The Church as the Kingdom of God

[Carson Weber]

What specifically do you mean by "Jesus, a marginal Jew"?

That is an allusion to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Of course, in these works, Meier doesn't intend to prove or even show that Jesus isn't the Christ of faith; this has become a term (i.e. "marginal Jew") that refers to the stark humanity of Jesus in his day and age. Many times, you will find individuals reducing Jesus to only that and nothing more.

But, through faith, we recognize that Jesus is not merely "a marginal Jew", but the Lord of the Universe. In the same way, the communio he established in the form of the ecclesia will appear to our five senses as a natural creation of men, promulgated with the wisdom of men. I propose that by examining the Biblical narratio preceding and leading up to Jesus Christ, the Gospels will be brought new light with regards to the familia Dei.

 

[Kamoroso]

Hello brother Ed.

No I was not born to an SDA family. There was no religion, or God in my family until my teen years. I was raised without a knowledge of God.

I couldn’t say exactly when I was introduced to the writings of EGW. It was not long after I began to believe in God, and the bible as his word. Not long after I became an SDA, I was challenged by the knowledge that most other Christians did not believe the way I did about a good many things. I decided that I should look deeper into what I believed the bible taught to make sure I wasn’t being duped. The deeper I looked, the more I was convinced of the truths I had already accepted.

I must tell you the truth brother, it never did, nor would it ever occur to me, that Christ meant that we should eat his literal flesh and drink his literal blood. I do not ever remember thinking even once that this might be so. I can’t see why anyone would.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[Carson Weber]

I must tell you the truth brother, it never did, nor would it ever occur to me, that Christ meant that we should eat his literal flesh and drink his literal blood. I do not ever remember thinking even once that this might be so. I can’t see why anyone would.

Keith, What you have just said is the prelude of an explanation of the Eucharist that I provide non-Catholics in person.

Consider that if anyone were to pick up a Bible today, interpret it for himself, and decide what is meant by the words and deeds performed at the Last Supper. No one in his right 21st c. mind would ever come up with the dogma of the Real Presence. Now, don't get me wrong, I can show you how we can arrive at this dogma through a proper exegetical task: studying the Bible in its cultural, historical, and canonical context. I'm speaking here of reading the Bible for ourselves without having performed this hefty task.

Now, consider that all Christians holding to Christological orthodoxy in all times and at all places before Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) believed precisely in the Real Presence.

Berengarius, it should be noted, repaired the public scandal he had given by a sincere retraction made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and he died reconciled to the Church.

Now.. how could this dogma be believed, perpetuated, and accepted over such a course of time in such diverse circumstances both culturally and geographically if it isn't the apostolic teaching/tradition/practice of the Church as perpetuated in her sacramental worship (i.e., the liturgy)?

Even today, all of the splinters of Eastern Orthodoxy (after 1054 A.D.) as well as the non-Chalcedonian churches who split (after 451 A.D.) confess this dogma.

Your personal testimony serves as one side of the coin of proof for the dogma of the Real Presence, and I have had many agree with me as I have presented this interpretive/historical scenario to them over the years.