This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Eliyahu]

I notice the other thread about the Holy Communion was ended shortly before.

We may have some more need to clarify some of the issues which were raised at the end of the threads, and some other aspects of it.


One issue is the nature of the Lord Supper, either Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, or Memorial, which was discussed already.

The other issue that I would discuss on this thread is whether the Lord Supper should be hosted or administered only by so-called Clergy like Priest or Pastor or not.


The final argument in the previous thread was whether what Jesus said " the Flesh profits nothing" is correct or not. If anyone wants to teach Jesus Christ, let him or her feel free to teach Him on this thread, by saying Jesus was wrong in saying John 6:63.

The Title is simpler than before, and therefore I hope many can gain a certain good understanding on this issue.

 

[Eliyahu]

If I need to define the issues more, I would add as follows:

1) Are the Believers eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus at the Lord's Supper?


2) Is the Blood shed by Jesus for the people to eat? Did Jesus shed His Blood for eating?

3) Or did Jesus offer His Blood as Sin Offering to God?

4) When we read John 6, Jesus said " Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Does this mean that we should eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?
This was said before the Crucifixion, during OT times when the people had do keep the Commandments of God that one should not eat Blood.
Did Jesus say to the people that they should eat and drink His Blood despite the Commandments of the Law in Leviticus 17:10-14 and Genesis 9:4?


5) When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper, the time was before the Crucifixion, and therefore it was still during the OT times. Then did the Disciples eat Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper? Did they eat Human Flesh and Human Blood?

6) Jesus said this word:
John 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.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words by Flesh and Blood by His Words ?

7) Some say that the Flesh of Jesus is not applied to " Flesh profits nothing"
But IMO, they see the Words of Jesus by flesh:

2 Cor 5:
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


These are the main issues.

 

[BobRyan]

One issue is the nature of the Lord Supper, either Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, or Memorial, which was discussed already.

"In REMEMBRANCE" sounds like a memorial to me.

 

[Eliyahu]

One of the biggest deception in the Christendom is that Bread and Wine at the Lord's Supper are turned into Flesh and Blood.

If it is true indeed, there is no reason to refuse the test of them at a medical laboratory or any chemical laboratory.

These days, Catholics claim that the statues of Mary is weeping and shedding the tears, but later on it turns out to be vegie oil.
([FONT=&#48148]http://www.cathnews.com/news/302/146.php)[/FONT]


Sometimes it was said that the statue of Mary was shedding the blood from its eyes. Then someone tested it, then found it was the blood of a pig. It was a deception, but many people like to follow such pattern. Why? Because people are sinners from their birth and like to find out to worship as idol and they like to be deceived.

No one can prove that the Bread and Wine are changed to Flesh and Blood. I am so convinced about it.

The people who claim or believe such magic transformation are believing the pagan Cannibalism and are confessing that their religion is the modernized succession of the ancient pagan Cannibalism, not the True Christian Faith.

 

[Eliyahu]

I believe that Jesus appeared to Paul at another occasion than the first appearance near Damascus, to teach him about the importance of the Lord's Supper because it is so important in the worship service at the assemblies.

So Paul said this:

1 Cor 11:
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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. ( www.crosswalk.com)

You can see " This do in remembrance of me" twice in this passage.


But many people could not understand the passage correctly as the Jewish unbelievers at the time of Jesus could not understand John 6.
So, they thought about biting the flesh of Jesus and drinking the blood of Jesus physically.

John 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.


1 Cor 11
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Doesn't Paul say EAT THIS BREAD yet? not the flesh?

 

[webdog]

One of the biggest deception in the Christendom is that Bread and Wine at the Lord's Supper are turned into Flesh and Blood.

If it is true indeed, there is no reason to refuse the test of them at a medical laboratory or any chemical laboratory.

I've thought of this, too. Since Christ is 100% Man in addition to 100% God, If the bread and wine became His flesh and blood inside our digestive tracts...there should be human DNA in a catholics stool sample when tested. This would make for a great experiment!

 

[Helen]

webdog, you mean it would only turn to flesh and blood for Catholics? :saint:

In the meantime, if anyone should look at little earlier in John 6, Jesus has already explained what He means by the 'flesh and blood' -- and the comment about the flesh profiting nothing simply wraps it up.

"Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
(John 6:35)

Bible explains Bible. Jesus explains exactly what He is about to talk about. You will also notice that when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is very calm. That's because Nicodemus honestly wants to know. However in John 6, the attitude of the crowd is different. They are grumbling and challenging -- they liked the food they were fed earlier in the chapter, but this business about believing in Jesus "whose father and mother we know" -- that's pushing it just a bit too far!

And so rather than honestly questioning Him, they simply argue among themselves (v.52).

So Jesus responds to them in a very Jewish way, turning their arguments on their ears. It has nothing to do with eating His actual flesh or drinking His actual blood! Those are physical things and they are gone. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (verse 63)

Bible explains Bible. The Roman Catholics prefer other people to explain the Bible -- so do many others. But God's Word is not deficient. It explains what it is talking about quite well the vast majority of the time.

********

edited to correct spelling in a quote. I was typing too fast.

 

[webdog]

webdog, you mean it would only turn to flesh and blood for Catholics? :saint:

According to them, as they are the only ones "authorized" to take Holy Communion issued as a saving sacrament from "the" Church.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Bible explains Bible.

Interesting…Bible explains Bible…Just how can Bible explain Bible, when there’s thousands of competing Protestant Sects? You think they all believe the same in doctrine? NOOOO, they all interpret the Bible differently, their own little infallible popes interpret Scripture for them.

As a former fundamental Baptist myself…we took the bible literal you know, but still our own little infallible pope would proclaim ex cathedra or from the pulpit, how every Church of unlike faith up and down the Highway was wrong and our ‘old time Religion’ was right.

The Roman Catholics prefer other people to explain the Bible -- so do many others.

What, the Apostolic Church Fathers, those who were disciples of the very Apostles themselves; their writings aren’t good enough for you…do they sound a little too…ummm…Catholic for you?

But God's Word is not deficient.

I agree with that, but again, who has the Authority to ensure that God’s Word is not deficient in their interpretation?

Interesting, that I learned recently that Luther was the first person to translate the Bible into German and guess what…he included footnotes…why…he was afraid what would happen if the Bible landed in the hands of common folk. So he included a little damage control to it.
-

 

[Helen]

Agnus_Dei -- your post is silly. Bible explaining Bible has nothing to do with what people decide to do WITH it! I showed that the Jesus explained His own words. If that is not something that you can go with, just say so.

 

[Eliyahu]

Quoting John 6:35 is interesting, which I thought about before too.

"Bible explains Bible" is not new to me. The best interpretation of the Bible comes from the Bible itself, and I think the following verse support this:

Isaiah 34
16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.


Have any Apologetics by Catholics cover those issues before?

OK, as for Medical Lab Test of the substances, it is understandable even though there was no explanation on it as the science didn't reach there.

As for the contradiction with the Leviticus 17, Deut 12, Genesis 9:4 prohibiting the eating of Blood, and the fact that the Blood was not offered for Eating, but for Offering to God must have been explained before.

Agnus,

Could you find anyone who made the exegeses explaining the relationship between Lev 17 and Transubstantiation before?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus_Dei -- your post is silly.

I’m glad you find my post humorous, but believe it or not, it addresses some serious questions concerning private interpretation.

I showed that the Jesus explained His own words.

No Helen, what you showed us what your private interpretation of Jesus' teaching in John 6 is to be.

Give me one good reason why should I accept your private interpretation and neglect almost 2,000 years of Church History?

I showed that the Jesus explained His own words. If that is not something that you can go with, just say so.

Yes, Jesus did explain His own words and each time He did His explanation became more and more explicit and offensive. Jesus who was often referred to as a Rabbi or teacher and thus should’ve been morally obligated to ‘explain’ His teaching by clearing up any misunderstanding, especially to those many disciples who left and walked with Christ no more…even Christ invited His own inner circle of disciples to leave if what He taught was offensive to them…

IF Christ didn't mean for His teaching to be literal, why did Christ ask His 12 Disciples if what He taught was offensive? If the 12 had a good handle of His teaching (as some proclaim here), Christ shouldn't have asked if they were offended. But instead, Christ sensed their confusion, by their mumering amoungst themselves and thus Christ opened the door and invited them to leave, if they were indeed offended-
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Could you find anyone who made the exegeses explaining the relationship between Lev 17 and Transubstantiation before?

Eliyahu: I’m sorry, but I’m not going to rehash these questions over and over with you, we’ve already been down this path in the ‘Communion’ thread to no avail…you either will not listen or can’t comprehend what was already explained to you in great detail by a number of people.

Concerning Transubstantiation, I challenge you to put down your anti-Catholic sources and objectively research for me and develop a good response to:

A. What Transubstantiation is AND
B. What exactly prompted the Catholic Church to define this Dogma.

If you can do that and link your sources, I’ll be happy to open a new dialog with you, but until you show me, that your willing to understand, consider our dialog closed, regarding this topic.

Blessings
-

 

[Helen]

Agnus wrote: What exactly prompted the Catholic Church to define this Dogma.

And that is exactly my point. They had to define it. It is not biblical.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus wrote: What exactly prompted the Catholic Church to define this Dogma.

And that is exactly my point. They had to define it. It is not biblical.

Sorry Helen, but your response show lack of knowledge of Early Church History. The Early Church has always regarded the bread as Christ’s flesh indeed and the wine as Christ's blood indeed, just as Christ himself proclaimed, no hint of symbolism is found in the Early Church writings.

Dogma is only defined when what has always been believed to be Orthodox from the very beginning comes into question.

Now, without spoiling Eliyahu’s homework assignment…What circumstances prompted the Catholic Church to define this Dogma?
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu: I’m sorry, but I’m not going to rehash these questions over and over with you, we’ve already been down this path in the ‘Communion’ thread to no avail…you either will not listen or can’t comprehend what was already explained to you in great detail by a number of people.

Concerning Transubstantiation, I challenge you to put down your anti-Catholic sources and objectively research for me and develop a good response to:

A. What Transubstantiation is AND
B. What exactly prompted the Catholic Church to define this Dogma.

If you can do that and link your sources, I’ll be happy to open a new dialog with you, but until you show me, that your willing to understand, consider our dialog closed, regarding this topic.

Blessings
-

Agnus,

You may be confused with other thread. I think I quoted only Bible on the issue of the Holy Communion. You can still check on that thread that I never quoted other than the Bible. (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38874&page=31)
If you believe that the Bible is Anti-Catholic, you may be right because Bible contradicts Catholic Doctrines in many issues. The followings are the Bible verses which I quoted on the issue of Holy Communion:


Genesis 9
. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Leviticus 7:
26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.


Leviticus 17:
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


Deuteronomy 12

16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. 25 Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:
23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.


Ezekiel 33:25 Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?

Mt 26:
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

Romans 3:
. 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;1 Pet 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Does Peter confess Eating the Blood ? or Sprinkling the Blood?


Heb 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel




Do you think these Bible verses are Anti-Catholic sources?


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38874&page=31

 

[webdog]

Agnus, your signature is so wrong you are not going to say much that is right on this thread. Rotten roots equal a rotten and dying tree. All Scripture is God breathed. I addition, the Church is built on Christ...not any man.

The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus, your signature is so wrong you are not going to say much that is right on this thread. Rotten roots equal a rotten and dying tree. All Scripture is God breathed. I addition, the Church is built on Christ...not any man.

Webdog, please show the class again where my signature says that:
A. Scripture is NOT God breathed and
B. that the Church was build upon one man.

Here’s a little assignment for Webdog…I’m gonna teach you guys to use your noggin if it kills me…Here’s my signature again…broken down for clarity…and please answer True or False and please provide documentation…Oh and when I refer to the Bible, It’s the Bible you hold in your hands today…A table of contents of 66 books of the Old and New Testament.

The Bible did not produce the Church T or F
The Church produced the Bible T or F
The Church is not built upon the Bible T or F
The Church is built upon the apostles and prophets T or F
Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church T or F
he (Christ) left living MEN empowered by the Holy Spirit. T or F

Blessings
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Could you find anyone who made the exegeses explaining the relationship between Lev 17 and Transubstantiation before?

Eliyahu, if you recall, I personally answered your supposed difficulty in the same thread you have linked above in your post no. 16…please find my response and post it here for the class.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, if you recall, I personally answered your supposed difficulty in the same thread you have linked above in your post no. 16…please find my response and post it here for the class.
-

I have never quoted any other site than the Bible verses and therefore your saying that I quoted the Anti-Catholic Sites are wrong, unless you believe that Bible Scriptures are Anti-Catholic, which may be true though.

What you mentioned in the last post was that Jesus flesh doesn't profit nothing, despite His Words in John 6:63, about which I already mentioned and explained.

What you have to confirm is whether Jesus let His disciples drink Blood despite the Law given by God.

Jesus said
Matt 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Now you have to explain how Jesus could fulfil the Law by commanding His discioples to drink Human Blood despite the Law prohibiting the Drink of Blood as in Lev 17:10-14.


You never answered if the Disciples ate the human meat cooked or uncooked. If you say they ate the uncooked, human meat, they might have some difficulties in biting and digesting, right?