symbol'!
See bread with your eyes. Discern the body. The bread is his body, seen only with the eyes of faith.

This is precisely what Rome is without - spiritual discernment. Paul tells the "rock" that Moses hit in the wilderness was Christ - metaphorically, symbolically, representatively (1 Cor. 10:1-4) but for hitting it instead of speaking to it, he was barred from entering the promised land! Pretty severe for just a symbol?????????

Here is what Rome does not "discern" in the very same manner as Moses perverted the symbol of the rock Rome perverts the symbol of the Supper. Both are pictures of Christ and his gospel. The significance of a symbol is the visible form, as the visible form is designed by God to visibly convey the spiritual truth it symbolizes. Pervert the visible form and you pervert the truth God designed for it to visually symbolize.

The rock can only be hit ONCE for all as Christ was "smitten" by God ONCE for all not twice, not thrice. Smiting it repudiated the truth of the gospel and denied his death ONCE was sufficient. Hence, he was not allowed to enter another SYMBOL of heaven - the promised land.

Likewise, Rome making the bread and wine the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ not only demands TWO Christ's in Matthew 26 (one seated, the other being eaten) but replaces what is a symbolic preachment of the gospel to be "another gospel" in and of itself conveying eternal life equally as faith in Christ conveys "eternal life" (Jn. 3:16,36; 5:24;6:47-48).

Therefore, those who really believe and trust in this perverted gospel will not enter the literal and real promised land any more than Moses was allowed to enter its type.

 

[Matt Black]

Christ, in his resurrected body, a body that the disciples could see and touch, that ate fish and bread with them, that walked some miles with them, and yet was able to pass through locked doors, now sits at the right hand of the throne of God. It is flesh and blood.

How does Christ dwell in every believer?
He does so by the power of His Spirit.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

It is the Spirit of Christ that dwells in the believer, not the flesh and blood of Christ which is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. The Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit of course.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Smells like more Gnosticism to me...

 

[DHK]

Smells like more Gnosticism to me...

If that is the way you treat the Scriptures, then so be it.
We know where you stand.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not the Scriptures but your interpretation of them that's the problem. When will you learn to tell the difference?:BangHead:

 

[DHK]

It's not the Scriptures but your interpretation of them that's the problem. When will you learn to tell the difference?:BangHead:

What's there to interpret? Basically I quoted some Scripture with very little comment. The Scriptures interpret themselves. It seems that you just rejected the Scriptures I posted.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's not the Scriptures but your interpretation of them that's the problem. When will you learn to tell the difference?:BangHead:

Bang you head a little bit more will ya! Your response is typical! You can't really provide ANYTHING that is exegetical based to demonstrate DHK or my position is wrong, so you just provide empty railing!

Of course, how else can you respond when you have NOTHING to support what you say from an expository or exegetical vew!

In contrast we have supplied at minimum expositional based reasons which YOU HAVE NOT addressed except spouting off unsubstantiated assertions. Give some contextual based reasons why you disagree! Don't tell us you have because we have shredded every one you have given without any response from you except assertions without substance.

 

[Matt Black]

The gnostic comment is based upon the fact that you both put up a distinction between flesh and spirit which is a hallmark of gnosticism, which all true Christians condemn, and you then woefully misuse decontextualised Scriptures to justify this. Stop spouting gnostic heresy if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[DHK]

The gnostic comment is based upon the fact that you both put up a distinction between flesh and spirit which is a hallmark of gnosticism, which all true Christians condemn, and you then woefully misuse decontextualised Scriptures to justify this. Stop spouting gnostic heresy if you want to be taken seriously.

First that is not what gnosticism does. There is a difference between flesh and spirit. That is obvious from Scripture, even the Scripture which I gave you:

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

You can deny it or explain it.
If you can't explain the difference perhaps you are the gnositc, calling upon a higher power saying that you have higher knowledge that comes from outside the Bible. You just know because you just know. That is the essence of gnosticism--a claim to knowledge--"gnosis"

 

[The Biblicist]

The gnostic comment is based upon the fact that you both put up a distinction between flesh and spirit which is a hallmark of gnosticism, which all true Christians condemn, and you then woefully misuse decontextualised Scriptures to justify this. Stop spouting gnostic heresy if you want to be taken seriously.

What in the world is your definition of gnosticism? The gnostics boasted of scret knowledge. They denied that the spirit world can have any contact with the material world. They regarded the material world as evil.

The analgous use of words is extremely common in nearly ever book of the Bible. If that is gnosticism then every writer in the Bible was a gnostic by your definition. For example when Peter told his readers to "desire the SINCERE MILK of the word" was he speaking of a milk cow whose name was "the word"? If you take these words at their literal material sense then that would be the idea. That is precisely how Rome takes the words of Jesus about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Neither is the case. Both Peter and Christ are using the common analgous use of food terms. The word of God does not provide literal liquid white milk but SPIRITUAL milk or sustance for spirtual growth. You don't literally eat the blood and flesh of Jesus but you can parkate of Christ SPIRITUALLY by faith in him.

However, if you want to teach that there is a cow whose name is "the word" that Christians should desire to drink from then be my guest.

 

[Matt Black]

First of all, I'm not impressed by the use of proof-texting in this way; it is a clear misuse of Scripture which anyone can do to justify their position. So, let's move on from that...


As to the accusation of Gnosticism, I stand by that: one of its hallmarks was (and is) the over-emphasis of the distinction between the material and the spiritual, with the former being 'bad' and the latter 'good'. The Incarnation of course drives a coach and horses through that particular error. My question is therefore why you both are attempting to revivify this erroneous dichotomy by suggesting that what is possible in the Spirit is not possible materially? Do you have a problem generally with the supernatural, with miracles, etc?

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all, I'm not impressed by the use of proof-texting in this way; it is a clear misuse of Scripture which anyone can do to justify their position. So, let's move on from that...

Prooftexting?????????????? To provide you with any evidence of that kind of langauge would require giving you actual verses that use it. I gave you a concrete use of langauge and you can't deal with it and so you run as usual and want to drop anything and move away from anything that you can't deal with.

As to the accusation of Gnosticism, I stand by that: one of its hallmarks was (and is) the over-emphasis of the distinction between the material and the spiritual, with the former being 'bad' and the latter 'good'.

Rediculous! The analogous use of words does not make one good and the other bad! Jesus is the one who said his words were "spirit" - Is he a gnostic also?

The Incarnation of course drives a coach and horses through that particular error. My question is therefore why you both are attempting to revivify this erroneous dichotomy by suggesting that what is possible in the Spirit is not possible materially? Do you have a problem generally with the supernatural, with miracles, etc?

You simply do not understand the common ordinary use of language that is employed repeatedly throughout the scriptures. For example, "I am the door" is another example of the analgous use (metaphor). Is he a literal wooden door??? Your position requires you to believe that. Your idea of gnosticism requires you to accuse Christ of being a gnostic. Think about it.

 

[Matt Black]

Fine, whatever. If you can't or won't engage in a civilised manner without resorting to insulting language, others can draw their own conclusions of your position by its fruits.

 

[The Biblicist]

Fine, whatever. If you can't or won't engage in a civilised manner without resorting to insulting language, others can draw their own conclusions of your position by its fruits.

What insulting language???? I never called you any names. You are simply in a situation that is uncomfortable and desperate to find some kind of justification to escape it. So, now you are trying to frame me to make yourself look good! I gave you some specifics and again you can't deal with it, so you are trying to change the subject, invent an accusation in order to run from the evidence.

 

[Matt Black]

Be more respectful in your posting and we might be able to resume the conversation. If you can't see where you're being disrespectful despite me and others pointing it out to you, I can't help you further.

 

[The Biblicist]

Be more respectful in your posting and we might be able to resume the conversation. If you can't see where you're being disrespectful despite me and others pointing it out to you, I can't help you further.

You got to be kidding?? You charge me with being a gnostic, I reply that is rediculous and you think you have the right to lecture me on being "disrepectful"????

 

[Matt Black]

Like I said, I really can't help you out further here if you persist in your manner of posting.

 

[The Biblicist]

Like I said, I really can't help you out further here if you persist in your manner of posting.

You are simply making this a personal issue becuase you cannot deal with the Biblical evidence - period!


Anyone who says something like this:

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. - Matt Black

has no right to lecture anyone else about their "maner of posting"

 

[The Biblicist]

You are simply making this a personal issue becuase you cannot deal with the Biblical evidence - period!


Anyone who says something like this:

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. - Matt Black

has no right to lecture anyone else about their "maner of posting"

Anyone who says something like this:

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. - Matt Black

has no right to lecture anyone else about their "maner of posting"[/QUOTE]

So let's drop the hypocrisy and get back to the issue shall we?

 

[DHK]

First of all, I'm not impressed by the use of proof-texting in this way; it is a clear misuse of Scripture which anyone can do to justify their position. So, let's move on from that...


As to the accusation of Gnosticism, I stand by that: one of its hallmarks was (and is) the over-emphasis of the distinction between the material and the spiritual, with the former being 'bad' and the latter 'good'. The Incarnation of course drives a coach and horses through that particular error. My question is therefore why you both are attempting to revivify this erroneous dichotomy by suggesting that what is possible in the Spirit is not possible materially? Do you have a problem generally with the supernatural, with miracles, etc?

Whatever your beliefs are about Gnosticism you cannot impose those beliefs on the Bible. The Bible came first, not Gnosticism. Go right back to Genesis chapter one. You will find the Spirit hovering over the waters of creation.
The trinity is: The God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son: and these three are one. God is a triune being. Gnosticism may deny this but that does not make the Bible false. It makes Gnosticism false.

Man is also a tri-partite being:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gnostics view is irrelevant; what the Bible says is what is relevant.
The Scripture that I quoted to you is what is relevant. Stick to the Scripture. What does it mean. The Gnostics are not the ones interpreting the Scripture.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Is there something that is difficult for you to understand here?
For those of us that are saved the Spirit of Christ comes and dwells within us. If you have not the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit), you do not belong to God; you are not saved. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with Gnosticism. It is simple Biblical truth which you have not taken the time to refute.