-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Paganism??
- Thread starter Jude
- Start date
GraceSaves
New Member
Chrissy,
What scriptural support are you using? You're not even writing this stuff; others are. And their Scriptural support is scattered about and connected with their own obviously biased opinions. Others on this board put up very well thought out offenses against the Catholic Eucharist. They often make me think and study. This is not one of those times, as this website you are quoting from is not logically coherent.
And did you read the page I linked you to? I read yours. And on that same site, there is a Catholic rebuttal. Did you read it? If not, why do you insist I continue to read yours? Where is the fairness?
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Again, what low remarks? I have attacked your material, but not you. All I repeatedly ask of you is to write in your own words. How is that a low remark?
God bless,
Grant
CatholicConvert
New Member
Chrissy --
Stop whining. YOU are the one with the nasty jokes about poisoning priests, the attitude, and the cut and paste lies from blatantly anti-Catholic sites. We are asking you to stop posting up this nonsense and do a little thinking on your feet.
The reason that the Eucharist MUST be the real Body and Blood of Christ has to do with our justification and righteousness before God. It has to do with a concept in the Scritpures called "organic unity". We see this concept in Romans 5: 12, which declares that we are made sinners because of our unity with Adam. When Adam sinned, we sinned with him because of our unity with Him. We were "in his loins" so to speak, and as such, committed the sin with him.
We also see this principle in Hebrews:
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
I hope you will stop and THINK about what is being said here instead of reaching for the mouse to click on yet another web site full of anti-catholic screed.
We are related by our flesh to Adam, and share in the mutual condemnation, therefore, our redemption must be of the same type and kind, i.e., we must have an "organic unity" to the Messiah who will come and rescue mankind.
OH....small problem....Jesus isn't going to have any kids, is He?
Hmmmmmmmm...BIG problem for us. How can be become "one flesh" then with Him if He is not going to have children after the flesh? After all, it was by our unity in the flesh with Adam that we got into this mess.
Well, He gives us His Flesh and Blood to eat and drink that we might become united to Him in the most intimate way possible. Our reception of the Blessed Sacrament makes us "one" with Him in reality. And as our life mixes with and becomes one with His life "...for the life of the flesh is IN THE BLOOD...") we are cleansed by His sacrifice and made righteous by being part of Him.
Righteousness is the issue here. And our righteousness is based upon our union with Him, both now and in eternity. We, as the Bride of Christ, will be eternally righteous because we will be eternally "wed" to Him and eternally "one flesh" with Him.
Tell me how, in your SDA understanding, you become righteous and then we can talk about that.
Or you can ignore me. Choice is yours. And quite frankly, at this point, I don't much care. I was here long before you and I was not the one who came in here with ATTITUDE.
Stop whining. YOU are the one with the nasty jokes about poisoning priests, the attitude, and the cut and paste lies from blatantly anti-Catholic sites. We are asking you to stop posting up this nonsense and do a little thinking on your feet.
The reason that the Eucharist MUST be the real Body and Blood of Christ has to do with our justification and righteousness before God. It has to do with a concept in the Scritpures called "organic unity". We see this concept in Romans 5: 12, which declares that we are made sinners because of our unity with Adam. When Adam sinned, we sinned with him because of our unity with Him. We were "in his loins" so to speak, and as such, committed the sin with him.
We also see this principle in Hebrews:
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
I hope you will stop and THINK about what is being said here instead of reaching for the mouse to click on yet another web site full of anti-catholic screed.
We are related by our flesh to Adam, and share in the mutual condemnation, therefore, our redemption must be of the same type and kind, i.e., we must have an "organic unity" to the Messiah who will come and rescue mankind.
OH....small problem....Jesus isn't going to have any kids, is He?
Hmmmmmmmm...BIG problem for us. How can be become "one flesh" then with Him if He is not going to have children after the flesh? After all, it was by our unity in the flesh with Adam that we got into this mess.
Well, He gives us His Flesh and Blood to eat and drink that we might become united to Him in the most intimate way possible. Our reception of the Blessed Sacrament makes us "one" with Him in reality. And as our life mixes with and becomes one with His life "...for the life of the flesh is IN THE BLOOD...") we are cleansed by His sacrifice and made righteous by being part of Him.
Righteousness is the issue here. And our righteousness is based upon our union with Him, both now and in eternity. We, as the Bride of Christ, will be eternally righteous because we will be eternally "wed" to Him and eternally "one flesh" with Him.
Tell me how, in your SDA understanding, you become righteous and then we can talk about that.
Or you can ignore me. Choice is yours. And quite frankly, at this point, I don't much care. I was here long before you and I was not the one who came in here with ATTITUDE.
GraceSaves
New Member
ISJ,
I have no idea if that reply was in my defense or against me.
God bless,
Grant
I have no idea if that reply was in my defense or against me.
God bless,
Grant
...and yes, I wrote what was posted, if I hadnt written it, I'd of said so.
I cannot hardly believe the low tactics you Catholics use!
Just because I one time forgot to include the reference for something I posted, Now "Grace Saves" is going to ask every time I type something whether or not I wrote it? If I didnt write it, I will say so.
Then he harrasses me for putting a link for people to read on the internet and he turns around and puts a link himself for people to read on the internet?
Then this other Catholic starts harrassing me about some silly joke I told... you all try to paint things into some monumental thing, to try to make it appear just as terrible as you can make it look, even after I already apologized for it.
You REALLY ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
I at least have learned one thing about this place.
If you see the Catholics come swarming around someone's post after they make it, and start to harrass the person, you ought to really take note of what the person just said in their post, because it must REALLY hit a sore spot with the Catholics. So they have to resort to these low tactics instead of just proving their points scripturally.
I cannot hardly believe the low tactics you Catholics use!
Just because I one time forgot to include the reference for something I posted, Now "Grace Saves" is going to ask every time I type something whether or not I wrote it? If I didnt write it, I will say so.
Then he harrasses me for putting a link for people to read on the internet and he turns around and puts a link himself for people to read on the internet?
Then this other Catholic starts harrassing me about some silly joke I told... you all try to paint things into some monumental thing, to try to make it appear just as terrible as you can make it look, even after I already apologized for it.
You REALLY ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
I at least have learned one thing about this place.
If you see the Catholics come swarming around someone's post after they make it, and start to harrass the person, you ought to really take note of what the person just said in their post, because it must REALLY hit a sore spot with the Catholics. So they have to resort to these low tactics instead of just proving their points scripturally.
CatholicConvert
New Member
Grant --
Go back and read my posts. I do think Chrissy is referring to me as the one being "low". She and I got off on the wrong foot and it has been going downhill rapidly. I haven't appreciated her attitude from the moment she hit this board.
There are a couple of other folks on this board who VIOLENTLY disagree with me. Brother Curtis is one, but he and I have developed a very good mutual respect for one another dispite being on the far sides of the fence. Our young lady might learn a few things from Brother Curtis.
Of course, when you are in the ONE TRUE RELIGION, you do tend to be a real smarty pants to others and look down upon them. I know....I was REALLY REALLY BAD in that way and am still trying to fight that tendency even after discovering that the heart of the Gospel is God's amazing love for everyone and my responsibility to treat everyone with that same love. (*sigh* Guess I'll be keeping the confessional warm for a while.)
As for your other comment, yes, I too recieved our Lord this morning in the all holy, life sustaining Mysteries. It is indeed a wonderful day.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
Go back and read my posts. I do think Chrissy is referring to me as the one being "low". She and I got off on the wrong foot and it has been going downhill rapidly. I haven't appreciated her attitude from the moment she hit this board.
There are a couple of other folks on this board who VIOLENTLY disagree with me. Brother Curtis is one, but he and I have developed a very good mutual respect for one another dispite being on the far sides of the fence. Our young lady might learn a few things from Brother Curtis.
Of course, when you are in the ONE TRUE RELIGION, you do tend to be a real smarty pants to others and look down upon them. I know....I was REALLY REALLY BAD in that way and am still trying to fight that tendency even after discovering that the heart of the Gospel is God's amazing love for everyone and my responsibility to treat everyone with that same love. (*sigh* Guess I'll be keeping the confessional warm for a while.)
As for your other comment, yes, I too recieved our Lord this morning in the all holy, life sustaining Mysteries. It is indeed a wonderful day.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
GraceSaves
New Member
But it was taken from a website. I can spot copy/paste versus something written as a specific reply to a thread. You may well have written it, but it was not written for the sole purpose of this thread. That calls it into question. Thank you for clarifying, Chrissy.
Didn't your mother tell you its not nice to point fingers?
Yes, every single time. God put me on this earth to demonize you and make your life miserable. That, or like I've said all along, I just want to see you make replies according to the thread, and not outside references (even your own work) as your defense almost every time. You yourself said you were busy; but we are not? Do we have time to read entire websites to understand your POV? Clear, concise responses go a long way.
Did you read my message along with that? It was from the same website that you used as an attack (or at least, that website linked to it). I simply asked if you had read it, since your site linked to it.
We have names, contrary to popular belief.
Yes, they were just fall-out-of-my-chair funny. And wholly appropriate to the topic, I might add.
Kind of like you making a monumental satanic case out of our blessed Sacrament, trying to make it appear just as terrible as you can possibly make it look, even after we have given you the official Church stance and what we really and personally believe. Ever heard of practicing what you prech?
Ashamed for telling you that your jokes were inappropriate? Ashamed for asking you to write specific replies to these threads rather than copying/pasting for every response? I'm not seeing need for shame.
You are on these posts that call us pagans, unChristian, sun-worshippers, satanic, and every other foul word that can be dug out of the English language. Yeah, I like to just let those sit idley by.
Why would I NOT swarm around these threads to defend my beliefs?You have yet to once address our replies to all of this nonsense. From all of us nameless Catholics, almost every point has been addressed, and you just keep spamming us with more of the same. How about looking at what we wrote and addressing specific replies so that this discussion can logically progress?
Please.
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Chrissy,
Ed made a great response near the top of this page. I await your response to his information.
God bless,
Grant
Ed made a great response near the top of this page. I await your response to his information.
God bless,
Grant
Chrissy,
Re Eucharist being only symbolic--
see 1 Cor 11:27 How can one defame the body and blood of the Lord if it is only symbolic?
In the Aramaic language to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute them. Why would Jesus tell us to remember him by persecuting him?
See
PS 27:2-When evil-doers came upon me to eat up my flesh, Even mine adversaries and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
Isaiah 9:18-20--For wickedness burneth as the fire; it devoureth the briers and thorns; yea, it kindleth in the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke.
19 Through the wrath of Jehovah of hosts is the land burnt up; and the people are as the fuel of fire: no man spareth his brother.
20 And one shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
Is 49:26--And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
Micah 3:3--who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
2 Sam 23:15-17--And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Beth-lehem, which is by the gate!
16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto Jehovah.
17 And he said, Be it far from me, O Jehovah, that I should do this: shall I drink the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men.
Rev 17:6--And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder.
Rev 17:16--And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire.
Perhaps there are places in the Bible that show eating another's flesh is a good thing. Please provide sources if there are. It just doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would say to remember him by persecuting him...
Dan
Re Eucharist being only symbolic--
see 1 Cor 11:27 How can one defame the body and blood of the Lord if it is only symbolic?
In the Aramaic language to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute them. Why would Jesus tell us to remember him by persecuting him?
See
PS 27:2-When evil-doers came upon me to eat up my flesh, Even mine adversaries and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
Isaiah 9:18-20--For wickedness burneth as the fire; it devoureth the briers and thorns; yea, it kindleth in the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke.
19 Through the wrath of Jehovah of hosts is the land burnt up; and the people are as the fuel of fire: no man spareth his brother.
20 And one shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
Is 49:26--And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
Micah 3:3--who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
2 Sam 23:15-17--And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Beth-lehem, which is by the gate!
16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto Jehovah.
17 And he said, Be it far from me, O Jehovah, that I should do this: shall I drink the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men.
Rev 17:6--And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder.
Rev 17:16--And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire.
Perhaps there are places in the Bible that show eating another's flesh is a good thing. Please provide sources if there are. It just doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would say to remember him by persecuting him...
Dan
Grace Saves,
I try not to respond to mean people. I will however respond to Dan's post in a little while after I've written out what I want to say.
It is just a policy of mine... after I see certain things about a person, I wont respond, at least not in a conversation with them.
I try not to respond to mean people. I will however respond to Dan's post in a little while after I've written out what I want to say.
It is just a policy of mine... after I see certain things about a person, I wont respond, at least not in a conversation with them.
CatholicConvert
New Member
Chrissy --
One thing I just thought of. Remember how annoying it is and how much it personally hurts to meet up with Evangelical Christians who tell YOU that because you are an Adventist, you are a member of a cult and are "not saved" and yada, yada, yada?
Well, it hurts us just as much to have to field some of the nasty stuff you have put up on this board. And it also seems to us that we cannot even discuss it because we are getting overwhelmed with these posts from you.
Like Grant, fellow convert that he is, says, when our Church is attacked, yes, we tend to swarm to that post like mad hornets. We are human, believe it or not. We are not mind numbed, automotons who are being blindly led along. We thought out this whole thing, fought a lot of battles in our minds, and came to a conclusion which in many cases has caused us a lot of personal grief -- loss of friends, family friction, etc. Posts like yours feel like.....well, like "piling on", so to speak.
So next time some Evangelical with an axe to grind insults you and the SDA religion and your feelings get hurt, think of us and know how we feel, okay?
In Christ,
Brother Ed
One thing I just thought of. Remember how annoying it is and how much it personally hurts to meet up with Evangelical Christians who tell YOU that because you are an Adventist, you are a member of a cult and are "not saved" and yada, yada, yada?
Well, it hurts us just as much to have to field some of the nasty stuff you have put up on this board. And it also seems to us that we cannot even discuss it because we are getting overwhelmed with these posts from you.
Like Grant, fellow convert that he is, says, when our Church is attacked, yes, we tend to swarm to that post like mad hornets. We are human, believe it or not. We are not mind numbed, automotons who are being blindly led along. We thought out this whole thing, fought a lot of battles in our minds, and came to a conclusion which in many cases has caused us a lot of personal grief -- loss of friends, family friction, etc. Posts like yours feel like.....well, like "piling on", so to speak.
So next time some Evangelical with an axe to grind insults you and the SDA religion and your feelings get hurt, think of us and know how we feel, okay?
In Christ,
Brother Ed
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Nope--I'm insinuating that you are kidding yourself if you think you are PHYSICALLY eating Jesus when you are in fact eating a wafer. I "eat" Christ's "flesh" and "drink" His "blood" daily in a SPIRITUAL sense when I walk with Him and rely on Him daily by FAITH. I hope you are too.
"It is the SPIRIT who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The WORDS that I speak to you are SPIRIT and they are LIFE." --Jesus Christ (John 6:63)
CatholicConvert
New Member
Doubting Thomas --
Answer my answer above. HOW do you become righteous if you do not have a personal righteousness which is intrinsically and organically yours?
Brother Ed
Answer my answer above. HOW do you become righteous if you do not have a personal righteousness which is intrinsically and organically yours?
Brother Ed
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Doubting Thomas,
You wrote, "I'm insinuating that you are kidding yourself if you think you are PHYSICALLY eating Jesus when you are in fact eating a wafer."
That is to assume that the wafer is only a wafer. What if the wafer isn't a wafer, but has become the body of Jesus Christ?
I "eat" Christ's "flesh" and "drink" His "blood" daily in a SPIRITUAL sense when I walk with Him and rely on Him daily by FAITH. I hope you are too.
We do walk by faith and not by sight as Catholics.
However, what is being addressed is specifically laid out in Scripture in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel.
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (6:52)
And you know what Jesus' response was?
He intensified the literal intensity of what he had said before verse 52!
"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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
And what then happened?
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (6:60)
A hard saying? What's so hard about suggesting to walking in faith spiritually? That's not a hard saying. In fact, that's said time and time again in the Old Testament. So, what's so hard?
Jesus doesn't explain himself. He doesn't say, "Hey guys, I'm just speaking metaphorically - DUH!".
Nope.
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (6:61)
Do you take offense at the Catholic who insists that he actually eats Jesus at Mass? Is that ludicrous? Then join the disciples who walked away from Jesus that day.
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. (6:66)
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Jesus has just been speaking about his flesh throughout Chapter 6. About this flesh, Jesus emphatically says, "the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51).
So what flesh is of no avail? Apparently, not Jesus flesh! Jesus' flesh avails! The flesh that Jesus speaks of in 6:63 is the level of discernment that isn't spiritual, but on the level of flesh.
St. Paul explains what "the flesh" is in 1 Cor 2:14-3:1..
"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
Our Lord in John 6:63 tells us that we must receive his words on the spiritual level above that of human and worldly reasoning. In order to accept and believe the reality of the Holy Eucharist, we must place ourselves above the confines of our flesh and into the supernatural realm of spiritual discernment. The same is true when we realize the witness of the entire celestial court, the existence of our guardian angel, or the reality of the Holy Spirit in our life.
Brother, Jesus is calling all Catholics to be Bible Christians and vice versa.
God bless,
Carson
You wrote, "I'm insinuating that you are kidding yourself if you think you are PHYSICALLY eating Jesus when you are in fact eating a wafer."
That is to assume that the wafer is only a wafer. What if the wafer isn't a wafer, but has become the body of Jesus Christ?
I "eat" Christ's "flesh" and "drink" His "blood" daily in a SPIRITUAL sense when I walk with Him and rely on Him daily by FAITH. I hope you are too.
We do walk by faith and not by sight as Catholics.
However, what is being addressed is specifically laid out in Scripture in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel.
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (6:52)
And you know what Jesus' response was?
He intensified the literal intensity of what he had said before verse 52!
"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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
And what then happened?
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (6:60)
A hard saying? What's so hard about suggesting to walking in faith spiritually? That's not a hard saying. In fact, that's said time and time again in the Old Testament. So, what's so hard?
Jesus doesn't explain himself. He doesn't say, "Hey guys, I'm just speaking metaphorically - DUH!".
Nope.
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? (6:61)
Do you take offense at the Catholic who insists that he actually eats Jesus at Mass? Is that ludicrous? Then join the disciples who walked away from Jesus that day.
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. (6:66)
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Jesus has just been speaking about his flesh throughout Chapter 6. About this flesh, Jesus emphatically says, "the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51).
So what flesh is of no avail? Apparently, not Jesus flesh! Jesus' flesh avails! The flesh that Jesus speaks of in 6:63 is the level of discernment that isn't spiritual, but on the level of flesh.
St. Paul explains what "the flesh" is in 1 Cor 2:14-3:1..
"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ."
Our Lord in John 6:63 tells us that we must receive his words on the spiritual level above that of human and worldly reasoning. In order to accept and believe the reality of the Holy Eucharist, we must place ourselves above the confines of our flesh and into the supernatural realm of spiritual discernment. The same is true when we realize the witness of the entire celestial court, the existence of our guardian angel, or the reality of the Holy Spirit in our life.
Brother, Jesus is calling all Catholics to be Bible Christians and vice versa.
God bless,
Carson
Dan,
To begin with, I used to be a Catholic when growing up, my Mother was a Nun, till she married my Father... then that of course made it where she couldnt be a Nun anymore
But I recall the thing in church when we "partook of the Eucharist" and werent supposed to "chew" the wafer.. because it was supposedly the actual body of Christ.
So I dont really understand what you mean. Actually I might understand your post (not sure though) but not how this all fits togehter though.
If we werent supposed to chew the Eucharist because it was the body of Christ, then that seems to me like we arent supposed to be "defaming" Jesus when partaking of the wafer.
So why would you want to have it where, when we eat the wafer, we are "defaming" or persecuting Jesus?
As Im typing, I thought of this verse:
Lk:22:19: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Do you mean like that you think Jesus "broke" the bread to symbolize us "killing" Him by our sins or something like that?
If so, could you show me some other stuff that would support that idea?
But even so, if that were the case, it doesnt seem to support the idea of thinking the "eucharist" had to actually have the body and blood literally of Jesus in it.
You know, think about this... (I never thought about it before now) when Jesus Himself and His disciples partook of that Last Supper, and He told us to "do this (what they were then doing) in memory of Me" the actual body and blood of Christ were not IN that bread... it couldnt of been, Jesus was not crucified yet. They just plain broke the bread, passed it around and ate it... and later, doing that same ritual was supposed to bring to remembrance what He was about to do for them, namely, to die on the cross. He was not literally IN that bread. He hadn't died yet, had He?
I gave a couple of verses so far, such as in Jeremiah, eating the word of God... and that Jesus Himself had said that it was not the flesh that profiteth but "His Words" ...they were life...
But now that I go back and re-read what you have said... at the end of what you said you say "Perhaps there are places in the Bible that show eating another's flesh is a good thing. Please provide sources if there are. It just doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would say to remember him by persecuting him..."
Now I am confused. So you are saying that the "Eucharist" DOESNT mean we are persecuting Jesus when eating it?
-----------
Im confused about what you mean and I just thought now that what you might be saying is that the verses from John 6 dont apply to the Lord's supper?
Mk:14:22: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Jesus Himself said to eat it, this is His body. So if you say we arent supposed to be persecuting Jesus... and you also say to eat someone meant to persecute... then that does fit either.
I must just misunderstand you.. could you clarify this for me?
I have to go work on some stuff right now ... but will try and come back to see your answer later.
[ February 23, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Chrissy ]
To begin with, I used to be a Catholic when growing up, my Mother was a Nun, till she married my Father... then that of course made it where she couldnt be a Nun anymore
But I recall the thing in church when we "partook of the Eucharist" and werent supposed to "chew" the wafer.. because it was supposedly the actual body of Christ.
So I dont really understand what you mean. Actually I might understand your post (not sure though) but not how this all fits togehter though.
If we werent supposed to chew the Eucharist because it was the body of Christ, then that seems to me like we arent supposed to be "defaming" Jesus when partaking of the wafer.
So why would you want to have it where, when we eat the wafer, we are "defaming" or persecuting Jesus?
As Im typing, I thought of this verse:
Lk:22:19: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Do you mean like that you think Jesus "broke" the bread to symbolize us "killing" Him by our sins or something like that?
If so, could you show me some other stuff that would support that idea?
But even so, if that were the case, it doesnt seem to support the idea of thinking the "eucharist" had to actually have the body and blood literally of Jesus in it.
You know, think about this... (I never thought about it before now) when Jesus Himself and His disciples partook of that Last Supper, and He told us to "do this (what they were then doing) in memory of Me" the actual body and blood of Christ were not IN that bread... it couldnt of been, Jesus was not crucified yet. They just plain broke the bread, passed it around and ate it... and later, doing that same ritual was supposed to bring to remembrance what He was about to do for them, namely, to die on the cross. He was not literally IN that bread. He hadn't died yet, had He?
I gave a couple of verses so far, such as in Jeremiah, eating the word of God... and that Jesus Himself had said that it was not the flesh that profiteth but "His Words" ...they were life...
But now that I go back and re-read what you have said... at the end of what you said you say "Perhaps there are places in the Bible that show eating another's flesh is a good thing. Please provide sources if there are. It just doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would say to remember him by persecuting him..."
Now I am confused. So you are saying that the "Eucharist" DOESNT mean we are persecuting Jesus when eating it?
-----------
Im confused about what you mean and I just thought now that what you might be saying is that the verses from John 6 dont apply to the Lord's supper?
Mk:14:22: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Jesus Himself said to eat it, this is His body. So if you say we arent supposed to be persecuting Jesus... and you also say to eat someone meant to persecute... then that does fit either.
I must just misunderstand you.. could you clarify this for me?
I have to go work on some stuff right now ... but will try and come back to see your answer later.
[ February 23, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Chrissy ]
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
How do I become righteous? By being "In Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Of course that righteousness is HIS and not my own since mine (just like that of everybody else) is "filthy rags". (Therefore any "organic" or "intrinsic righteousness" I may possess in the flesh is worthless.) Being "in Him" GOD works in me to will and to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13) I merely work OUT what Christ is working IN. The only way God can be working IN me is through faith. Paul stated in Philippians 3:9 that the righteousness he had was NOT his own but was "from God by faith". AMEN!
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Hi, Carson:
"I (not a wafer) am the bread of life. He who COMES to ME (not a wafer) shall never HUNGER, and he who BELIEVES IN (has faith in) ME (not in transubstantiation) shall never thirst." John 6:35
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who SEES the Son (not a wafer) and BELIEVES in HIM may have everlasting life, and I will raise Him up on the last day." John 6:40
Comparing verses 35 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it is clear what Jesus means by the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
But it hasn't. The BODY of Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. Spiritually, Christ as GOD is present everywhere, no doubt in special way where two or more are gathered in His Name, which would, of course, include the Lord's Supper.
I have no doubt that many of you do. However, many Catholics do not, just as many non-Catholic professing "Christians" do not walk by faith either.
No, the disciples who walked away were so hung up on the physical ("the flesh") that they couldn't recognize the obvious meaning of Jesus' statement which was SPIRITUAL:
"I (not a wafer) am the bread of life. He who COMES to ME (not a wafer) shall never HUNGER, and he who BELIEVES IN (has faith in) ME (not in transubstantiation) shall never thirst." John 6:35
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who SEES the Son (not a wafer) and BELIEVES in HIM may have everlasting life, and I will raise Him up on the last day." John 6:40
Comparing verses 35 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it is clear what Jesus means by the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
Jesus flesh avails because it was broken for us on the cross. Having FAITH on the risen Savior and His finished work on the cross is what avails. The Jews who walked away had a level of discernment that wasn't spiritual, since the spiritual meaning of Jesus' words (BELIEVING ON HIM) escaped them, not that they rejected transubstantiation. Christ was talking about HIMSELF, not a wafer. He equated eating His flesh and drinking His blood to having faith in HIM, not in the eating the Eucharist.
God bless you too, Carson.