Catholics, and the Eucharist.

[Amy.G]

If Jesus meant for us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, why didn't He cut Himself and bleed into the cup and pass it to disciples at the last passover? How ridiculous.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Eat my flesh, and drink my blood, means to eat his teachings and apply it in your life?, I doubt it my friend.

"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

I think we can compare this passage with John 4

10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

did he actually give her water? Note also as Jesus explains the passage in John 6 as he explains it to his disciples

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.

Its a spiritual truth. Not a physical one. Therefore the indwelling of God in man cannot be dependent upon a physical act but a spiritual one. Thus eating and assimulating truth into oneself. Not Hillel a contemporary of Jesus indicated that

Eating Torah, a study of... Torah

it seems to be clear it is in this sense possibly that Jesus is speaking.

The Jews, of the time of Jesus, clearly understood what he was saying, that is why the Jews said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat". If they took as symbolically for his law, it would of been no issue, and carried on listening, but some of his OWN disciples left him, when he said this.

Not really since Jesus had to explain it to his disciples

The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

It can be. Such as chewing of the cud or ruminating over something.

The Messiah, brought and was expected to bring a renewed Torah, his Torah. Paul may be alluding to this in the letter to the Galatians when he speaks of the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2)

Paul fights against Judaic following of Torah in this book. Its a book of Grace.

The Old Torah was referred to as "The Yoke", we can see an example of this when Paul stated in chapter 5 of Galatians: " For freedom Christ has set up free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery

no disagreement.

(Matthew 11:28-30) "Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you.Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls." - The Jews, used to refer the torah as the "yoke of the law". Jesus's law, is meek, and humble and at heart.

Yes which is why I question canon law.

"Or eat me or my teachings and apply it your life. Which in the common vernacular would mean ingest everything I've said and taught"

It seems this way to me.

- Jesus clearly taught, his Torah(his teachings,his law) was "Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls." He did not refer to the flesh and blood, as his Torah or laws.

since he summerized them into two precepts and why not my approach to torah is simpler than what has been accepted thus "my burden is light"

 

[Joshua Patrick]

If Jesus meant for us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, why didn't He cut Himself and bleed into the cup and pass it to disciples at the last passover? How ridiculous.

He died on the cross, to shead his blood. This was to fulfill the prophecies of the Prophets.

He intiated the Eucharist meal, at the last supper, so people may drink his blood, and eat his flesh.


In (Mark 14:22-26), we hear the words of institution, "And as they were eating He took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take, this is my body.' And He took a cup and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them and they drank all of it and He said to them, 'This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many."

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm - You must enjoy this article.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He died on the cross, to shead his blood. This was to fulfill the prophecies of the Prophets.

He intiated the Eucharist meal, at the last supper, so people may drink his blood, and eat his flesh.


In (Mark 14:22-26), we hear the words of institution, "And as they were eating He took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take, this is my body.' And He took a cup and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them and they drank all of it and He said to them, 'This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many."

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm - You must enjoy this article.

Which is why I question the Eucharista and certain allusions to Leviticus "thanks offering". Is it really then Eucharist?

 

[targus]

Yes, and?? We don't have "Baptist" in our name. But if we were asked what denomination we are, we're Baptist. You can look at my profile and see what I am.

The point is that you were quite harsh with Joshua for his deception.

"Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board."

"Whether that was your own personal opinion or not, it asked if you were Catholic and you proudly....denied it. Why is that?"

At the same time you are part of a different deception - and your church's motivation for dropping the name Baptist could also be called into question.

Not making any judgements - just an observation.

 

[targus]

Perhaps one way of avoiding the problem of Catholics not identifying themselves as such when attempting to join the board would be for the board to be up front and direct and say "Catholics not allowed - Anyone found to be a Catholic will be banned."

Why play the game of pretending that a Catholic would be allowed to join anyway?

What purpose does it serve?

 

[Joshua Patrick]

Note also as Jesus explains the passage in John 6 as he explains it to his disciples
Quote:
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
Its a spiritual truth. Not a physical one. Therefore the indwelling of God in man cannot be dependent upon a physical act but a spiritual one. Thus eating and assimulating truth into oneself. Not Hillel a contemporary of Jesus indicated that

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

It can be. Such as chewing of the cud or ruminating over something.

You claimed, when Jesus said to eat his flesh, he was talking about eating his words and the law, symbolically?

The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

The way Jesus says his words, are not in a symbolic way. The gospels use a word that is not the language of a metaphor.

"eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing."

 

[annsni]

The point is that you were quite harsh with Joshua for his deception.

"Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board."

"Whether that was your own personal opinion or not, it asked if you were Catholic and you proudly....denied it. Why is that?"

At the same time you are part of a different deception - and your church's motivation for dropping the name Baptist could also be called into question.

Not making any judgements - just an observation.

Just an observation that the Baptist Board does not allow Catholics to join and have graciously allowed the few that are on here to stay - and this man did not disclose his Catholicism when asked directly so that he can get on here. I do not see any parallels at all.

 

[webdog]

The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

It sure is. You have never heard anyone say "chew on it and get back to me" or "chew it over and let me know"?

chew (ch)
v. chewed, chew·ing, chews
v.tr.
1. To bite and grind with the teeth; masticate.
2. To meditate on; ponder: chew a problem over.
v.intr.
1. To make a crushing and grinding motion with the teeth.
2. To cogitate; meditate: chewed on the difficulties ahead.
3. Informal To use chewing tobacco.
n.
1. The act of chewing.
2. Something held in the mouth and chewed, especially a plug of tobacco. See Regional Note at chaw.
Phrasal Verb:
chew out Slang
To reprimand; scold.
Idioms:
chew the cud Slang
To ponder over; meditate.
chew the fat/rag Slang
To talk together in a friendly, leisurely way; chat at length.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

I didn't say symbolic. But spiritual is on a higher level an "unseen level" which is operative beyond the physical. Note Hebrews 11:1

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Therefore we operate on that level we don't express it physically except when we want to explain it.

You claimed, when Jesus said to eat his flesh, he was talking about eating his words and the law, symbolically?

Yes because it was a common phrase in his day. We say cool today but we don't mean we are cold we mean something is approvable. To eat torah was to study it.

The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

as in chewing of the cud.

The way Jesus says his words, are not in a symbolic way. The gospels use a word that is not the language of a metaphor.

the thing with metaphore is it uses common word use to explain something an analogy.

"eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing."

Ie of the cud.

 

[Steven2006]

The point is that you were quite harsh with Joshua for his deception.

"Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board."

"Whether that was your own personal opinion or not, it asked if you were Catholic and you proudly....denied it. Why is that?"

At the same time you are part of a different deception - and your church's motivation for dropping the name Baptist could also be called into question.

Not making any judgements - just an observation.

I don't see even the slightest similarity in the two situations. In one a person is avoiding answering a direct question accurately. In another they are choosing a name of a new church that will best allow them to witness to the neighborhood it serves. The only way you could have a point was if Ann said that they were denying being a baptist church if asked, which she clearly said would never happen.

Why don't you quit trying to embarrass her on this thread. If you want to "debate" a name on a church, post on the appropriate thread.

 

[targus]

Just an observation that the Baptist Board does not allow Catholics to join and have graciously allowed the few that are on here to stay - and this man did not disclose his Catholicism when asked directly so that he can get on here. I do not see any parallels at all.

Here is the parallel...

Joshua wanted to get onto the board to say what he wants to say - but thought that he had a better chance of getting onto the board by identifying himself as something other than what is most descriptive - he said "Christian" instead of "Catholic".

Your church wanted to get people in the door to hear what your church has to say - but thought that they have a better chance of getting people in the door by identifying themselves as something other than what is most descriptive - they avoided saying "Baptist".

 

[targus]

I don't see even the slightest similarity in the two situations. In one a person is avoiding answering a direct question accurately. In another they are choosing a name of a new church that will best allow them to witness to the neighborhood it serves. The only way you could have a point was if Ann said that they were denying being a baptist church if asked, which she clearly said would never happen.

Why don't you quit trying to embarrass her on this thread. If you want to "debate" a name on a church, post on the appropriate thread.

Joshua was not asked if he was Catholic when applying.

He said Chrisitian which Catholics believe to be true so he was not lying.

When asked by people on the board if he is Catholic he said "yes".

It is a perfect parallel to Ann's church name - they avoided the name of Baptist on purpose because it has a bad reputation where they opened the church.

 

[webdog]

Here is the parallel...

Joshua wanted to get onto the board to say what he wants to say - but thought that he had a better chance of getting onto the board by identifying himself as something other than what is most descriptive - he said "Christian" instead of "Catholic".

Your church wanted to get people in the door to hear what your church has to say - but thought that they have a better chance of getting people in the door by identifying themselves as something other than what is most descriptive - they avoided saying "Baptist".

There is no parallel. Joshua blatantly violated a rule to come to this board...that's a sin, is it not? There is no rule in what an autonomous church can and should name their church to reach the lost. You need to stop.

 

[webdog]

Joshua was not asked if he was Catholic when applying.

He said Chrisitian which Catholics believe to be true so he was not lying.

When asked by people on the board if he is Catholic he said "yes".

It is a perfect parallel to Ann's church name - they avoided the name of Baptist on purpose because it has a bad reputation where they opened the church.

He most certainly was asked his denomination when applying, and catholic was even an example given in case he needed further understanding on what denomination means. He played the semantics game in the deception. We can only conclude he is here to proselytize us with his RCC beliefs.

Christian is not a denomination, so that is lying.

"Coming out" after the fact does not negate the facts of what he did to even post anything in the first place.

 

[annsni]

Here is the parallel...

Joshua wanted to get onto the board to say what he wants to say - but thought that he had a better chance of getting onto the board by identifying himself as something other than what is most descriptive - he said "Christian" instead of "Catholic".

Your church wanted to get people in the door to hear what your church has to say - but thought that they have a better chance of getting people in the door by identifying themselves as something other than what is most descriptive - they avoided saying "Baptist".

Nope - No parallel at all. We don't lie.

 

[lori4dogs]

He most certainly was asked his denomination when applying, and catholic was even an example given in case he needed further understanding on what denomination means. He played the semantics game in the deception. We can only conclude he is here to proselytize us with his RCC beliefs.

Christian is not a denomination, so that is lying.

"Coming out" after the fact does not negate the facts of what he did to even post anything in the first place.

WOW, you are paranoid! You accuse Joshua of proselytizing, which of course would result in him being banned. Big difference between defending your faith and proselytizing. You seem awful nervous about having a Catholic on this board. People like you make so many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. Wouldn't you want to hear what a Catholic thinks about that?

BTW, Catholics do not believe that our Church is a 'denomination' so to say it is one would be lying. You should be a little more careful with such accusations. Not very Christ like.

 

[annsni]

WOW, you are paranoid! You accuse Joshua of proselytizing, which of course would result in him being banned. Big difference between defending your faith and proselytizing. You seem awful nervous about having a Catholic on this board. People like you make so many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. Wouldn't you want to hear what a Catholic thinks about that?

BTW, Catholics do not believe that our Church is a 'denomination' so to say it is one would be lying. You should be a little more careful with such accusations. Not very Christ like.

None of this has anything to do with the facts because we're dealing with rules here, are we not?

 

[billwald]

> As most of you people know, us Catholics believe in the actual real presence of Christ, in the Eucharist.

Should be "we Catholics." The test is to eliminate proper noun. One would not say, " . . . us believe . . . ."

Bapists trivialize the Eucharist into a wake for Jesus and don't even use real booze. What kind of wake is that?

The discussion is pointless on both sides unless argued in terms of Greek philosophy and what the words might have meant to the original readers.

 

[webdog]

WOW, you are paranoid! You accuse Joshua of proselytizing, which of course would result in him being banned. Big difference between defending your faith and proselytizing. You seem awful nervous about having a Catholic on this board. People like you make so many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. Wouldn't you want to hear what a Catholic thinks about that?

BTW, Catholics do not believe that our Church is a 'denomination' so to say it is one would be lying. You should be a little more careful with such accusations. Not very Christ like.

I'm not paranoid...and yes, he is proselytizing. Catholics are not allowed to join this board, those are the rules. If I wanted to read RCC theology I would go to one of your other boards...and your false accusation that I "misrepresent" the RCC faith is quite unfounded and false.

And, no, I do not want to hear what a Catholic "thinks about that". I've been there an done that as my wife's entire family is RCC and I have a good handle on what that "denomination" (regardless of what you want to believe, that is what it is) teaches.