The Eucharist

[LisaMC]

Thess,

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

Need proof that air exists? Stick your head in a plastic bag for a couple of minutes, you'll know it exists.

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

A strong microscope will help you with this.

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

A chemical analysis will answer that one.

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

Good ole christian faith and trust in the word of God is the only answer for that one.

So, why do you choose to believe that Jesus was being physically literal when He orders you to eat His flesh, and take Him figuratively when He says He is bread?

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

Nope. Scripture tells us there is a Holy Spirit. And it tells us that the Holy Spirit could not be sent unless Jesus ascended to Heaven.

A man walk on water, preposterous.

Not where Jesus is concerned.

A virgin concieve? Ridiculous.

The Bible spells that one out quite explicitly.

But God says it is possible.

If you are christian, that's all you need to know.

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.

He also said He was "the Bread of Life." So, logically His flesh would be "bread."

When Paul speaks of Communion, he refers to the elements as bread and cup, not flesh and blood:

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I don't believe that "the communion of the body of Christ" is the same as "the body of Christ."

1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Again, "this cup is the new testament in my blood" is not synonamous with "my blood."

1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Lisa,

This is what Tertullian has to say about the eating the Eucharist:

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

And on being reborn in Baptism:

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

And on the Sacrament of Confession:

"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

And on the Sacrament of Confirmation:

"After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which [those] in the priesthood . . . were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. . . . So also with us, the unction runs on the body and profits us spiritually, in the same way that baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit" (Baptism 7:1–2, 8:1 [A.D. 203]).

And on the nature of the Church:

"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).

God bless,

Carson

 

[thessalonian]

Dear LisaMC,

I am spellbound by your ability to read and miss what is said.



"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."

**** MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD Lisa. It says it in John 6 this way Lisa. Yes it is said to be daily bread. The nature of the Eucharist is something that we cannot understand. Yet I take him at his word when he says MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK. Quite apparently it is in some other form than human flesh. Quite apparently he has made it palatable. But his words are plain no matter how you want to duck them and make excuses. He holds up bread in a similar manner in Matt 26 and says THIS IS MY BODY. You say he lies. Can we completely understand these words? No. But I choose to believe them while you choose to make excuses and split words such that what Jesus says in plain english is not true. ****

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.

*** I answered this above for our dear friend bro Curtis. It amazes me how willing you Baptists are to embrace tritheism in order to refute the doctrine of the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist. It amazes me how you are willing to deny the Omniprescence of God, the Trinity, in order to save your doctrine that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol. For that is the theological consequences of your statements above. Jesus no longer stands on this earth as a man for in Acts 1 the Apostles saw him taken up in to heaven. Does this mean that Jesus is no longer with us in any way shape or form.? Then Paul is a liar in Galations 2:20 when he says:

Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

And you make Jesus the son of God a liar when he says:

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."

******


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;

*** Yes, physically standing as a man in front of him, they no longer see him. This does not discount the Eucharist as the verses above show quite clearly. *****

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.

*** So which one of the thousands of Protestant denominations worship in truth? They contradict eachother so they can't all possible. Oh, yes, I know, the Baptists. Prove it.*****

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 . . . "

***Ah, so he had told them he was going to have to suffer and die, but that was only figuratively speaking, since everthing he said was figurative. I got ya now. That is a horrible translation you have by the way. But I think it is quite a strech to apply John 16:25 to all that Jesus ever said and did while he walked this earth before John 16. In fact it is down right ridiculous. It shows what can happen when any Joe on the street makes themselves out to be a biblical scholar with no guidance whatsover.****

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."

*** There is a problem with your logic with regard to John 6. Jesus is specifcally talking about eating flesh. It is given in the context of the mana in the desert, which was called bread from heaven. It provided physical food for the Jews as they traveled through the desert. The inference is clear. Jesus intends to provide us spiritual food by the sacrifice of the lamb of the new covenant, himself, the Pascal lamb which was too be eaten. See Ex 12. Eating flesh was never equated with eating words in scripture. ****

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.

*** We of course do not deny the Word of God as being important to our spiritual lives. It is an integral part of our Eucharistic celebration. 60% of the Mass is directly from scripture and in a three year cycle the whole bible will be read. *****

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.

****Yes, the Eucharist is spiritual food, rather than physical food. The words he spoke are "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. That is the words that he spoke and *****

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

*** Not hard to understand how Peter's words would indicate that his faith is being tested here if Jesus is speaking in the literal sense. Quite another matter if it is just symbolic as you say ****

*** Your other posts to me are so far off the mark in trying to make me appear the fool, that I will not even dignify them with a response. It would be a major excercise in pearl casting anyway. By the way, I find it intriguing that you have the nerve in a thread on the Eucharist to try and quote people from the early Church. That digs a pretty deep hole for you. Of course you are too blind to admit this but it is true, nonetheless ***

I do wish you well Lisa.

[ January 29, 2003, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

I'm missing your point with Tertullian.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

I am spellbound by your ability to read and miss what is said.

I am spellbound by your ability to read and see words and meanings that aren't there.

**** MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD Lisa. It says it in John 6 this way Lisa. Yes it is said to be daily bread.

AGAIN: 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.

So, we are talking about Jesus here. Everything He stressed pretty much addressed how the spiritual far exceeded the value of the carnal.

The nature of the Eucharist is something that we cannot understand.

Not really.

Yet I take him at his word when he says MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.

And I take Him at His word when He said He was the bread of Life.

Quite apparently it is in some other form than human flesh. Quite apparently he has made it palatable. But his words are plain no matter how you want to duck them and make excuses.

I'm not ducking or making excuses. I'm stating facts.

He holds up bread in a similar manner in Matt 26 and says THIS IS MY BODY. You say he lies.

No I don't. I just understand Him to be speaking metaphoricall as He did when He said He was the bread of life. However, you say He lies when He says:

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.

Can we completely understand these words? No.

If that is so, why does the RCC place authoritatively such a meaning on His words as the "Real Presence?"

But I choose to believe them while you choose to make excuses and split words such that what Jesus says in plain english is not true. ****

That's funny. It would really be refreshing to see a Catholic use a new argument instead of the same ole tired regurgitated arguments made by your notorious RC apologists.

Please extend me the same courtesy I have extended to you up to this point. Do not presume to tell me what I accept, reject, do believe, don't believe, etc . . . .

*** I answered this above for our dear friend bro Curtis.

Omigosh! Talk about not seeing what you read! How many times to I have to say, "I am not Baptist?" hehehehehe

It amazes me how willing you Baptists are to embrace tritheism in order to refute the doctrine of the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It amazes me how you catholics are willing to swallow the completely unbiblical teachings of the RCC because it makes you feel safe to believe that they are telling you the truth and you don't have to think for yourself!! Tell me, do you infallibly understand all (or any for that matter) the teachings of the RCC? If not, then how do you benefit from your churches ability to infallibly interpret the word of God?

It amazes me how you are willing to deny the Omniprescence of God, the Trinity, in order to save your doctrine that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol.

Please show me where I've done that.

For that is the theological consequences of your statements above.

According to whom?

Jesus no longer stands on this earth as a man for in Acts 1 the Apostles saw him taken up in to heaven. Does this mean that Jesus is no longer with us in any way shape or form?

Well, it's safe to say that He isn't here in the flesh and blood. And as I quoted, the Holy Spirit could not be here until Jesus ascended. I am the one taking Jesus at His word. It is also safe to say He is here with us spiritually.

Then Paul is a liar in Galations 2:20 when he says:

Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

No. What does that have to do with the real presence. Nobody denies Jesus' spiritual presence.

And you make Jesus the son of God a liar when he says:

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."

How do I do that? By insisting He is still physically present with us you are making him a liar when He says:

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.

And you disobey a direct order by insisting on worhipping Him as a physical being:

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.

*** Yes, physically standing as a man in front of him, they no longer see him. This does not discount the Eucharist as the verses above show quite clearly. *****

Yes it does.

*** So which one of the thousands of Protestant denominations worship in truth? They contradict eachother so they can't all possible. Oh, yes, I know, the Baptists. Prove it.*****

Well, I can't say for sure anybody knows the truth perfectly, however, we do know that you as a Catholic disobey this command by insisting on worshipping Him in the flesh instead of spirit.

***Ah, so he had told them he was going to have to suffer and die, but that was only figuratively speaking, since everthing he said was figurative. I got ya now.

Just quoting Scripture. Not everything that Jesus spoke was a parable or lesson.

That is a horrible translation you have by the way.

Of course you think so.

But I think it is quite a strech to apply John 16:25 to all that Jesus ever said and did while he walked this earth before John 16.

Only when speaking to the masses and teaching:

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

In fact it is down right ridiculous. It shows what can happen when any Joe on the street makes themselves out to be a biblical scholar with no guidance whatsover.

Think I'll let my Christian love override my human desire to lash out just as ugly and bite my tongue for now.

*** There is a problem with your logic with regard to John 6.

Just one problem?

Jesus is specifcally talking about eating flesh.

Really? Did He pick His flesh off His bones and pass it around? Let me ask you something, taking in to account every miracle that Jesus performed, how many did He perform that were not discernable? When He turned water to wine, the water became wine. When He told Lazarus to rise from the dead, Lazarus rose from the dead. When He told the sick they were healed, they were healed. When He said He was going up to be with God, the apostles watched Him ascend into heaven.

It is given in the context of the mana in the desert, which was called bread from heaven. It provided physical food for the Jews as they traveled through the desert. The inference is clear. Jesus intends to provide us spiritual food by the sacrifice of the lamb of the new covenant, himself, the Pascal lamb which was too be eaten.

Was Jesus really a lamb? Or did he figuratively replace the Pascal lamb?

See Ex 12. Eating flesh was never equated with eating words in scripture. ****

Never said it was. You are arguing points I never contended, which is a complete waste of your time. You have accomplished nothing but blowing off steam. You have refuted no argument I've made, stated not facts and done nothing but rant. That's okay though, feel free to vent anytime. I just think it's counterproductive to your mission here.

*** We of course do not deny the Word of God as being important to our spiritual lives. It is an integral part of our Eucharistic celebration. 60% of the Mass is directly from scripture and in a three year cycle the whole bible will be read. *****

Okay.

*** Not hard to understand how Peter's words would indicate that his faith is being tested here if Jesus is speaking in the literal sense. Quite another matter if it is just symbolic as you say ****

I'm just wondering why Peter didn't say, " . . . . you have the flesh of eternal life."

*** Your other posts to me are so far off the mark in trying to make me appear the fool, that I will not even dignify them with a response.

You've done quite a good job of looking the fool without my help.

It would be a major excercise in pearl casting anyway. By the way, I find it intriguing that you have the nerve in a thread on the Eucharist to try and quote people from the early Church. That digs a pretty deep hole for you. Of course you are too blind to admit this but it is true, nonetheless ***

Really? I don't think you want to make a statement like that, because you could really come out looking foolish.

But, hey, hope you feel better after spouting all that hot air. God Bless!

[ January 29, 2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[thessalonian]

Lisa,

I see nothing really worth responding to in your post. Nothing but one liner I am right and you are wrong because the RCC is evil so I will let you have the last word. I am sorry if I didn't go back and read all of your posts to know that you weren't a baptist. Also, most of those worn out arguements of Catholic Apologists have been around for 2000 years now. That is what tradition is about. Nothing really changes, just a buncch of new heresies with the same tired old themes.

Blessings

[ January 29, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Lisa,

You wrote, "I'm missing your point with Tertullian."

I'm just introducing you to some of his thought; it's always good to be informed.

God bless,

Carson

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Lisa,

I see nothing really worth responding to in your post.

So, what's this? Couldn't help yourself could ya?

Nothing but one liner I am right and you are wrong because the RCC is evil so I will let you have the last word.

You really should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I am sorry if I didn't go back and read all of your posts to know that you weren't a baptist.

It's really simple. You only have to look on my member profile. And that's what you get for making blanket statements and generalizations about people and beliefs.

Also, most of those worn out arguements of Catholic Apologists have been around for 2000 years now.

I'll have to challenge you to prove that claim.

That is what tradition is about. Nothing really changes, just a buncch of new heresies with the same tired old themes.

Nothing changes? Yeah, right!

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

I've read many of Tertullian's writings. Wasn't he excommunicated?

I wasn't quoting him as an authoritative RC source. It's just simpler to post his statement about the accuracy of Scripture, then to explain myself how Scripture clearly defines the Trinity without using the word "Trinity."

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
And that's what you get for making blanket statements and generalizations about people and beliefs.

I can't believe you just said that when every one of your posts on this thread have been one-line, blanket-statement responses about Catholics and their beliefs.

Talk about having no realization of one's own actions.

God bless,

Grant

 

[thessalonian]

Lisa,

Thanks for stopping by dear.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Please refrain from the term "dear". It's kinda condescending, don't you think ? It's like you lost the argument and have to resort to insults.

 

[GraceSaves]

Self-deleted.

[ January 30, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Grant, I called the conversation silly, not you.

 

[GraceSaves]

Self-deleted.

[ January 30, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

No it isn't. If I called you silly, that would be different. I singled nobody out, and called an event silly.

Lisa M.C. put a lot of time into her posts, also, so don't play the "poor little me" stuff.

Put all the posts you want to here, but if you read the top of the page, you will see that your ideas get challenged here. A conversation that is putting forth a man made doctrine, that cannot be backed up with scripture, is in this moderator's opinion, silly.

Grant, if you don't like it here, move on. But I will not argue rules with you. No personal insults are allowed, and if that's not to your liking, it's a big cyber-world out there.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Furthermore, if you have an issue with how I moderate this forum, feel free to contact the Webmaster, and file a complaint, but don't waste anymore space by posting the complaint on this thread.

 

[GraceSaves]

Self-deleted.

[ January 30, 2003, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Furthermore, if you have an issue with how I moderate this forum, feel free to contact the Webmaster, and file a complaint, but don't waste anymore space by posting the complaint on this thread.

Did you see this ?

 

[Carson Weber]

Grant,

I just want to publicly commend you for deleting your own posts for the sake of charity. It take a lot of humility to do that, and I admire your actions.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 30, 2003, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]