The Eucharist

[Bro. Curtis]

I see "bread" and "cup", not "Christ".

No real presence proven.

 

[thessalonian]

Bro Curtis,

""I see "bread" and "cup", not "Christ".

No real presence proven. ""

I do not see air. So air does not exist.

I see no germs, so they are not the cause of sickness.

Somebody told me that what I had was ice cream the other day, but it tasted like strawberries so it must have been strawberries.

I have never seen anyone feed 5000 people fed on a few loaves and fishes so it must not have happened.

I see no Holy Spirit dwelling in any man. Therefore by your logic it must not be.

A man walk on water, preposterous.

A virgin concieve? Ridiculous.

But God says it is possible.


What appears as bread and wine, actually the body and blood of Christ? Well he did say "this is my body and this is my blood, my flesh is TRUE FOOD, my blood is TRUE DRINK. I suppose I will believe him rather than your faulty human logic. But human senses can betray us and God is in control of the elements. So I believe.

 

[thessalonian]

Daveth,

Did I say I was Orthodox. Don't recall ever saying that.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit dwells in us.

The Bible tells us that Jesus walked upon water.

The Bible tells us a virgin would concieve.

But it is silent on the real presence. No wait, it isn't silent, it tells us Jesus is in heaven, at the right hand of God. Ipso facto- he could not possibly be in a platter of crackers.

The Bible does not support the real presence, so why teach it ?

 

[thessalonian]

" posted the Biblical reasons for rejecting the eucharist on this very thread, and those remain unanswered. "

Oh really. I posted a verse by verse refutation of you reasons for rejecting it so you are less than honest in this regard.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You didn't use one verse in that "refutation". You put your own words, or words somebody taught you, but you used zero scripture to back it up.

 

[thessalonian]

My ananswered replies (with additions) to Borther Curtis's alleged unanswered questoins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because right now, Christ is at the right hand of God."

Hmmmm, the Christ I know is God so if at the right hand of God is the only place that he can be then that Christ you are speaking of couldn't be God. Too bad he's not real. He also says "I will be with you always until the end of time" and finally doesn't the Apostle Paul in Galatians says "it is not I, but Christ lives in me". How can this be if he is only at the right hand of God? Nice try though.

"He said when he returns, we will be going with him. We don't recieve him, he's gonna revieve us!!!!"

All true and well and good. When he comes in the form of a man, just as he left, he will. In the form of the Eucharist he sustains us. He said I will be with you always until the end of time. Paul says in Galations with regard to the good that he does, "yet not I but Christ lives in me.".

"And finally, the Holy Spirit is who's doing Christ's earthly work."

So the Holy Spirit is a separate God? Trinitarian theology says that when one person of the trinity is there, all three are. You do believe in the trinity don't you. Once again Paul says when he does good, "it is not I, but Christ lives in me.". Bro Curtis has a tritheistic divided God that does not exist. This he uses to support his rejection of the Eucharist, saying that the Holy Spirit is the only God doing any work around here. The other two God's are in heaven only. Last I checked, my God was omnipresent. You baptists out there, even by your own faith, brother Churtis is preaching error. Reprimand him.

"I know this has been civil, but I have to chime in. This is a baptist board, and I believe my comments are welcome. I completely reject the eucharist, and furthermore claim that those who participate are no closer to the Lord than I am."

Oh yes, your comments are welcome. God will be the judge of the last part.

Blessings.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'll believe, and post, what the Bible says.

You haven't proven anything. You didn't put verses up, but little bitty snipets, with no references, like your afraid to look them up. taken out of context. No problem, you can't prove the real presence. Keep trying, but it can't be done, by scripture only.

 

[thessalonian]

"You didn't use one verse in that "refutation"."

Oh really. I did have a couple of direct quotes from scripture so that makes you a not so truthful guy (to put it kindly). Does it bother you that much to know I didn't put a chapter and verse number. Well, did you know that there was no such thing in any bible until the 4th or 5th century. They were traditions added to the Bible much later.

Where I didn't quote ver batum scripture I would have thought that a man of the word like you would know the exact verses that I was refering to, since I knew exactly the verses that you were refering to without going to the chapter and verses that you kindly provided. But I suppose not.

Here are some of the verses I either quoted or eluded to.

Gal 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; "

Acts 1:11
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Two of these verses I quoted directly. Now Bro. Curtis, you didn't quote scripture in your post but just put down some chapter and verse numbers to go with your own words so the standard that you are holding me too is quite different than the one you have for yourself. But excuse my laziness. I won't let it happen again.

"You haven't proven anything. You didn't put verses up, but little bitty snipets, with no references, like your afraid to look them up. taken out of context. No problem, you can't prove the real presence. Keep trying, but it can't be done, by scripture only. "

What kind of a clown are you?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Don't call me a clown. Got it ? Good.

You have not proven a real presence. Until you do, or admit you can't, get used to my broken record.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "You have not proven a real presence."

This what I dislike most about Apologetics. That is, when Apologetics begins to be considered a way to "prove" particular points.

For instance, it is impossible to prove that Jesus is God. Yes, it can be demonstrated reasonably that this is what the New Testament Scriptures teach, but not definitively. You still have Jehovah's Witnesses, Neo-Arians, Christadelphians, and the like who will show that you cannot prove this fundamental keystone of Christianity.

In the end, the assent of faith must be given when we consider Divine Mysteries such as the Holy Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Immaculate Conception, the Mystical Body of Christ, etc. Apologetics helps to show the reasonableness of various articles of faith, but in the end, they are objects of faith, not proof. And, we cannot believe without the assistance of the Spirit, without divine grace, who enables our reason to accept mysteries of faith that transcend reason.

God bless,

Carson

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Don't call me a clown. Got it ? Good.

You have not proven a real presence. Until you do, or admit you can't, get used to my broken record.

If you aren't a clown, then why are you calling the many pages of my work to explain my faith "silly."

Practice what you preach.

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Attack the religion, not the person.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Carson, I guess the Holy Spirit just won't enable me to believe the real presence.

The Bible says that Jesus is the son of God, I need nothing else.

[ January 28, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Brother Curtis,

When the deposit of faith is preached, grace is given with it. Grace always accompanies revelation. (Thank the Lord for the catechists!)

You wrote, "The Bible says that Jesus is the son of God, I need nothing else.

The Bible also says that Solomon was a son of God. Read 2 Sam 7:14. The Arians are already a step in front of you.

God bless,

Carson

 

[neal4christ]

This is what this thread has come to? Maybe I was not clear, I started it to see what CATHOLICS believe about the Eucharist. I admire your desire to protect Baptist theology Bro. Curtis, but you don't have to worry about everyone thinking that what is on this thread is what Baptists believe, because I made that little comment in my first post of the thread that I wanted to see what CATHOLICS believe about the Eucharist. That really isn't that hard to understand. What is so hard about starting another thread "Why the Eucharist is Wrong"? See, this is the problems with Baptists and other Protestants. We are afraid to face what others believe and teach on an objective level and would rather just say "Your wrong, the Bible proves it." How about evidence? Is there something wrong with thinking and hearing what someone else BELIEVES. That is why it is belief, not fact. I agree totally with Carson in that we can simply base our beliefs on the evidence we have.

And this is another problem I am struggling with, everybody saying the Bible says this and the Bible says that and the Holy Spirit led me to this, when everybody comes to differing conclusions. Does nobody else see a problem with that? Is Christ truly that divided?

Why can't we sit down and objectively look at what others believe? There is nothing wrong with thinking and asking ourselves "Why do I believe like I do?"

I am truly sorry that this thread has come to this.

Neal

 

[LisaMC]

Bro. Curtis said:

Because right now, Christ is at the right hand of God.

Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, Acts 7:55 , Acts 7:56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 10:12,
1 Peter 3:22.

He said when he returns, we will be going with him. We don't recieve him, he's gonna revieve us!!!!

John 14:3

And finally, the Holy Spirit is who's doing Christ's earthly work.

Whew!!!!! Huge sigh of relief!! Glad I didn't have to jump in here and be the bad "girl." Neal, I understand your original intent. I mean there are many misunderstandings as to what RCs actually believe and don't. I've had many misconceptions cleared up through my studies. However, your responses were leaning towards receptiveness or agreement with your newfound understandings. However, that may not be the case, but I think Bro. Curtis' concerns as a moderator of a Baptist Board is that readers will think theses beliefs are being exhorted and endorsed.

Now, I have a few things to say myself.

Before Jesus ever said for us to eat His flesh He said He was the "bread of life."

Bread is continually used to reference bodily sustenance, physcial/literal and spiritual. Nothing says it plainer than Luke:

Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

Daily bread is what sustains us. Not daily flesh.

From John 16:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Holy Spirit could not be here if Jesus is still here.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Jhn 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

If none of the above tell you that Jesus was being figurative in John 6. Then look at John 16 (Chapter 16 comes after Chapter 6)

Jhn 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Jesus tells the apostles that the things He had previously/recently taught had been spoken in proverbs, that would include John 6 and "eating His flesh . . . "

Never does Scripture encourage or allow for consumption of human flesh, however Scripture does set a precedent for "eating words."

Jer 15:16, "Your words were found and I ate them, and your words became for me a joy and the delight of my life."

Many times Scripture endorses, exhorts and praises the value of the words of Christ:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

[ January 28, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[thessalonian]

Curtis,

"Attack the religion, not the person. "

I guess that is why you painted me as a coward of some sort.

You are absolutely right. I have not proven the real prescence. Neither can the trinity or the incarnation or the virgin birth or a host of other things be proven from the Bible. That is what faith is, believing in things that are not proven through mathematical formulas and scientific theoroms. And the sad truth is that I cannot convince you. Things of God can only be revealed through the son. I hope you don't mind if I quote scripture on you. My leggs are shaking but here it goes.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Luke 10:22
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

James 3:17
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

So if you don't get it I am not surprized and neither do I look down on you for not getting it because God has not given you the grace to get it yet. I pray he will.

I will retract the clown comment only because it was reactionary to your ridiculous characterization of me as a quivering coward. I hardly am afraid of scripture or quoting it. But I reserve the right to speak freely on these boards. What you will never admit is that along with your scriptural interprutations comes a set of Baptist ideas as to what those verses mean and a whole religious context that goes with your Bible. The context you are missing is the Church and the Traditions that have been held to for 2000 years.

God bless

By the way, Curtis, I have not yet been mad at you, contrary to your speculation in a post or two above. You have made me laugh a bit.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

You are absolutely right. I have not proven the real prescence. Neither can the trinity or the incarnation or the virgin birth or a host of other things be proven from the Bible.

From a scientific point of view those things can not be proven. However, as people of faith, those things can be proven scripturally. Does Scripture use the word Trinity? Nope. But, we can gleen this from Scripture. Just look at what Tertullian said:

Chapter XI.-The Identity of the Father and the Son, as Praxeas Held It, Shown to Be Full of Perplexity and Absurdity. Many Scriptures Quoted in Proof of the Distinction of the Divine Persons of the Trinity.

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. For if He calls Him Son, and if the Son is none other than He who has proceeded from the Father Himself, and if the Word has proceeded from the Father Himself, He will then be the Son, and not Himself from whom He proceeded. For the Father Himself did not proceed from Himself. Now, you who say that the Father is the same as the Son, do really make the same Person both to have sent forth from Himself (and at the same time to have gone out from Himself as) that Being which is God. If it was possible for Him to have done this, He at all events did not do it. You must bring forth the proof which I require of you-one like my own; that is, (you must prove to me) that the Scriptures show the Son and the Father to be the same, just as on our side the Father and the Son are demonstrated to be distinct; I say distinct, but not separate:110 for as on my part I produce the words of God Himself, "My heart hath emitted my most excellent Word,"111 so you in like manner ought to adduce in opposition to me some text where God has said, "My heart hath emitted Myself as my own most excellent Word," in such a sense that He is Himself both the Emitter and the Emitted, both He who sent forth and He who was sent forth, since He is both the Word and God. I bid you also observe,112 that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee."113 If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, "The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself; "or again, "Before the morning did I beget myself; "114 and likewise, "I the Lord possessed Myself the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did I beget myself; " and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so? Was He afraid of not being believed, if He had in so many words declared Himself to be both the Father and the Son? Of one thing He was at any rate afraid-of lying. Of Himself, too, and of His own truth, was He afraid. Believing Him, therefore, to be the true God, I am sure that He declared nothing to exist in any other way than according to His own dispensation and arrangement, and that He had arranged nothing in any other way than according to His own declaration. On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, and an impostor, and a tamperer with His word, if, when He was Himself a Son to Himself, He assigned the part of His Son to be played by another, when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith, that He who speaks; and He of whom He speaks, and to whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and the Same. So absurd arid misleading a statement would be unworthy of God, that, widen it was Himself to whom He was speaking, He speaks rather to another, and not to His very self. Hear, then, other utterances also of the Father concerning the Son by the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold my Son, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. "115 Hear also what He says to the Son: "Is it a great thing for Thee, that Thou shouldest be called my Son to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the dispersed of Israel? I have given Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be their salvation to the end of the earth. "116 Hear now also the Son's utterances respecting the Father: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel unto men."117 He speaks of Himself likewise to the Father in the Psalm: "Forsake me not until I have declared the might of Thine arm to all the generation that is to come. "118 Also to the same purport in another Psalm: "O Lord, how are they increased that trouble me!"119 But almost all the Psalms which prophesy of120 the person of Christ, represent the Son as conversing with the Father-that is, represent Christ (as speaking) to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking of the Father and the Son, in the character of121 a third Person: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. "122 Likewise in the words of Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord to the Lord123 mine Anointed. "124 Likewise, in the same prophet, He says to the Father respecting the Son: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We brought a report concerning Him, as if He were a little child, as if He were a root in a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness."125 These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority.126 Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons in the Trinity is clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks.127 In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character-addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.

Chapter XII.-Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.

If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; "128 whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us,"129 He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word,that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him."130 Why say "image of God? "Why not "His own image" merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that is to say, Christ's image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay-the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."131 Immediately there appears the Word, "that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,"132 and through Him also came light upon the world.133 From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, "Let there be a firmament, ... and God made the firmament; "134 and God also said. "Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light."135 But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones-I mean the Word of God. "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made."136 Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.) "The Word was God,"137 then you have two Beings-One that commands that the thing be made. and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance-in the way of distinction, not of division.138 But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second.139 But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.

These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority.126 Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons in the Trinity is clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks.127

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-43.htm#P10518_2950060

Sorry, for the length, but I think you'll get my drift.

That is what faith is, believing in things that are not proven through mathematical formulas and scientific theoroms.

Yes, but the "Real Presence" can not be deduced even Scripturally

And the sad truth is that I cannot convince you. Things of God can only be revealed through the son.

Ditto.

 

[LisaMC]

Here's a bonus eye-popper :

Tertullian said: It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself.

He proved the Trinity by using Scripture, not by relying on Traditon. Hmmmmmm . . . Verly, intelesting . . . .