My dilemma

[Rebel]

Good post all around :thumbs:

A way I found helpful back when I was wrestling with this issue when I held to the Zwinglian view of the "ordinances" was to compare the three passages (ie BREAD, DOOR, VINE) side by side--both what they said and what they didn't say. If I get more time later today, I'll outline a comparison/contrast between the three passages, and then share my thought process about how this comparison helped lead me away from Zwinglian memorialism and towards belief in the 'Real Presence' of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist. But for now I'll point out that Walter's comments about the unique statements in John 6 express basically the same conclusions I had come to when comparing this passage with the statements found in John 10 and John 15.

I'm at work, so I'll just say this for now: The statements referenced that Jesus made in John 6 were made a considerable time before the Last Supper, so this cannot refer to any doctrine of the Lord's Supper. When I get home, I'll have more on this subject.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm at work, so I'll just say this for now: The statements referenced that Jesus made in John 6 were made a considerable time before the Last Supper, so this cannot refer to any doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

It can't? I really don't see why not. Although Christ's words here are in fact uttered well before the celebration of the Last supper, and He doesn't mention the Supper here per se, His Words certainly foretell the specific meaning that He would later attribute to the Supper in the upper room. This is also consistent with the meaning given by Paul in 1 CORINTHIANS 10 and 11, and this is certainly the way in which the Church seemed to understand His words from the beginning. Indeed, the Lord's Supper is the only other instance in the Gospels in which He specificallly speaks of eating His Body and drinking His blood. (And of course, there are other examples in the Gospels in which Jesus taught something that was yet to take place, but at the time He taught it the disciples didn't understand His meaning)

 

[PreachTony]

It can't? I really don't see why not. Although Christ's words here are in fact uttered well before the celebration of the Last supper, and He doesn't mention the Supper here per se, His Words certainly foretell the specific meaning that He would later attribute to the Supper in the upper room. This is also consistent with the meaning given by Paul in 1 CORINTHIANS 10 and 11, and this is certainly the way in which the Church seemed to understand His words from the beginning. Indeed, the Lord's Supper is the only other instance in the Gospels in which He specificallly speaks of eating His Body and drinking His blood. (And of course, there are other examples in the Gospels in which Jesus taught something that was yet to take place, but at the time He taught it the disciples didn't understand His meaning)

So did the wine and bread of the actual Last Supper become the body and blood of Christ? Or did that only take effect after the crucifixion?

If it took effect during the Last Supper, then you have a case of Christ's body being in multiple places at one time. If Christ is fully Man, this is a physical impossibility. You can write this off by saying that, as God [since most of us believe Christ is both fully God (as the second person of the Godhead) and fully Man (as God incarnate on Earth)], He could do whatever He wanted, but in no other place was Christ shown to break such physical laws as to be in two places at one time, let alone in multiple places at one time.

 

[Rebel]

It can't? I really don't see why not. Although Christ's words here are in fact uttered well before the celebration of the Last supper, and He doesn't mention the Supper here per se, His Words certainly foretell the specific meaning that He would later attribute to the Supper in the upper room. This is also consistent with the meaning given by Paul in 1 CORINTHIANS 10 and 11, and this is certainly the way in which the Church seemed to understand His words from the beginning. Indeed, the Lord's Supper is the only other instance in the Gospels in which He specificallly speaks of eating His Body and drinking His blood. (And of course, there are other examples in the Gospels in which Jesus taught something that was yet to take place, but at the time He taught it the disciples didn't understand His meaning)

I want to wait till I get home this afternoon to reply in detail on this subject because I have some literature I want to draw from. But what I will show will be convincing. Also, I want to make sure I post in the right spirit. This is a very important subject, and care must be taken in what is said and how it is said. This is one area of doctrine that keeps me out of the RCC and other "high church" traditions.

 

[Rebel]

So did the wine and bread of the actual Last Supper become the body and blood of Christ? Or did that only take effect after the crucifixion?

If it took effect during the Last Supper, then you have a case of Christ's body being in multiple places at one time. If Christ is fully Man, this is a physical impossibility. You can write this off by saying that, as God [since most of us believe Christ is both fully God (as the second person of the Godhead) and fully Man (as God incarnate on Earth)], He could do whatever He wanted, but in no other place was Christ shown to break such physical laws as to be in two places at one time, let alone in multiple places at one time.

This is indeed one arguement. I'll have more later.

One note for now: If this was true, then Jesus changed the bread and wine into Himself and ate Himself at the Last Supper.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

So did the wine and bread of the actual Last Supper become the body and blood of Christ? Or did that only take effect after the crucifixion?

Well, Augustine for one believed that Christ, in some sense at least, was holding in His hands His body and blood at the Last Supper. Christ said it was His Body and Blood, and Paul agrees that the cup and the bread were the communion/partaking of Christ's Body/blood (not merely pictures of the same).

If it took effect during the Last Supper, then you have a case of Christ's body being in multiple places at one time. If Christ is fully Man, this is a physical impossibility. You can write this off by saying that, as God [since most of us believe Christ is both fully God (as the second person of the Godhead) and fully Man (as God incarnate on Earth)], He could do whatever He wanted, but in no other place was Christ shown to break such physical laws as to be in two places at one time, let alone in multiple places at one time.

First, 'the Real Presence' is not a carnal presence nor even a local presence, so there is no problem supernaturally sharing His Body and Blood in the forms of bread/wine while locally being present at the Table or in Heaven at the Father's Right Hand.

Second, some would argue that feeding the 5000 from five loaves and two fishes, or changing water into wine, are violations of physical laws (as would be walking on the water). Yet, Jesus who was fully human had no problem doing either. If He could figure out how to work those miracles, then it really shouldn't be a problem for Him to communicate sacramentally His Body/Blood to us while being locally in Heaven (or at the Table).

 

[PreachTony]

Well, Augustine for one believed that Christ, in some sense at least, was holding in His hands His body and blood at the Last Supper. Christ said it was His Body and Blood, and Paul agrees that the cup and the bread were the communion/partaking of Christ's Body/blood (not merely pictures of the same).

Augustine also believed a baby had to be baptized or it would burn in Hell. Forgive me if I'd rather look to the scripture than to what Augustine thought about the scripture.

Christ may have referred to it as His blood, but then referencing the same cup He said "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." (Matt 26:26-29). So Jesus Himself used varying language on the issue. In reference to the bread, yes, Jesus said it was His body, but consider also what Paul wrote of the event:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Paul's clear instructions to the church at Corinth do not force literalism on the event, but instead explicitly state that taking the bread and the wine are a "proclamation" of the Lord's death.

First, 'the Real Presence' is not a carnal presence nor even a local presence, so there is no problem supernaturally sharing His Body and Blood in the forms of bread/wine while locally being present at the Table or in Heaven at the Father's Right Hand.

Second, some would argue that feeding the 5000 from five loaves and two fishes, or changing water into wine, are violations of physical laws (as would be walking on the water). Yet, Jesus who was fully human had no problem doing either. If He could figure out how to work those miracles, then it really shouldn't be a problem for Him to communicate sacramentally His Body/Blood to us while being locally in Heaven (or at the Table).

Some could argue the feeding of the 5000 was a breaking of a physical law, but we have Biblical precedence of God taking little and making much. Consider Elisha and the woman with the pot of oil in 2 Kings 4. We have no biblical precedent for Christ in human body being in multiple places at once.


Let me ask you this, DT...do you actually believe that the bread becomes the physical body of Christ? That the wine becomes the physical blood of Christ?

If yes, then that belief is first a violation of Levitical law (Lev 17:14), is second a violation of the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures, and is lastly simply unbiblical, as no language in the scripture outright states such as the RCC believes, but rather, as I noted, requires an all-too-literal interpretation of words from our Lord when it is known He often used parables and analogies to convey meaning.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Augustine also believed a baby had to be baptized or it would burn in Hell.

I was using him as an example, as one highly regarded among the early Church particularly in the West. I don't agree with every thing he taught either (i.e. especially that particular baptism belief you mentioned), but his view on the Eucharist is fairly representative of the other early churchmen.

Forgive me if I'd rather look to the scripture than to what Augustine thought about the scripture.

Fair enough. JESUS said "This is My Body; This is My Blood". PAUL stated that the Cup of Blessing is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the Blood of Christ and the Bread is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the BODY of Christ. (Neither said: "This is a PICTURE of the Body and Blood" :smilewinkgrin: )

Christ may have referred to it as His blood, but then referencing the same cup He said "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." (Matt 26:26-29). So Jesus Himself used varying language on the issue. In reference to the bread, yes, Jesus said it was His body, but consider also what Paul wrote of the event:

Paul's clear instructions to the church at Corinth do not force literalism on the event, but instead explicitly state that taking the bread and the wine are a "proclamation" of the Lord's death.

Yeah, all that's great and true. Paul indeed spoke in 1 Corinthians 11 of the Supper being a "proclamation" of Christ's death, and certainly it is that, but in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul spoke of the wine/bread as being the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the Body/Blood of Christ. It's BOTH a "partaking" AND a "proclamation"--not either/or.

What is more, later in chapter 11, Paul warns against taking the Supper unworthily and thereby sinning against the body and blood of Christ. That doesn't make much sense if the bread and wine are mere visual aids.

Some could argue the feeding of the 5000 was a breaking of a physical law, but we have Biblical precedence of God taking little and making much. Consider Elisha and the woman with the pot of oil in 2 Kings 4. We have no biblical precedent for Christ in human body being in multiple places at once.

We also don't have biblical precedent before Christ's Incarnation of Virgin's conceiving either, nor of One Man dying on a Cross for the sins of the whole world.

Let me ask you this, DT...do you actually believe that the bread becomes the physical body of Christ? That the wine becomes the physical blood of Christ?

Neither the bread nor wine change to being physical body and blood. Empirically they retain their same physical properties. However, these elements indeed become the physical occasion/means of spiritually partaking the Body and Blood of Christ. Notice in my previous post I spoke of Christ "SUPERNATURALLY sharing" his Body and Blood (not NATURALLY) and that He could "communicate SACRAMENTALLY" (not carnally) the same in the forms of bread and wine.

Irenaeus spoke of there being TWO realities--an EARTHLY (bread and wine) and a HEAVENLY (Body and Blood)--and that's good enough for me. :thumbs:

If yes, then that belief is first a violation of Levitical law (Lev 17:14), is second a violation of the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures, and is lastly simply unbiblical, as no language in the scripture outright states such as the RCC believes, but rather, as I noted, requires an all-too-literal interpretation of words from our Lord when it is known He often used parables and analogies to convey meaning.

If you have specific questions/concerns about transubstantiation (which I don't believe) you may want to pose this question to the Roman Catholic folks here.

I don't think Scripture can necessarily support the weight of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but it certainly teaches much more than Zwinglian memorialism.

 

[PreachTony]

Good post and response. One question though...

Fair enough. JESUS said "This is My Body; This is My Blood". PAUL stated that the Cup of Blessing is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the Blood of Christ and the Bread is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the BODY of Christ. (Neither said: "This is a PICTURE of the Body and Blood" :smilewinkgrin: )

Jesus also said "I am the door." (John 10) Not I am an analogy of a door or I am the picture of a door. Do you think Jesus is a physical door?

Sounds a bit facetious, yes, but it's a genuine question...

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Good post and response. One question though...



Jesus also said "I am the door." (John 10) Not I am an analogy of a door or I am the picture of a door. Do you think Jesus is a physical door?

Sounds a bit facetious, yes, but it's a genuine question...

No, I don't think it's facetious at all. I posed that same question back when I was a Baptist and didn't yet believe in the 'Real Presence'*

Jesus indeed in John 10 said "I am the door", just as He said "I am the Bread of Life" in John 6 and "I am the Vine" in John 15. And if we stopped there, then, yeah, one can obviously see that He's speaking metaphorically in all three cases.

However, we know that in John 6 He didn't stop there--if He did, there'd be no controversy. Jesus went on to say: "...and this bread that I give is MY FLESH which I give for the life of the world (John 6:51)" and then He said several times that one had to EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to have eternal life and that his Flesh and Blood were food and drink indeed.

It would be as if in John 10 Jesus proceeded to say "..and this DOOR of which I'm speaking is an open passageway in the midst of My Flesh" and "He who walks through this open passage in the midst of My Flesh has Eternal life" and "My Flesh contains an open traversable passageway in its midst indeed"

Or consider John 15--it would be like Jesus going on to say: "...and this VINE of which I speak is My Flesh which you must engraft yourselves to" or "My Flesh is a true vine indeed."

Likewise, neither do we find any subsequent private discussions between Christ in His apostles in which He points to a physical DOOR and states, "This is My Body--walk through this", nor to a physical VINE and states, "This is My Flesh--attach yourselves to this, all of you!". However, we do have such language in the upper room regarding actual physical food and drink which He identifies with His Body and Blood, the same Body and Blood that He had taught sometime earlier (in John 6) that people needed to somehow eat and drink in order to have eternal life. The Disciples who had stuck it out with Jesus, knowing He had the words of life (John 6:68) learned at that time what His earlier words had meant--that He was indeed speaking spiritually (and sacramentally), rather than carnally (i.e. cannibalistically), as those who walked away supposed He was meaning (John 6:63). In other words, the bread and wine, which they would physically consume, were to become the means in which Christ would spiritually feed them with His body and blood.

And of course, we don't have any apostolic statements calling a certain physical door or a certain physical plant the communion/partaking of the body of Christ. We do have such statement in the case of the cup they blessed and the bread they broke (1 Cor 10:16).

I think when one considers these differences, one can see how it was that the Church historically understood Christ to be speaking realistically (albeit sacramentally) in the case of eating and drinking His Body and Blood, while merely speaking metaphorically in the case of the Door and the Vine statements.

(*reminder that 'REAL PRESENCE' doesn't necessarily equate to transubstantiation--I'll let the Roman Catholics chime in if they want to defend that particular view)

 

[Rebel]

No, I don't think it's facetious at all. I posed that same question back when I was a Baptist and didn't yet believe in the 'Real Presence'*

Jesus indeed in John 10 said "I am the door", just as He said "I am the Bread of Life" in John 6 and "I am the Vine" in John 15. And if we stopped there, then, yeah, one can obviously see that He's speaking metaphorically in all three cases.

However, we know that in John 6 He didn't stop there--if He did, there'd be no controversy. Jesus went on to say: "...and this bread that I give is MY FLESH which I give for the life of the world (John 6:51)" and then He said several times that one had to EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to have eternal life and that his Flesh and Blood were food and drink indeed.

It would be as if in John 10 Jesus proceeded to say "..and this DOOR of which I'm speaking is an open passageway in the midst of My Flesh" and "He who walks through this open passage in the midst of My Flesh has Eternal life" and "My Flesh contains an open traversable passageway in its midst indeed"

Or consider John 15--it would be like Jesus going on to say: "...and this VINE of which I speak is My Flesh which you must engraft yourselves to" or "My Flesh is a true vine indeed."

Likewise, neither do we find any subsequent private discussions between Christ in His apostles in which He points to a physical DOOR and states, "This is My Body--walk through this", nor to a physical VINE and states, "This is My Flesh--attach yourselves to this, all of you!". However, we do have such language in the upper room regarding actual physical food and drink which He identifies with His Body and Blood, the same Body and Blood that He had taught sometime earlier (in John 6) that people needed to somehow eat and drink in order to have eternal life. The Disciples who had stuck it out with Jesus, knowing He had the words of life (John 6:68) learned at that time what His earlier words had meant--that He was indeed speaking spiritually (and sacramentally), rather than carnally (i.e. cannibalistically), as those who walked away supposed He was meaning (John 6:63). In other words, the bread and wine, which they would physically consume, were to become the means in which Christ would spiritually feed them with His body and blood.

And of course, we don't have any apostolic statements calling a certain physical door or a certain physical plant the communion/partaking of the body of Christ. We do have such statement in the case of the cup they blessed and the bread they broke (1 Cor 10:16).

I think when one considers these differences, one can see how it was that the Church historically understood Christ to be speaking realistically (albeit sacramentally) in the case of eating and drinking His Body and Blood, while merely speaking metaphorically in the case of the Door and the Vine statements.

(*reminder that 'REAL PRESENCE' doesn't necessarily equate to transubstantiation--I'll let the Roman Catholics chime in if they want to defend that particular view)

And of course in Anglicanism, every view from Zwinglianism through transsubstantiation has been and is held.

 

[Croyant]

Before I say anything about churches, have you had a genuine born again experience to point to?

It has been more of a gradual process, and it is foggy as it dates back many years, but gradually I realized that my only hope for salvation was Jesus Christ.

 

[Rebel]

It has been more of a gradual process, and it is foggy as it dates back many years, but gradually I realized that my only hope for salvation was Jesus Christ.

Maybe we kind of derailed your thread. I apologize for that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, brother, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but there is so much bad information being posted that I just can't help myself. For just one example, transubstantiation (and actually, I think you meant to say The Eucharist) is not re-sacrificing Christ. But, whereas I usually don't post links or webpages from Catholic apologetics sites, I think this former Protestant explains it fairly well:

http://www.catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ

Except that the Church of Rome indeed does see the Mass as jesus lietrally sacrificing Himself towards the people...

main problem with Toman church is hey it denies the Cross of Chrsit saves anyone, and that salvation instead is based upon being a catholic who relies upon their taking of sacraments to save them from their sins....

The Church of rome is the real saviour, not jesus!

 

[OldRegular]

Yes I am reading through the Bible these days, I am up to Judges now. I have not picked a study bible in order to try to get an unslanted view.

I still think the company of other believers is important so that these don't remain abstract spiritual concepts and it becomes more part of your life.

You are wise not to get a study Bible at this time. However, I would recommend the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. It is nonsectarian but is very helpful in studying the Bible.

As for prayer I have found that most of my praying consists of short prayers throughout the day. I have also found that the prayers of David often help me to express my thoughts to God.

 

[OldRegular]

Well, brother, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but there is so much bad information being posted that I just can't help myself. For just one example, transubstantiation (and actually, I think you meant to say The Eucharist) is not re-sacrificing Christ. But, whereas I usually don't post links or webpages from Catholic apologetics sites, I think this former Protestant explains it fairly well:

http://www.catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ

The Roman Catholics {Not Catholic as they are not the "universal" Church. The universal Church is composed of all the redeemed.} claim they are not sacrificing Jesus Christ again but they really are. In transubstantiation the elements are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

From the Canons of Trent, The Thirteenth Session:

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Canon VIII clearly shows that the Eucharist is the sacrifice again of Jesus Christ. Literally eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ is a sacrifice

************************************************************************************************

 

[OldRegular]

Well, for one, in John 6:30, the Jews had asked Jesus for a sign so that they might believe in Him. They wanted to challenge Him by talking about those who had gone before them eating manna in the desert. They wanted Him to do better than that. He told them the 'true manna' came from His Father. They then asked for the bread always. He said: 'I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me will never hunger and he who believes in Me will never thirst'. At this point the Jews thought that he was talking metaphorically. He then repeated Himself and then summarized: 'I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; 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. Ok, no problem until this point, right? Now the Jews were beside themselves! Why? Because they understood that He was talking literally. What did He do next? Correct them? No! He said it again with greater emphasis. "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" John 6:53–56.

You earlier denied {above} that The Eucharist was not a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ but now you are arguing that is a sacrifice!

*****************************************************************************************************

 

[Zenas]

You earlier denied {above} that The Eucharist was not a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ but now you are arguing that is a sacrifice!

Old Regular, it's not a re-sacrifice. It's the same once for all sacrifice repeated thousands of times each day throughout the world. See Malachi 1:11.

 

[OldRegular]

Old Regular, it's not a re-sacrifice. It's the same once for all sacrifice repeated thousands of times each day throughout the world. See Malachi 1:11.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and all who believe in transubstantiation do re-sacrifice Jesus Christ each time they partake of the bread and wine. You are simply using semantics to make it sound more acceptable.

I see Malachi 1:11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

But what does that have to do with the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Scripture is talking about incense, and different incense each day. Jesus Christ has only one body and that body was sacrificed size=4]once[/size] for sin for all time!

Hebrews 9:11-14
11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, [size]but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.[/size]
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:23-10:10
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus Christ had only one body. That body was the once for all time sacrifice for sin as shown in the above Scripture.

Of course the doctrine of transubstantiation is false doctrine. However, since certain people believe the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Jesus Christ they are, in their own mind, re-sacrificing the body of Jesus Christ innumerable times each day. Semantics will not change that.

Canon V below clearly states that the purpose of the Eucharist is the remission of sin. That means it is a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ and even worse Canon I states that the divinity of Jesus Christ is in the bread and wine!

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

*********************************************************************************************

 

[Zenas]

Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and all who believe in transubstantiation do re-sacrifice Jesus Christ each time they partake of the bread and wine. You are simply using semantics to make it sound more acceptable.

I see Malachi 1:11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

But what does that have to do with the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Scripture is talking about incense, and different incense each day. Jesus Christ has only one body and that body was sacrificed size=4]once[/size] for sin for all time!

Hebrews 9:11-14
11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, [size]but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.[/size]
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:23-10:10
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus Christ had only one body. That body was the once for all time sacrifice for sin as shown in the above Scripture.

Of course the doctrine of transubstantiation is false doctrine. However, since certain people believe the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Jesus Christ they are, in their own mind, re-sacrificing the body of Jesus Christ innumerable times each day. Semantics will not change that.

The operative words in Malachi 1:11 are "pure offering." Can anything but the body of Christ be truly pure? However, since you raised the matter of incense, do you use incense at your church? Why not?