This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Eliyahu]

Zenas,

Could you understand from the above post that:

1) Believing Jesus Christ is eating HIs flesh and His blood ( Jn 6:40) ?

2) The Words of Jesus is the Life ( Jn 6:63), not the flesh?
Did you notice " Flesh profits nothing"?

3) Could you conduct any Medial Lab Test of the residue of the Lord Supper on your teeth or lips ?
If you believe that they are turned to he flesh and blood by any mysterious means, why don't you test it and confirm it? If you proved it, you will be ADORED throughout the world ( of paganism!) You will become very much famous and rich! Try it.

But I want to tell you even RCC is not certain about the Accidents remain the same etc. ( They may be changing their theory from time to time).

4) Do you know OT prohibited Eating Blood strictly? Read Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 15:23, 12:23-25. God prohibited Eating of whatsoever blood. Do you think Jesus ignored it?

5) Was the Blood of Jesus shed for the people to eat ? or offered to God as Sin Offering?

If you do not know the principle of this, you are far awy from the Bible Truth, sorry to tell you.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I would shortly comment that you misunderstand the Bible quite a lot, especially on John 6:63. People have the Eternal Life by accepting the Words of Jesus Christ which is the Life, not the flesh and blood.

You misunderstand the Bible, John 6:63 records Christ as saying ...The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...

So I ask you Eliyahu, what words was it that Christ had just preached about in the synagogue? I'll answer for you ,b/c I can't stand the suspense...

What words? That you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. So we can't just say, "Well, the words themselves are all we need;" because if the words alone are all we take, we're disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that Eliyahu?

I used to always say to these Catholics, "Look at verse 63. It's the words of Christ that give life." The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That's right, but what are those words? If you just simply take the words without the Eucharist, you're disobeying the words because the words say, Eat my flesh and drink my blood. and My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

You misunderstand the Bible, John 6:63 records Christ as saying ...The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...

So I ask you Eliyahu, what words was it that Christ had just preached about in the synagogue? I'll answer for you ,b/c I can't stand the suspense...

What words? That you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. So we can't just say, "Well, the words themselves are all we need;" because if the words alone are all we take, we're disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that Eliyahu?

I used to always say to these Catholics, "Look at verse 63. It's the words of Christ that give life." The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That's right, but what are those words? If you just simply take the words without the Eucharist, you're disobeying the words because the words say, Eat my flesh and drink my blood. and My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed.
-

You are like one of the Jews who departed Jesus because they expected in the beginning that Jesus would give them the physical food, and you are saying that we should eat His Flesh as a type of Food, not the Words.

You are focussing only on the Words of Jesus about Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood.

You could never answer me if Jesus commanded the people to eat Blood despite the prohibition in the Bible. You are absolutely [un-knowledgeable/un-learned] about the Truth !

[*Moderator edit: BB Posting Rule Three requires you to show grace to your fellow posters.]

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus,

Was Paul disobedient because he ate the Bread, not the Flesh?

Read this:

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.

When does the Bread become Flesh? by magic prayer of the Catholic Priests?

Again you may have to admit the Cannibalism there!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You are absolutely ignorant about the Truth !

Where's your Christian love? Now I'm ignorant, b/c I disagree with your interpretation? Hopefully the moderators will reprimand you...but I doubt it...
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus,

Was Paul disobedient because he ate the Bread, not the Flesh?

Read this:

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.

When does the Bread become Flesh? by magic prayer of the Catholic Priests?

Again you may have to admit the Cannibalism there!

And what did Christ say his flesh was...reread John 6:51...and Eliyahu...just answer the question..
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You could never answer me if Jesus commanded the people to eat Blood despite the prohibition in the Bible.

I answered your question concerning the OT in the 'communion' thread that's now closed, but you either, ignored it or couldn't respond to it...
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Where's your Christian love? Now I'm ignorant, b/c I disagree with your interpretation? Hopefully the moderators will reprimand you...but I doubt it...
-

What is wrong with it? Compare it with your chatchphrase.

 

[Eliyahu]

I answered your question concerning the OT in the 'communion' thread that's now closed, but you either, ignored it or couldn't respond to it...
-

Nope you could never answer me!

How come Jesus asked Disciples to break the Law of Prohibition of Eating Blood? Is Catholic ignoring God's Words?
Oh, I didn't know that!

 

[Eliyahu]

And what did Christ say his flesh was...reread John 6:51...and Eliyahu...just answer the question..
-

Why did the disciples murmur ?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Isn't it because they also in the beginning thought the Words of Jesus meaning the physical Flesh and Blood? But later on they realize that the Words of Jesus were meaning that everyone should believe in Him?

Believing in Jesus Christ is eating His Flesh and Blood, could you not understand this?

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Do you believe in Jesus? Then you have the Everlasting Life, not because you are baptized, not because you ate the Human Flesh, but because you believed in Him, right?

 

[Eliyahu]

Do you have the Nail Scars on your hand?

Tell me Yes or No! after reading this:


Galatians 2:
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.


Were you Crucified ?or not Crucified?

 

[Zenas]

Could you understand from the above post that:

1) Believing Jesus Christ is eating HIs flesh and His blood ( Jn 6:40) ?

No. Eating His flesh and blood is something you do BECAUSE you believe Jesus.

2) The Words of Jesus is the Life ( Jn 6:63), not the flesh?
Did you notice " Flesh profits nothing"?

Yes. I also noticed that He said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." These words included that part about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

3) Could you conduct any Medial Lab Test of the residue of the Lord Supper on your teeth or lips ?
If you believe that they are turned to he flesh and blood by any mysterious means, why don't you test it and confirm it? If you proved it, you will be ADORED throughout the world ( of paganism!) You will become very much famous and rich! Try it.

I don't think the chemistry of the communion elements changes. Only the substance. The body of Christ becomes bread and the blood of Christ becomes wine. Sort of like Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. It looked like salt, tasted like salt (NaCl), but it was also Lot's wife. Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.

But I want to tell you even RCC is not certain about the Accidents remain the same etc. ( They may be changing their theory from time to time).

4) Do you know OT prohibited Eating Blood strictly? Read Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 15:23, 12:23-25. God prohibited Eating of whatsoever blood. Do you think Jesus ignored it?

Yes, I've read those passages. I've also read Matthew 26: 27-28: "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many . . . ." Again, I have to wonder why Jesus would suggest such an unlawful practice if He were not meaning what He said.

5) Was the Blood of Jesus shed for the people to eat ? or offered to God as Sin Offering?

The latter.

 

[Eric B]

You misunderstand the Bible, John 6:63 records Christ as saying ...The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...

So I ask you Eliyahu, what words was it that Christ had just preached about in the synagogue? I'll answer for you ,b/c I can't stand the suspense...

What words? That you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. So we can't just say, "Well, the words themselves are all we need;" because if the words alone are all we take, we're disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that Eliyahu?
-

Well, that right there would tell us that it is not "literal". The "Spirit" is always contrasted with "the letter"and "the flesh".

I don't think the chemistry of the communion elements changes. Only the substance. The body of Christ becomes bread and the blood of Christ becomes wine. Sort of like Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. It looked like salt, tasted like salt (NaCl), but it was also Lot's wife. Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.

So that means then that the flesh and blood of Christ turn into bread and wine, and basically displace the bread and wine that's already there, making it look like a continuity of the same substances with no change?

Well, that's quite a reversal!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Do you have the Nail Scars on your hand?

Tell me Yes or No! after reading this:


Galatians 2:
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.


Were you Crucified ?or not Crucified?

I really hate to ignore you, but there's other's that can debate the issues better than you. You're silly, make no sense and I've never taken you seriously anyway, so I might as well put you on the ignore list.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

I really hate to ignore you, but there's other's that can debate the issues better than you. You're silly, make no sense and I've never taken you seriously anyway, so I might as well put you on the ignore list.
-

You cannot answer my question and therefore what you could say is just pouring out " Silly", right? Is that the way of the people who are drinking Human Blood? This is why RCC and Pro-RCC need to be born again by Holy Spirit.

Now back to your point, what you said about is the same as what Zenas said.

I would repeat the same question on it.

"The Words that I SPEAK to you, they are spirit, and they are life"

He didn't say Spoke and this indicates the Divine Present Tense. In other words, it applies to All of His Words thru the ages.

But if you want to claim that it is talking about only the Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood, I would ask this question:

1) All the other Words of Jesus than Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood are not Spirit, and they are not life, is this what you believe and claim?

2) You believe the Truth is Catholic ( Universally applicable).
Then how is the Robber at the Cross?
Did the Robber drink the Blood of Jesus?
Didn't he go to th Paradise and have the Eternal Life, without eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus?
Why is it not applicable to the Robber?

What about the Believers during OT times? Couldn' t they have the eternal life because they didn't eat the Flesh and Blood?

You are not holding on the CATHOLIC Truth, right?

 

[Eliyahu]

Zenas,

You brought some plausible arguments plus some correct answers.

Quote:
Could you understand from the above post that:

1) Believing Jesus Christ is eating HIs flesh and His blood ( Jn 6:40) ?
No. Eating His flesh and blood is something you do BECAUSE you believe Jesus.

You have a big misunderstanding here.
I will post another one showing how much the Eternal Life is related to Believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior, not to eating human flesh and blood of Jesus.
If your faith is not based on Believing in Jesus, you will encounter a tremendous contradiction.

There are people who didn't eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus but were saved.
Did the Robber at the Cross eat the flesh of Jesus and drink the blood of Jesus?

Quote:
2) The Words of Jesus is the Life ( Jn 6:63), not the flesh?
Did you notice " Flesh profits nothing"?

Yes. I also noticed that He said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." These words included that part about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

No, the tense here is Lalo ( Present) though there is a variance of minor texts while majority states the present tense. Another question arise this way. Are the other Words of Jesus neither spirit, nor life?
You may say that they are, but Jesus indicates here the Words about eating flesh. Then I would ask about the Robber at the Cross and the OT believers,
Read the chapter 11 of Hebrews talking about the Faith of the great believers like Moses, Abraham, Noah, and so on. Didn't they have the Eternal Life? by What? by eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood? or by Faith?

Do you need another explanation?

Quote:
3) Could you conduct any Medical Lab Test of the residue of the Lord Supper on your teeth or lips ?
If you believe that they are turned to he flesh and blood by any mysterious means, why don't you test it and confirm it? If you proved it, you will be ADORED throughout the world ( of paganism!) You will become very much famous and rich! Try it.
Zenas : I don't think the chemistry of the communion elements changes. Only the substance. The body of Christ becomes bread and the blood of Christ becomes wine. Sort of like Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. It looked like salt, tasted like salt (NaCl), but it was also Lot's wife. Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.

If you confess that you eat the Bread and drink Wine, then you don't believe that you are eating the Flesh and drink the Blood.

You are like believing in Nirvanah of Buddhism which tells that man become a bird and sometimes later a bird become a cow. In such philosophy the people may eat their own ancestor when they eat the pork meat.
Such philosophy may be in your theory.

Again in the moment when you drink the Cup, you believe that you are drinking Wine made from Blood, not the Blood of Jesus, which is totally different theory than Transubstantiation.

Quote:
But I want to tell you even RCC is not certain about the Accidents remain the same etc. ( They may be changing their theory from time to time).

4) Do you know OT prohibited Eating Blood strictly? Read Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 15:23, 12:23-25. God prohibited Eating of whatsoever blood. Do you think Jesus ignored it?

Yes, I've read those passages. I've also read Matthew 26: 27-28: "Drink from it all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many . . . ." Again, I have to wonder why Jesus would suggest such an unlawful practice if He were not meaning what He said.

Jesus didn't suggest such unlawful practice of drinking Blood at all. What Jesus suggested was that we should reckon the Wine as Blood in commemoration of His Death and Shedding Blood at the Cross next day.

His BLood is shed for Many ( not to drink but to be shown to God as a Redemption for the sins of the Adam's race). Many people misunderstand this and you are one of them, sadly.

Quote:
5) Was the Blood of Jesus shed for the people to eat ? or offered to God as Sin Offering?
The latter.

You know the right answer.
The Blood was shed for God to see, not for the people to eat, but eventually it was shed for the people because His Blood witness Remission of our Sins.
Therefore Eating Blood was not imaginable at all according to the Bible at that time. Nobody needed such explanation at that time.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Well, that right there would tell us that it is not "literal". The "Spirit" is always contrasted with "the letter"and "the flesh".

And if you remember correctly Eric, Jesus is the Word made Flesh, not the Word made word. That is why He established sacraments like the Eucharist and Baptism. We humans are not just disembodied intellects and ‘spirits’. We need grace through physical and not just verbal means. Hence in John 6 the impression Christ left was a physical eating or “gnawing” in the Greek, of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Throughout Scripture Christ spoke mainly in parables, and always explained Himself to His disciples in private. Christ does the same in John 6, only He asks if they’re leaving too, no explanation, b/c there was no need of any. Christ spoke the truth and the truth was what it is and it offended some that they left over this graphic teaching.

During the Last Supper, Christ pronounced that “This is my Body. This is my Blood.” And later the Jewish minds of the apostles couldn’t and didn’t fail to connect the Bread and that Wine with the sacrificial body and blood of the Passover, with Christ’s own sacrifice on the Cross and with His teaching in John 6.

Thus the unbroken teaching of the Apostles and their disciples to whom Jesus states: He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me was that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol of Christ’s teaching, but quite literally, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Indeed, so unquestioned was this apostolic teaching that no controversy about it came up for nearly a thousand years.
-

 

[Eric B]

And if you remember correctly Eric, Jesus is the Word made Flesh, not the Word made word. That is why He established sacraments like the Eucharist and Baptism. We humans are not just disembodied intellects and ‘spirits’. We need grace through physical and not just verbal means. Hence in John 6 the impression Christ left was a physical eating or “gnawing” in the Greek, of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Yes, so Christ gives us a physical symbol of His flesh and blood. Again, no reason to make anything else of it.

Throughout Scripture Christ spoke mainly in parables, and always explained Himself to His disciples in private. Christ does the same in John 6, only He asks if they’re leaving too, no explanation, b/c there was no need of any. Christ spoke the truth and the truth was what it is and it offended some that they left over this graphic teaching.

During the Last Supper, Christ pronounced that “This is my Body. This is my Blood.” And later the Jewish minds of the apostles couldn’t and didn’t fail to connect the Bread and that Wine with the sacrificial body and blood of the Passover, with Christ’s own sacrifice on the Cross and with His teaching in John 6.

So yes; they, looking at everything through the letter, or the eyes of the flesh; misunderstood it and got offended, where others making the same mistake, instead of being offended simply made a mystical doctrine out of it.

Thus the unbroken teaching of the Apostles and their disciples to whom Jesus states: He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me was that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol of Christ’s teaching, but quite literally, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Indeed, so unquestioned was this apostolic teaching that no controversy about it came up for nearly a thousand years.
-

Again, it was a spiritual metaphor, and was not interpreted as anything more in the beginning, (so there was nothing to question); yet later leaders gradually began interpreting it as some change during the prayer.

and even still, you all cannot seem to agree whether the bread and wine become flesh and blood, were always flesh and blood, are indwelled by flesh and blood, or, now, are displaced by flesh and blood that looks like bread and wine.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am not sure but it seems to me that Catholic Dictionary has changed its explanation on Transubstantiation. Somebody on this board may have informed them of its own contradiction and problems there.

Previously I brought the following statements from this address:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

wherefore we may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."





So, previously they said the Accidents ( may be identical with Substance in chemistry) remain the Same.

This statement may have been removed since March this year.

In such case, it is not unusual as RCC change their doctrines from time to time in order to suit their needs and environment.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Sorry it's taken awhile to respond, but here goes...)

Plain meaning with your a priori interpretation back-read into it through your interpretation of the ECF's (and later ECF's interpretation of the earlier ones).

Except that my interpretation and that of the ECF’s derive from the plain, grammatical meaning (as I will demonstrate below). I no longer have to employ the same a priori assumptions you have used to distort the plain meaning in support of a historically novel Zwinglian memorialism like I used to do when I was a convinced Southern Baptist.

And, by the way, my interpretation of the ECFs is really no different from that of respected church historians such as JND Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan. In other words, I don’t have to resort to some…(ahem)…creative revisionism in which the ECFs are read to support an imaginary memorialist biblical interpretation which only (allegedly) became gradually corrupted into the realist position by that rascally ‘institutional’ Church.

Then, the additional point in the cycle you use is that yours is older.

Not only is mine “older”, but there is no historical record of anyone who was otherwise orthodox holding your position until very late in church history unless: (1) you want to try to misread the ECFs to support Zwinglianism, (but of course, that would merely be yet more eisegesis); or (2) you want to include Gnostic heretics among the otherwise orthodox catholic Christians.

But again; we can clearly see this doctrine developing as more and more fathers added concepts, like the elements "changing" at the prayer.

But is the word, “changing”, a distortion of the Eucharistic teaching, or is it implied in the Biblical doctrine and is therefore a legitimate ‘development’? (In other words, is it the addition of a truly novel concept, or the clarification on an implied one?) You seem to make a big deal about the absence of the word “change” in either the Bible or Ignatius, but if there was not a “change” involved (ie, in the bread and wine also becoming the Body and Blood of Christ at consecration) then EVERY loaf of bread and EVERY cup of wine in a non-liturgical setting would already be the Body and Blood of Christ, which no one has ever taught to my knowledge. Paul teaches that it’s bread they were breaking (in the service) and the cup they were blessing (also in the Communion service) that is the communion of (or participation) of the Body and Blood of Christ; he doesn’t teach that all bread and wine everywhere (outside of the Eucharist) is the Body and Blood. The “change” from ordinary bread and wine to that which is also the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is therefore implied from the realist perspective, a perspective that otherwise derives from and is consistent with the actual text (as will be shown below).

(continued)