Science vs Transubstantiation

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

Unworthiness, as attributed to the partaking of the elements of communion, is not a matter of the physical anyway, it is a matter of spirit! It is in our spirit that we hold grudges and retain sins, therefore it is our spirit that must be worthy and the only way to make it worth is to confess sins and to resolve differences between us. We are ALL, each like ALL others, free from the penalty of sin by Jesus atonement, but we each continue to sin and that is an issue with God in partaking of the remembrance of his broken body and spilled blood that freed us from the penalty of sin. Therefore we must confess our sins so that we can, again, be forgiven. We must resolve issues so that there is no strife among us. That is the Christian's responsibility even though we are free from the penalty of sin. To eat the elements while harboring sin is equivalent to putting the holy and pure into an unclean vessel. That which is holy and pure is made unclean by being in an unclean vessel.

Unworthiness is certainly attributed to the partaking of the elements of communion depending upon what those elements are, be it physical of spiritual. If the bread and wine simply remain as bread and wine, no matter how they are dedicated they may be as "representatives" of Christ, the harm done in partaking of them would be noting unless those elements are really and truly Jesus Himself.

Which is the more intimate thing to do in getting close to Jesus?

1.) That we gain Him through a representative pair of elements that substitute of the actual Christ, or…

2.) To actually take His body and blood into our very being, even while it is only for a little while?

No other Sacrament of the Church has us coming to Christ in greater intimacy. When I come to him to confess my sins (be it to a priest in the confessional or directly to Him on my knees) I do so that I may gain that intimacy once again. When I am baptized, I do to become a child of God in his church, and to gain the salvation made possible by the blood of the cross. If I am anointed with oils in case of sickness, it is an appeal to remove all vestiges of sin, as well as to seek a physical healing. But of all the sacraments, none bring the intimacy of Christ as does the Eucharist. To take Him bodily, actually take Him in body and blood, as well as spiritually is so intimate that it is obvious one must be a pure as can be. And the fact that the species may simply be "representative," are merely "tokens" or "stand-ins" somehow has no more intimacy to Jesus, as if someone attempted to be a "stand-in" for a good friend who is unavailable. "Stand-in's" done get it for being intimate. And to be intimate with Jesus, one must be pure of heart as we receive him, and there is nothing like being "intimate" with Jesus with Him coming to me actually, in His actual (not natural) body and blood.

None of the other sacraments require the purity of heart that the Holy Eucharist requires, and that is what "worthiness" is all about. To actually consume the real body and blood of Christ is infinitely greater in fact, then to simply partake of Him "symbolically."

I previously said:

As a matter of fact, if I were to partake of the species of bread and wine that is substutionary of the body and blood of Christ in an "unworthy" matter, it is not to say that I do such a thing that I am not accountable for before God, just like if I were to destroy a photograph of you in anger, I do not actually harm you physically, except that if you see me do this, I still harm you in the heart. You would be sad to see me do such a thing, right, Yelsew? So, to do so to a symbolic representation is still a serious thing to do, isn't it?

But imagine if in fact that the species of the Eucharist is actually Christ in His body, blood, soul and divinity? Oh how much more serious is the offense if we partake of Him unworthily! Now, look at your last sentence above: Under the very same sinful conditions you speak of here, how terribly awful is it to receive Christ into our unclean bodies! It would be comparable of me harming you personally instead of defiling your photograph. That is a vast difference, don't you think?

Bread and wine do not "substitute" for Christ; the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine actually, completely but are His actual body and blood!

The problem here is that you are equating spiritual matters to physical matters. Here's an example of what I mean. One does not repent from sexual immorality by imprisoning the physical body. Sex offenders remain sex offenders until they repent in the spirit. Incarceration of the sex offender merely protects some innocents from becoming victims. The evidence is huge that if a sex offender is released with no change in spirit, that the offender will offend again and again, even if the sex offender were castrated. On the other hand if an offender has a change in his/her spirit, there is no reason to incarcerate the physical person because they have repented, meaning they will not offend again! Repentence from sin, reconciliation of relationships, etc, are all conditions that God finds acceptable in mankind. Changes of this nature are changes unto righteousness. Righteousness is, in God's eyes, worthiness as testified by Noah, Abraham and the other notably faithful men of old. It is like them that we are to be! Then, our faith in God is counted unto us as righteousness too!

Keying off from your first sentence here, I just gave an analysis how God uses the physical to convey the spiritual. Water is the physical element that brings the spirit in Baptism; holy oils bring the spirit in the anointing of the sick, and thus it is natural to have the body and blood of Christ, given physically, bring Christ spiritually to us as well.

I have no problem with your sex offender scenario, noting that incarceration may indeed bring about a change in heart and repent before God for his sins. I certainly agree that the incarceration does nothing more then to restrain the individual from society. But the incarceration may be the very thing that brings the mind to contemplation as to why he is incarcerated, the first steps to repentance.

Even so, even if they repent, there is lingering distrust of this individual, even while the repentance is genuine. Incarceration is continued since punishment is still due for the acts committed. And I see too much evidence that the offender, repentant r not, will be a repeat offender. And that gets into another subject…the assurance of salvation.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of your story here. Maybe it is my thick skull or something…

Jesus says "I am the door," but never does He say, "The door is my body."

Jesus says "I am the door," is A DECLARATION of what HE IS

What? A front door or back door? (I'm being silly now…)

You thoroughly missed the point here! Is this not an obvious example of a metaphor - something that is not literal?

Jesus says "I am the vine" but never does He say, "The vine is my body ."

Jesus says "I am the vine" A DECLARATION of what HE IS

What does the "vine" metaphor say to you, Yelsew? Perhaps that as a vine is the source of all the fruit that may be produced on it branches (grapes), Christ is the source of all graces that brings salvation to all of mankind who come to Him and believe in Him.

But again, you completely missed the point; it is another example of an obvious metaphor; no one would silly enough to actually take the sentence literally - that Jesus is an actual vine.

Jesus DID say, (holding the bread in his hands) THIS (the object in His hands) IS (a command that determines a condition of what He is holding) MY BODY!

"This is my body..." is a declaration of what Jesus wants the object in his hand to represent to those to whom he is speaking. I use that very same convention of speech every time I teach, which is often! Virtually every teacher, teaching abstract concepts uses that same convention. When I say, "This spherical shaped object in my hand "is" the earth...", I do not mean that I, a mere mortal, am holding the earth in my hand nor does it mean that the sphere in my hand is the earth, it is an object of substitution for the earth that I declare to be the earth in order to make my point. That is what Jesus is doing with the bread and the Cup!

No, it is a declaration of what the object in His hand to BE! Christ does not say, "this represents my body" but rather "this IS my body!" It is that simple, Yelsew!

To say "this spherical shaped object in my hand is the earth," you are making an obvious statement that others can see you cannot possibly make! The sentence implies that you have the power to make that sphere EARTH! The proper sentence, being a science teacher teaching earth science, would be, "This sphere I hold in my hand represents the earth."

You cannot say, not being God, what Christ can say, being GOD!

What the "THIS" he is holding is changed to by the "IS" that is confirmed by the "MY BODY," what it becomes!

Why don't the "is's" in this sentence all mean the same thing you try to make Jesus "is" mean?

There is only one "is" in the sentence, and in his case, it only refers to the "MY BODY" in that sentence.

AND…………………………..

Jesus never said, as He is holding the bread at the Last Supper, "I am the bread."

And likewise….

Jesus never said, (as he is holding the chalice) "I am the wine."

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast…

You MISINTERPRET ENTIRELY TOO MUCH!

Well, others have told me that as well, and I interpret to mean, you cannot adequately refute what I have said.

As for the discussion of the Church, I will continue to benefit and be blessed by membership in the true church while you document the physical organization called "the church"...enjoy! Scriptures speak of the vanity of "geneology" even that which applies to "the church".

In any case, "genealogy" is sure important, in a sea of confusing and babbling Christian communities, to inspect their "charters, pedigrees and certainly genealogy" to find the True Church of Jesus Christ.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me;

Within Thy wounds hide me and permit

me not to be separated from Thee.

From the Wicked Foe defend me.

And bid me to come to Thee,

That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,

For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[WPutnam]

BobRyan,

I appreciate your comeback, and perhaps I did not realize you were going to follow up with further replies.

It is your choice but if you wish, continue replying to my long, long post and I will see if I will reply or not. After all, unreplied to messages are read by others and thus influence others as well.

I will study your present reply and decide to reply to it or not. And if you do reply, please try to contract all the quotes where it is possible to figure out what you mean without all the excessive quoting.

It is my habit to quote a lot, simply to keep down misunderstandings of what I have said. and perhaps that is a fault of mine.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

[BobRyan]

Bill's June 18 7:56 PM post - replied to here.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would exegesis tell us about the definition for terms in John 6.
What did the primary audience know about "bread" and "flesh" and "manna"?

In the book of John the reader STARTs with the definition for FLESH - that is WORD. John 1:14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
ALARM! ALARM! Here is where I know I am going to disagree with you here, big time!

But then, you don't define what "flesh" is here! What does John mean by the "flesh" if not the marvelous Incarnation of Jesus made flesh as a man?

Exegesis demands that we look at context and clearly the "reader" would have been introduced to Christ "As the WORD" from the very start of the book AND the reader would see the connection that the author is making between Word and Flesh.

This is symbolized in the literal incarnation itself. The "Word Became Flesh".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from as far back as Deut 8:3 the primary audience of John's day knew -- the lesson that BREAD from heaven - was a symbol for WORD - specifically MANNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
I could not find any such definition for Manna being the "symbol for WORD" anywhere, but I did see a lot of references in my Catholic NAB

I guess you actually had to read Deut 8:3 to get the point.

Bill

And so far, I see nothing to suggest that it is a reference to a "symbol for WORD."

Hint: Deut 8:3 "Man does NOT live by Bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

The "lesson of bread from heaven".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN John 6 ITSELF -- Christ makes the SAME point appealing to the lesson of MANNA in John 6:32.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not "Real biting of the Messiah" as some suppose - but really living on "every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Matt 16:6-12 Christ rebukes the Discisples for taking the term BREAD TOO LITERALLY - it means "TEACHING" - He said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Wow! Talk about eisegesis!

Bob, Christ does no such thing! He is rebuking the disciples for taking the phrase, "…'beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees' They concluded among themselves, saying 'It is because we have brought no bread.'."

And we see exactly what Jesus was speaking of, not the "leaven" per se, but of the "teaching" of the Pharisees and Sadducees, per verse 12.

Actually the text says the too-literal view they first took was "It is because we TOOK NO BREAD"
vs7.

And Christ's rebuke to them is "How is it you did NOT understand that I was not speaking to you about Literal BREAD?" vs 11

The "symbol" of BREAD for teaching Matt 16:11.

The Symbol of "Flesh" for "WORD" John 1:1

"Man DOES NOT live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God" Deut 8:3

Bill said
To contort this scripture passage to have the Manna (bread) God gave to the Israelites as being a "teaching" is just too much for me to handle

Obviously you still you have not read Deut 8:3 where God Himself makes the point that THIS was the lessof of the manna.

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN John 6:59-69 BOTH CHrist and Peter draw the SAME conclusion
"The FLESH PROFITS NOTHING -- it is the WORD that has spirit and life".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Yes, as any normal logical look at the scriptures would reveal to you, the "flesh" here is simply the general deficiencies

You must first "ignore the use of the term FLESH in the entire discussion" to leap off the end as you do in the summary statement of Christ and completely inject another meaning for the term OTHER than Christ has been using.

That is the poster child for "eisegesis".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter says "YOU HAVE the Words of Life".

The entire point of the dialogue was LIFE vs DEATH.

Christ points out "He WHO EATS my FLESH HAS eternal life" - present.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
I was about to say No, not at all, but I notice that it very well YES, simply because of verse that reads:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have LIFE within you." (Verse 53) So yes indeed, it is about "life and death,"

And so... staying with the point, Christ is showing that the REAL key to obtaining LIFE is NOT "biting the messiah" as the faithLESS disciples supposed in their too-literal-view -
but in fact "the WORDS of Christ were Spirit AND LIFE" the very LIFE that He had been speaking about in His illustration.

Too late to re-write your own summary into the lesson - Christ Himself Gives it - and Peter agrees.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.''
34 Then they said to Him, ""Lord, always give us this bread.''
35 Jesus said to them, "" I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

At this point Christ does not say "HE WHO BITES ME will not hunger, nor He who DRINKS Me will never thirst" - but "HE WHO COMES TO ME".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill It is when He says the great "AMEN, AMEN…" that begins verse 53 (Your bible may say "Verily, verily…") that we see this preciseness, going from the ambiguity of "I am the bread of life" to "…unless you eat my body and drink my blood"

Nope. He made it quite clear leading into vs 53 "that Coming to Christ" and "Belief" and "ALL being Taught by God" was ALREADY the key to obtaining life. Literally, explicitly no shocking symbols.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And He says the "problem is not that you fail to BITE - but that you fail to BELIEVE My WORD"

36 ""But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
...
40 ""For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.''

AGAIN the focus is on BELIEVING Christ's Words - not "biting Christ".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
And what say you about "BELIEVING" when He speaks the words of verses 53 to 58, hummmmmmm? He says nothing about "biting" but He sure does talking about EATING, don't you think?

In the direct language before and after 53-58 he shows what eating/biting "THE FLESH" is --- "worthless". And He shows them that He wants to take them AWAY from the earthly ideas of literally biting food to one of BELIEVING and COMING to Christ and accepting His WORD and to be "ALL taught of GOD" for "My Word is Spirit and IS Life".

Bill
It is so amazing to me that you can dance around verses 53 to 58, the central core of the "bread of life discourse" in John 6, and ping on only the peripheral in an attempt miminize those embarassing words! Incredible!

Wrong again. The very point I am making is two part.

#1. A literal view DOES NOT WORK even in 53-58 because NO disciples BIT Christ. Not even the faithFULL ones (and as we saw from Matt 16 when they FAILED to get the meaning Christ was quick to rebuke them).

#2. The entire POINT was "HOW to obtain eternal life" and Christ summarized the point STARTING with the lesson in 53-58 by saying "The literal FLESH is WORTHLESS". It is BECAUSE we have the use of Flesh in 53-58 that we ZERO IN on exactly that SAME meaning in 63. Exegesis Requires IT!

Far from avoiding it - I am relying on those texts to make my point.

Bill
Why is it so obvious to me, Bob? Why does it bring a tear into my eyes when I read this wonderful discourse that brings to Christianity, the most beautiful Sacrament

#1. No mention is made by Christ of any sacrament in this discussion.

#2. Christ does NOT say "someday at a future sacrament this WILL become true".

#3. The majority of took him "literally" (all agree) and all agree these represented the "faithLESS" in the group).

#4. IF the majority had belived Christ was REALLY food JUST as He said and that the only way to have eternal life was to be biting Him - the Gospel would have ended then and there. All agree.

Bill
(Ordinance to others) that actually have Christ among us in physical form, as well as the spiritual? When, as a Fundamentalist (Church of the Nazarene) I read those words, I know I must become a Catholic! That was the Coup de Grace for me, Bob!

My argument is that if you had looked into the chapter in more detail it would have quickly become apparent that the list of points above to which "all agree" negate the RC teaching here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

continued

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, ""I am the bread that came down out of heaven.''
42 They were saying, "" Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''
43 Jesus answered and said to them, ""Do not grumble among yourselves.

The FaithLESS disciples grumble that they do not believe Christ CAME DOWN out of Heaven already - as the BREAD of Heaven.

How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
No, not at all, at this point, Bob. They are grumbling that here it is, "we know this guy. We know His mother and father, a carpenter and so how dare He make the claims He is making here?"

And of course those "claims Were"....(details now)

How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''


They started out on the path of error in vs 26 and continue on.

It is more of a disbelief in His own divinity then in what He is trying to explain to them concerning Him being the "bread of life come down from heaven." The Jews say, "How dare He make such a statement?"

Now did He mean that carbon-based bread fell out of heaven as did the manna - or Is HE the BREAD of heaven in the Deut 8:3 way as God proposes"?


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 ""It is written in the prophets, " AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46 "" Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 ""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Again Christ points to BELIEF and "being TAUGHT of GOD" as the SOURCE of "eternal life". He does not focus on "those who BITE ME" as though that is the SOURCE of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Bob, Jesus is setting the stage here. So far, His "bread of life" claim is, for all intents and purposes, metaphoric at least (they not realizing - yet - that He is going to say something that will REALLY upset them!

His "Come to Me" and "Believe in Me" instruction has been LITERAL - but bread HAS been used "symbolically" as you note.

However each time they "Grumple" the example - the symbols - the illustration becomes more "shocking".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 "" I am the bread of life.
49 "" Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''

Now Christ is getting to the subject saying that HE IS ALREADY the bread that ALREADY came down out of heaven and it is ALREADY true that if "anyone EATS of this BREAD He will LIVE FOREVER". The EATING is for the goal of "Living Forever".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for all faithFul Catholics to "bite Christ" if they were using todays Catholic doctrinal position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, time to laugh at your explanations so far!

And by the way, I don't "bite" Christ; I take Him in my mouth in Holy Communion…

So the FaithFULL of John 6 should have started literally "EATING without Biting" right then and there? A kind of "gumming" end to the Gospel in John 6?

Exactly how WOULD your ideal ending have put it since Christ said nothing about this being true only in the Future?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''

The FaithLESS listners take Christ LITERALLY - obviously thinking that EATING LITERAL FLESH is how Christ wants them to obtain "eternal life". The faithLESS disciples take it LITERALLY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Now you are getting close!

I sort of thought you might agree here.

Bill

It is here that the Jews begin to squirm, knowing full well the ominous and "unthinkable" literal interpretation comes to the fore! They rebell against the idea of eating the flesh of a man as in cannibalism

Yep. But the FaithFUL don't respond in the form "well we trust you so we are willing to consider biting you - just not today".

Bill -
, but perhaps even more, the drinking of His blood, something expressly forbidden in the Law of Moses

AND forbidden in Acts 15 by the NT church magesterium appealing to Levitical law as you note.

This concludes part 1 of your last reply set. More on parts 2 and 3 of your last set later.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

Jesus' discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6)

22. Next day, the crowd that had stayed on the other side saw that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not got into the boat with his disciples, but that the disciples had set off by themselves.
23. Other boats, however, had put in from Tiberias, near the place where the bread had been eaten.
24. When the people saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into those boats and crossed to Capernaum to look for Jesus.
25. When they found him on the other side, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
26. Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, you are looking for me not because you have seen the signs but because you had all the bread you wanted to eat. 27. Do not work for food that goes bad, but work for food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of man will give you, for on him the Father, God himself, has set his seal.

28. Then they said to him, "What must we do if we are to carry out God's work?" 29. Jesus gave them this answer, "This is carrying out God's work: you must believe in the one he has sent." 30. So they said, "What sign will you yourself do, the sight of which will make us believe in you? What work will you do? 31. Our fathers ate manna in the desert; as scripture says: He gave them bread from heaven to eat."
32. Jesus answered them: In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread; 33. for the bread of God is the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34. `Sir," they said, "give us that bread always." 35. Jesus answered them:I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever hunger; no one who believes in me will ever thirst. 36. But, as I have told you, you can see me and still you do not believe. 37. Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me; I will certainly not reject anyone who comes to me, 38. because I have come from heaven, not to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me.

Jesus declares himself to be the bread of Life (35) and that He came from heaven (38)! if Jesus is the bread of Life as He declares of himself, it is not unrealistic for Him to choose bread to substitute as a memorial for his own flesh!

39. Now the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me, but that I should raise it up on the last day. 40. It is my Father's will that whoever sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and that I should raise that person up on the last day.

41. Meanwhile the Jews were complaining to each other about him, because he had said, "I am the bread that has come down from heaven." 42. They were saying, "Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, `I have come down from heaven?' " 43. Jesus said in reply to them, "Stop complaining to each other. 44. `No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45. It is written in the prophets: They will all be taught by God; everyone who has listened to the Father, and learnt from him, comes to me. 46. Not that anybody has seen the Father, except him who has his being from God: he has seen the Father. 47. In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life. 48. I am the bread of life. 49. Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; 50. but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. 51. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world."

52. Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53. Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 57. As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 58. This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.

The evidence says that Jesus died on the cross and that his blood was spilled onto the ground, and that his flesh was taken from the cross to a borrowed tomb where is was wrapped in "graveclothes" with burial spices, and that the tomb was closed with a heavy stone at the entrance and subsequently a Roman seal was placed on the tomb as a symbol of authority against graverobbers, and guards under the penalty of their own death were placed at the grave to keep away all who might have an interest in the contents of the grave. Then on the third day after burial, the tomb was opened by supernatural power and the body of Jesus arose, alive, from the grave and appeared to many over the next 40 days before He ascended to the right hand of the father. Thus, the REAL body of Jesus was not available to the disciples before His death, and it is not available to any of us after his resurrection. However, we do have bread and wine, the substances that Jesus declared to be His body and blood, that we are to consume as a perpetual memorial of who and what Jesus is and what He did for us. Such a remembrance is a spiritual experience, there is no higher experience for mankind!

59. This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. 60. After hearing it, many of his followers said, "This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?" 61. Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, "Does this disturb you? 62. What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before? 63. `It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64. `But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him. 65. He went on, "This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father." 66. After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more.

Yes, it is the Spirit of Christ that gives life. the flesh of Christ has nothing to offer, so why make a big deal over it? Why not accept in your spirit the Spirit of Christ while eating the wafer of bread and drinking the sip of wine? After all, you are just as blessed, Just is indwelt, Just as eternally alive, because it is the Spirit that gives life!

The institution of the Eucharist
Matt 26:26. Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. "Take it and eat," he said, "this is my body." 27. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, "Drink from this, all of you, 28. for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29. From now on, I tell you, I shall never again drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father."

There is nothing in this passage that even eludes to transubstantiation of the elements into the flesh or blood of Jesus. In fact, Jesus clearly states that the wine is also an illusion to a future wine that all will share in the Kingdom of the Father. Jesus, by declaration, makes the bread and wine an illusion of his body and blood, so that by eating the bread and drinking the wine, the disciples, symbolically, are taking within themselves the body and blood of the Christ thereby sharing in ALL that Jesus is. These symbols teach that, by eating and drinking them, we are taking into ourselves the essence of Jesus, pledging our allegience, and thus ourselves, to him in whom we believe.

The eating of the elements is an outward symbolic act of what we do in our spirit; the same as we do with water baptism, which is the dying to self, being buried, then rising up in resurrection, a new creature in Christ. It is symbolic in that we do not die in the flesh, our flesh is not buried in the earth; and no, we do not resurrect into a new flesh and blood body. When we willfully submit ourselves to baptism, our "self" has previously "died" in submission to the Holy Spirit's call to renewal in the spirit, and by symbolically being laid in the watery grave, we lay our old nature to rest figuratively "under the ground", and we show when rising from the water that we figuratively resurrect with a new spirit fully in the image of God who is spirit. Such full emmersion water baptism is symbolic in the same manner that the elements of the Eucharist are symbols, and the eating and drinking of the symbols is a symbolic act that represents the spiritual reality that we are taking into our spirit the Spirit of the Christ.

Is the symbolism real? ABSOLUTELY! Because it depicts the reality! Are the symbols the real thing? Absolutely NOT! That is why we call them symbols, that which provides the illusion of the real thing, or causes one to be reminded of the real thing. For example, a company logo such as the letters "IBM" is a symbol that causes us to think certain things, or in a certain manner about a product or service. Our initial emotional response may be either positive or negative, but the logo does illicit a response when encountered. The elements of the Eucharist do the same thing to us. We cannot NOT respond. And our response is in direct proportion to our faith in the reality the elements represent. My own response is Joy that overflows from my tear ducts!

In response to me stating that Jesus' words about the bread are his declaration that the object in his hand, the bread, is His body. You said,

No, it is a declaration of what the object in His hand to BE! Christ does not say, "this represents my body" but rather "this IS my body!" It is that simple, Yelsew!

What do you do with John 6:35 where Jesus declares that HE IS the bread of Life, and verse 48 where Jesus repeats with "I AM the bread of Life" A clear declaration by Jesus himself that He IS bread! Then goes on to declare that He IS the Living Bread that came down from Heaven "like" the Manna that came from heaven upon the Children of Israel in the wilderness. He says that the bread that he gives to the world IS His flesh. Surely Jesus gave his own life, His flesh, to ATONE for the sins of the World. He gave us His flesh, the bread of life that came from heaven above, so that we might have life in him. It is believing in Him that IS the "eating of His flesh", we eat more and more of it as we read and accept and act on his "Word"s . BUT, is it the incarnated flesh of Jesus? NO! not by any stretch of belief! Jesus is the "meat" of the Gospel, without Him, there is no Gospel. Sort of a hamburger without a meat patty.

To say "this spherical shaped object in my hand is the earth," you are making an obvious statement that others can see you cannot possibly make! The sentence implies that you have the power to make that sphere EARTH! The proper sentence, being a science teacher teaching earth science, would be, "This sphere I hold in my hand represents the earth."

Like I said, it IS "a convention of speech" that virtually every teacher uses in conveying a thought. If you want to ignore that simply because it does not fit your deeply ingrained beliefs, that IS up to you, but please do not criticize me for using the same conventions of speech that our Lord and Savior uses to convey His message to those who believe in Him.

 

[WPutnam]

Yelsew,

Thank you for your reply, but as I am going to be a bit busy with BobRyan, it may take a while!

(I already have a reply finished for him, but I will wait until I get the whole series from him before I reply with them.)

I already have some good replies in my head as I read that, but it will have to wait.

Perhaps some of the other Catholics can continue with Yelsew here?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[BobRyan]

What “details” must be faithfully ignored in John 6 to hold to the RC doctrine on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1. Ignore the context starting with vs 25-40 Where Christ is explicitly redirecting His followers AWAY from Earthly concern about food.

#2. Ignore the "Lesson of manna" that Christ references in 31-51 which is spelled out for us by God in Deut 8:3 – avoid God’s own summary of that lesson.

#3. Ignore Christ’s own summary of the discussion in John 6:63 saying that the term “FLESH” as he has used it in his discussion so far (exegesis - Context) “is worthless" for something to literally “bite” and then get eternal life.

#4. Ignore the detail in vs 43-58 that Christ is not stating “that the truth is a FUTURE truth” but rather is already true. He is Already the bread that already came down and they must already eat His flesh. He does not say “someday in the future you must eat My flesh”.

#5. Ignore the John 6:68 detail of Peter's summary conclusion of the "lesson learned" and the fact that it does not take the too-literal view of the faithLESS disciples in 6:52,60, but rather matches perfectly with Christ’s own clear statement as to how we literally obtain life in 6:63.

#6. Ignore the Matt 16 event where Christ scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of both bread and leaven too literally. MAtt 16:6-12. And do not connect that with the fact that He says nothing against the faithFULL disciple’s understanding/view in John 6.

#7. Ignore the detail of John 6 whereby the taking of Christ literally by the faithFULL disciples and then immediately obeying – (as the RC claims they should) – the gospel would end in John 6 with their biting His literal flesh for He said “My Flesh IS real food”.

#8. Ignore the detail of John 6 making no mention at all of a future Lord’s supper or Communion service needed for Christ’s words to “Then” become true at that future time.


What “details” in the book of John itself must be ignored to hold to the RC teaching on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1 Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the connection between Flesh and The Word is set explicitly as the starting context of the entire book.

#2.Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the disciples have access to the “literally broken body of Christ” after the cross and in preparing it for burial – take no bites out of it.

#3. Ignore the same model of symbolism followed by literal as we see in John 11. “Lazarus SLEEPS, I go that I may wake him” and then plainly “Lazarus is Dead” as they took Him “too literally”.

All of these steps to ignore what is in the chapter must be combined to cut-and-paste from the chapter in snippets and still get what the RCC “needs” to find..

But - it must be noted that many will not take those steps to ignore all those details. What then? What if someone is paying attention to the details above?

How will the case be made for the Eucharist from John 6 in that situation?

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 19, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 So Jesus said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Christ does not say "SOME DAY" you must eat My Flesh - but "HE WHO EATS My Flesh..HAS eternal life" - time to start biting - in fact it appears it is PAST time for already there is the distinction between those who HAVE eternal life and those who have it not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Bob, concentrate of the actual reaction to this scriptural statement. What actually happened?

Exegesis demands that we actually look at What Christ actually said in vs 31-58 and as it turns out He did not say "some day in the future My flesh WILL be FOOD" - He said "it IS FOOD" and already "he who EATS has eternal life".

And of course the FaithLESS disciples took him literally - that they must already bite His flesh - and they left.

Bill Would it occur to you that those who do not abandon Him, simply stay with Him, stunned a bit,

Again - that is not exegeting the text.

The text SHOWS them to perfectly echo Christ's own summary in 63 AND shows NO reprimand by Christ that "they were not getting it" or that they were "being slow to bite Him".

The "evidence you need in the text" for that assertion just is not there.

Bill
Scripture does not see the apostles, with Peter, going up and eating Jesus in the natural flesh, do you? Do you blame them?

In fact it does not show the faithFULL disciples jumping to the same rash assumptions as the faithLESS ones about literally biting Christ.

Bill
If I were there, I certainly would not do something that is naturally revolting to me in actuality. (I often wonder if I were there, would I stay with the apostles here or abandon Jesus along with those defecting disciples?)

I think we have already established that the RCC position is Fully reflected in the statements of the faithLESS disciples in John 6.

Bill
You insist that for Christ to be literal in His words, all must come up immediately and do something unthinkable!

If we note the PRESENT and past tense "details" of the text and agree not to ignore them for the sake of the RCC.

There is no "we wait for the other shoe to drop" Idea in the text AND there is no "we hope someday your word will be true, maybe at a passover service or something".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

In John 15 Christ explains this as "MY WORD abiding IN YOU".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Thanks, Bob, but I have no idea how this out of context fragment figures in to what Christ is doing in John 6.

John 6:53 - He who ABIDES IN Me and I in HIM.

John 15:4 "Abide IN Me and I IN you"
John 15:7 "if you Abide in ME and My WORD Abides IN you"

Again - the same terminology connected to the Word. Same book, same author subsequent lesson of Christ expanding on the point. (Exegesis again)

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57 ""As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58 ""This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.''
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Again Christ points to this as a PRESENT reality. The biting should have already begun in earnest using the Catholic views today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill The Upper Room and the Last Supper! That is when they first consume the body and blood of their Lord, Jesus Christ!

Clearly I think we all get that this is how the RCC would have preferred that Christ state it "Wait my disciples, some day soon you will sit at table with me and THEN via some magic words my Flesh will THEN become food by having Bread turn into My Flesh - but not so you would notice".

The "missing" text needed by the RCC to make its case.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John 6:51-58

The Discourse on the Bread of Life
-------------------------------------------------
(Jesus said to the Jews,)
[51] "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."

[52] The Jews disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this Man
give us His flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly,
truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink His blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats My flesh and
drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last
day.
[55] For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in
him.
[57] As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the
Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me.
[58] This is the
bread which came from Heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he
who eats this bread will live for ever."

Now let's APPLY the INFALLIBLE rule of Acts 17:11 recommended by the early Church Father - APOSTLE PAUL - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact what DOES the infallible text say that MANNA is to represent? What IS the LESSON of manna being taught - EXPLICITLY (no guessing) in scripture - because Christ DELIBERATELY chooses to REFERENCE the symbol of manna!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Why not, after all, manna is also called "bread," I think it is quite appropriate! But if you are referring to your idea that manna here is "the word," I soundly refuted and debunked that way up on this message!

your reply makes no mention at all of any of the "details" God gives regarding manna in Deut 8:3.

Is that a "method" of exegeting that text as well?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deut 8:2-3 "God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3"He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, THAT He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

The symbolic lesson that manna was to teach - is RELIANCE NOT on LITERAL bread but on the WORD of God because THAT was true LIFE. Interesting that CHRIST chooses to DRAW this into His DIALOGUE in John 6 - let's see how He uses it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Remember, Bob, that this reference is to the physical feeding of the body here, as the Israelites lacked to faith that would have God take care of them.

The "lesson of Manna" as God stated it in Deut 8 was to "Rely on Every Word that comes from the mouth of God". This is a faith lesson that many in Israel applied faithfully as Hebrews 11 shows, as Moses, Joshua, Davie, Samuel...etc give examples of.

Bill
What Christ does is take this as a foreshadowing of a "bread" that indeed, is to come in John 6.

In Deut 8 it is "Already reality that man lives by Every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God".

In John 6 Christ sais it is "already reality" that bread of life HAS come down and His flesh IS food.

quote:Bob
Christ Himself makes NO reference to COMMUNION and Christ does NOT insist that SOMEDAY FUTURE Christ WOULD be turned into bread or Christ's flesh WOULD be food - rather Christ ASSERTS that HE IS THEN - PRE-CROSS and PRE-communion - HE IS THEN FOOD, BREAD, DRINK. These ARE the words of Christ and they are PRE- COMMUNION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Must it be apparent that Christ had to refer to a future communion table

Particularly so if you want to avoid eisegeting the text.

Not only WOULD it be essential to MENTION that that future event is WHEN this will be True - but it would be needed to state in the chapter that it is not YET true.

None of what the RC doctrine "needs" in that regard is in the text.

Your response is a good example "reading into the text" what your doctrine "needed to have" - but no such future focuse for WHEN His Flesh would be food - is found in the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the infallible words of Christ and learn from HIM.

John 6:33Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Here Christ is telling us that the ACT that results in eternal life is LITERALLY believing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
How about baptism? Confessing your sins? Believing, that includes those good works that such belief should bring, else that same faith is as dead as a doornail?

Christ was correct - Belief - true faith and "coming to Christ" resulted in eternal life - ALL that flows AFTER that is merely "the fruit" of it.

However, Christ is obviously not getting into a long discussion on sanctification throughout a life time. He is talking about the single act that results in eternal life. The entire focus is what is that thing which we must do to get eternal life.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48"I am the bread of life.

This is not a - "I WILL BE THE BREAD OF LIFE in a few days at the communion table".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
So what, Bob? He is declaring a reality that will come to fruition at the right time and place.

Yes - we all agree that the RCC view "needs" that future focus - but instead - Christ states what is "already true" in regard to His flesh being food. A detail that as you state above is not in harmony with the FUTURE-only requirement of the RC view.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Christ says he WILL give his flesh - but he already IS THE LIVING BREAD and He ALREADY CAME down from heaven as MANNA. Cleraly they were not seeing literal manna fall and speak to them in John 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
No, but He referred to the manna as a precursor to what he is about to lay upon them.

Actually He emphasizes "Being Taught of God" explicitly. He draws the past lesson of the manna "living by Every Word that comes from the Mouth of God" and He even states that the bread HAS ALREADY come down out of heaven in His own incarnation.

Where as we learned in John 1:1 "The Word became Flesh".

Bill -
Likewise, I might add, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is likewise a precursor, demonstrating that if He could do that, what is to stop him form declaring what is an astounding doctrine concerning the consumption of His very own body and blood?

The faithLESS come to Christ that morning wanting more things to eat - even manna from heaven - Christ directs them AWAY from things to EAT - and toward "Coming to Christ", "Believing", "Being Taught By God", "The Lesson Manna", "The Flesh is Worthless".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

This listeners at least understood the tense - that Christ was CURRENTLY that bread of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Which does nothing to the argument about what He says in verses 53 through 58. Bob, to "bit him" right then and there is a most unrealistic

It IS in fact the "Literal" view that the FaithLESS disciples took however and they rejected it.

Literally eating Christ's Flesh for Christ was insisting THEN and THERE that "My Flesh IS FOOD".

No escaping it.

It must simply be ignored if one is to hold to the RC view.

Bill while others continue to believe, waiting for that wonderful "second shoe to drop" at the Last Supper!

An excellent example of wording we do Not find in John 6. It must be eisegeted in - read into the text.


quote:bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

All this is present or past tense indicating that the ACTION is true now and that some ALREADY HAVE eternal life BECAUSE they ARE eating and drinking. This is without reference to FUTURE communion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
No, it can also be seen as future tense as well,

55"For My flesh IS true food, and My blood IS true drink.

Certainly I would agree that this statement does not say "is only for TODAY true food" so that it does not "CEASE" being true tomorrow as you seem to point out.

Bill
since it is obvious that "eating his flesh and drinking His blood" has not yet occurred.

Circular reasoning starging with "SINCE my view is correct THEN eating his flesh has not happened even IF He states it as a PRESENT fact".

But If we objectively exegete we observe that HE states it is ALREADY true AND HE states that it is HIS WORD that literally brings life just as HE states that it is Coming to Him and believing that literally brings life.

Bill
His declaration stands on it's own without a reference to a future event, such as the last supper. Shoot fire, man, the disciples did not really think He was going to die on the cross, did they?

And so you admit - He states present reality not "wait until someday in the future when My Flesh will become food".

In Christ,

Bob

(Final response to the third part of your last set - coming up)

 

[Carson Weber]

While you're at it Bob, I'd appreciate a response to my post here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001685;p=7

 

[Singer]

ead the infallible words of Christ and learn from HIM.

John 6:33Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Here Christ is telling us that the ACT that results in eternal life is LITERALLY believing.

Good work, Bob.

That's the Only requirement. But many would ask...."Believe WHAT ?"

RCC says something on the order of "Believe that Jesus formed the Catholic
Church and appointed a succession of Popes who are to be known as
"Holy Father" and have the discernment of the bible (but not rely on the bible)...
etc. blah blah..........

Those who see the light and have ears to hear realize that what we are to
believe is that Jesus lived, died, rose from the dead and is our propitiation for
sin "to those who will believe" Jesus said many times "whosoever believes that
I am the Son of God" and "believe that I rose from the dead" etc. (Paraphrased).

That's the Good News ...the Key to salvation.

NOT.............Believe in the Holy Catholic Church.
There wasn't such a thing when those words were coined.

 

[Ray Berrian]

W Putnam,

You said, 'If you are going to sluff-off the writings of the good early church fathers who
were indeed, writing the first century history of the church, a church just outside
of the apostolic era, with that little attention as if they were nothing at all . . . '

As you probably know the Apostle Paul warned that even when he was alive and surely right after his death there would be men who would fill his place. [Colossians 2:4 & Jude 4]

While we should give due attention to the early fathers, there were some like Origen who brought into the church the absolute worst of all error that of allegorizing God's sacred Word. His theological school in Alexandria, Egypt spawned this most sad view of interpreting Scripture. Brother Origen as you might say, got his ideas from the Jewish Platonist, Philo. And guess who fell in love with this philosophy/theology of man. Your esteemed quasi-theologian brother, Augustine who was bishop in Africa joined in on the perversion of Scripture, ignoring the more literal method of interpretation of Scripture. 'Origen, the allegorist, taught that eventually all, even demons, would be saved, however, after undergoing educative punishment.' Dr. Latourette, "History of Christianity, p. 151.

'The medieval period existed from A.D. 590-1517 when the Reformation began. The period from 500-1500 is frequently called the Dark Ages because of the ecclesiastical corruption. It was, in fact this corruption that sparked the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther.

Roman Catholic doctrine developed considerably during the medieval period: Purgatory in 593; prayer to Mary, saints and angels in 600; kissing the pope's foot in 709; canonization of dead saints in 995; celibacy of the priesthood in 1079; the rosary in 1090; transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest in 1215; and the seven sacraments in 1439.' {end quote by Dr. Paul Enns, Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary} "The Moody Handbook of Theology" Moody Press, Chicago}

Nearly all if not all of the above do not have Scriptural support but are the 'add ons' of an evolutionary system of theological thinking, usually originating with the bishops or the Papal chair.

My question is if these truths were part of what God wanted us to believe, why did the Lord give them to your church at different times in human history? We believe correctly that His only truth can be found between Genesis and Revelation, otherwise, the oncoming Popes can officiate with the idea that the 'sky is the limit' as to what we can teach our innocent flock.

 

[Ray Berrian]

W. Putnam,

I think you wrote this.

' . . . the significance is so great, we Catholics, if we can, partake of His body and blood daily, being fully retired, my wife and I are privileged to do.'

You should not think of the Eucharist as a Centrum Silver that you take daily. Jesus did not speak of daily Communion, though like a vitamin, the offered remembrance will not hurt your spiritual lives. The Apostle Paul under Divine Providence only said, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup . . . ', which brings us to the question as to why the priests, most of the times does not follow the Scriptural guide coming from Jesus, as to also drinking from the sacred chalice.

Grace comes from the Giver of all grace, Jesus Christ and not via flour and water.

 

[Yelsew]

Well founded and well stated argument Bro. Ray.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
While you're at it Bob, I'd appreciate a response to my post here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001685;p=7

NO! Keep any responses IN TOPIC.

 

[thessalonian]

"which brings us to the question as to why the priests, most of the times does not follow the Scriptural guide coming from Jesus, as to also drinking from the sacred chalice."

Ray, perhaps you could explain what you mean by this. The priest always drinks from the chalice. That is explicitly stated in canon law that he must as I remember.

 

[WPutnam]

Ray Berrigan wrote:

I think you wrote this.

' . . . the significance is so great, we Catholics, if we can, partake of His body and blood daily, being fully retired, my wife and I are privileged to do.'

Yes, I indeed, wrote that...

You should not think of the Eucharist as a Centrum Silver that you take daily.

Why, sir? As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist I take daily is the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ! And I want to partake of Him as often as I can!

Jesus did not speak of daily Communion, though like a vitamin, the offered remembrance will not hurt your spiritual lives.

Christ did not speak of many things, sir (that we know of and not recorded in scripture) such as the word "Trinity," "Rapture," and the other novel doctrines we see floating around today.

Christ established a church to look after things after He was to ascend to the Father in heaven, with great authority, signalled by the "keys of the kingdom" given to the "first pope," PETER, and defined by the power to "bind and loose."

and no "Johnny-come-lately" Christian community (bless their heart anyway!) can make that statement!

So there!

The Apostle Paul under Divine Providence only said, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup . . . ', which brings us to the question as to why the priests, most of the times does not follow the Scriptural guide coming from Jesus, as to also drinking from the sacred chalice.

"For as often as I eat," I do so daily!

One of these days, we just find the time to discuss where you think priests do not "follow the scriptural guide doming from Jesus." And as Jesus drank from the cup when He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, so also the priest drink from it as well!

Sir, what did you expect the priest to do with the sacred species that was once wine, but is now the blood of Christ if He does not drink from it?

Grace comes from the Giver of all grace, Jesus Christ and not via flour and water.

I agree! Ordinary flour and water does nothing, nothing at all! But as instituted by Christ, what was made from the flour and water, becomes the actual (not natural) body and blood of Jesus Christ, a Sacrament He, Himself, instituted for all of us!

This is the only message I will be replying to of yours, Ray, since I am quite busy with BobRyan's replies.

FOR BOB RYAN: I am finished with replying to your "first installment."

I notice your "second installment" which I will save to file now, and answer as well. When you are finished with the third and last installment, and I complete the reply to i, you are going to get the largest dump of replies on your punkin head that may have the BaptistBoard administrators complain!

Now, back to replying to your latest posts...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[Ray Berrian]

W Putnam,

I did not mean to hurt your feelings, but only to point out that apparently the Corinthian church of Paul's time did not partake of the holy Sacrament daily. I know some Lutherans receive on the first Sunday of the month.

I think thessalonian said that Canon Law requires the priest to drink the wine. In the apostle's church, the congregation received both the host and the wine, as duly noted where he says, 'as often as ye drink it, remember Me.' [I Cor. 11:25e,f] And a second time Paul says, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death until He comes.' [vs. 26] The congregation received both elements, the body and the blood. When we see that only the priest usually drinks the wine, a red flag goes up in our minds and hearts. Do you see our dilemma? It appears to us that the Canon Law of the church is a higher authority than even what Jesus had intended for His church as written down by the great Apostle Paul.

I know that I need as much grace as our Lord can give to me too.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
W Putnam,

I did not mean to hurt your feelings, but only to point out that apparently the Corinthian church of Paul's time did not partake of the holy Sacrament daily. I know some Lutherans receive on the first Sunday of the month.

Hurt my feelings?

Nah, I am too thick-skinned for that!

Actually, you may be very correct here, as the Eastern Church, even to this day (somebody correct me if I speak in error) does not have a "divine Ligurgy" (which is quivalant to our Mass) daily!

As I recall, Pope Pius X was the one who recommended daily communnion fpr the Western Church.

I think thessalonian said that Canon Law requires the priest to drink the wine. In the apostle's church, the congregation received both the host and the wine, as duly noted where he says, 'as often as ye drink it, remember Me.' [I Cor. 11:25e,f] And a second time Paul says, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death until He comes.' [vs. 26] The congregation received both elements, the body and the blood. When we see that only the priest usually drinks the wine, a red flag goes up in our minds and hearts. Do you see our dilemma? It appears to us that the Canon Law of the church is a higher authority than even what Jesus had intended for His church as written down by the great Apostle Paul.

Oh, I see what you are getting at!

Thess baby is right on that account, but during the Tridentine Mass that came out of the Council of Trent, only the host was given to the faithful coming to communnion - the wine was consumed only by the priest.

It was a practical move, since giving the host only, especially to a huge croud in big churches, it was better to do that. You see, in the host is also the blood, and in the blood is also the host (body). In other words, the blood in also in the host, as well as the host is also in the blood. But to preserve the ruberics of the ceremony, the priest had to consume both species.

Be advised that this has all changed in Vatican II, BOTH the body (host) and the blood (the chalice) is now offered to the entire community at Mass!

I know that I need as much grace as our Lord can give to me too.

Oh dear me, don't we all?

The older I get, the more I find myself deficient before the Lord!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

[ June 21, 2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

[Singer]

The older I get, the more I find myself deficient before the Lord!

That's odd....coming from a perfect system that was appointed by Jesus
himself and with a history of 2000 years; ruled by umpteen popes. Can't
they seem to get it right for their followers...? Maybe baptismal regeneration
doesn't work afterall.

If all else fails, accept the Lord and HIS righteousness !!