"This is my flesh"

[Chemnitz]

And then we have people who claim to be a new creation in Christ but refuse to submit themselves to lab tests to prove it. Hypocracy abounds! Don't you love people who believe their own rules of proof do not apply to themselves?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
Jesus also said he is the Vine, and called His followers branches. He called Himself the door.

Good points !

Some people who claim Transubstantiation may get angry if we don't bring the fertilizer to Him, the True Vine !

 

[Eric B]

"New Creation in Christ" refers to a spiritual change in the heart, not an actual change in the substance of our bodies, so that analogy doesn't fit. Bread and Wine do not have hearts that can be changes spiritually.

 

[KellyWhite]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Even Catholic doesn't believe Transubstantiation because they talk about External Accidents separately. People are cheated!

Could you explain?

Catholics definitely believe in transubstantiation and the presence of Jesus Christ. During the Liturgy of the Eucharist the bread and wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Chirst.

This concept is difficult for most Baptists to understand because a "leap of faith" in the teaching of Jesus Christ is required.

 

[BobRyan]

The New Birth is NOT a claim of the form "People turn into ELEPHANTS at the New Birth EVEN though they still APPEAR as humans".

Hopefully that part is "clear".

And yet the wild claims of the RCC amount to idol worship when we consider that the nonRC doctrinal view is correct.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The memorial service of Luke 22 is shown "Again" to be a memorial in 1Cor 11. How much more "obvious" can this be -- this is symbolism.

It is a "memorial" not a "sacrifice" -- it is a memorial OF a sacrifice!

RC Eucharist is “idolatry” (if non-Catholics are right) according to the RCC.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

Indeed if they simply do this "IN REMEMBERANCE" of the sacrifice of Christ INSTEAD of as the CONTINUED sacrifice - then for Centuries the RCC has duped mankind to worship A PIECE OF BREAD as God” </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[KellyWhite]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gekko:
actual body and blood of Jesus with the bread and wine? actual flesh of Christ?

I always thought that Christ was sacrificed already... so why have the eucharist to do it again? and again? and again? and again?

that's essentially what it's doing... real flesh and blood of Christ. then taking that in rememberance of Him.

besides... that'd be cannibalism. no?

That's right!

The people who claim that the Bread is changed to the Flesh and Wine to Blood physically and then refuse the testing by Lab cowardly, saying that our belief cannot be tested at the Laboratory are frankly admitting that what they claim and insist are only the matter of faith without the actual and physical change of the sunbstances , and admitting that Transubstantiation is wrong!

They themselves know well that they are telling lies !
They are quite frank at least in that impasse. </font>[/QUOTE]This may be a difficult analogy to follow but give it a try.

Why do you believe the teachings of the Bible and the exitence of Jesus Christ? You weren't there to witness any of it. How do you know any of it true? Can you prove it?

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Claudia,

You made good points!

Claudia didn't make good points neither did Bob they both presumed LS was talking about the RC. I don't think he was. Note: RCC call their view of communion "Transubstantiation" we're discussing Real Presence. Ok. Got it. Or should I say it more s-l-o-w-l-y.

 

[Eliyahu]

Nate, I didn't read thru your article, but at a glimpse I think you need a lot of re-inforcement by acquiring the assistance from Holy Spirit

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by nate:
I believe with the Fathers, Early Church, Scripture...I affirm the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist.

Here is my article on the subject: Eucharist

(Note: It needs work

)

I agree that apostolic tradition from the time of Christ has affirmed the Real Presence of Christ.

In our modernist culture, spiritual things are often not considered real but I consider that a false statement. I don't know if I would affirm the doctrine of the Real Presence, I do know that what happens at communion is a spiritually real and intimate encounter with the presence of my Lord through the elements of the eucharist/communion/Lord's supper.

Great stuff nate.

 

[Jacob Dahlen]

SOURCE: THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE
John 6:53-58
the Jesus said to them "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
"Whoever eats My flesh and drink My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
"For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
"As the lining Father sent Me, and I live becouse of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live becouse of Me."
"This is the bread wich came down from heavan - not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
6:53 Christ's body was crucified and His blood shed on the Cross. We receive the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by comming to Him in faith(.v35), and by communion with Him: we eat His flesh and drink His blood. These words refer directly to the Eurcharist, the mystery of Christ our life, we must partake of His eucharistic flesh and blood. St. John Chrysostom(Homily 47:7) teaches we must not understand the sacrament carnally, that is, according to the laws of physical nature, but spiritually (v.63), perceiving a true but mystical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
6:54,55 St. Hilary of Poitier writes, "What we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us would be foolish and impious were we not tought by His very words...There is no room left for doubt about the reality of His flesh and blood, becouse we have both the witness of His words and our own faith. Thus, when we eat and drink these elemonts we are in Christ and Christ is in us" (On the Trinity, Book VIII, 14).
This reality, however, is a profound mystery of faith and drace. Orthodox theology teaches that in the Eucharist we partake not simply of the physical/material, but of the deified and glorified Body and Blood of Christ wich gives resurrection life.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by KellyWhite:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Even Catholic doesn't believe Transubstantiation because they talk about External Accidents separately. People are cheated!

Could you explain?

Catholics definitely believe in transubstantiation and the presence of Jesus Christ. During the Liturgy of the Eucharist the bread and wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Chirst.

This concept is difficult for most Baptists to understand because a "leap of faith" in the teaching of Jesus Christ is required. </font>[/QUOTE]It requires more than a leap of faith. It requires for the Scriptures to be broken.

Commands to not consume blood can be found in Gen. 9:4; Lev. 7:26-27; 17:10,12-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:15-16,23; 1 Sam. 14:32-34; Ezek. 32:25; and yes, this law still holds in the time after Christ’s death: Acts 15:28-29.

And His body is not to see corruption (Ps. 16:10), and that includes any ride through the digestive tract, not to mention its inevitable final journey to the sewage treatment plant or septic tank via your toilet.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. The RC view relies heavily on the words of Christ BEFORE His sacrifice (John 6, and Luke 22:20).

#2. In BOTH instances nobody eats or drinks the blood of Christ – He is alive and right before them – no opening up of His veins!

#3. In Luke 22 Christ speak of the future when His blood WILL be shed and said "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.– he shows explicitly that it “represents” a future reality when His blood WILL be poured out at Calvary.

"This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance -- Declaring this to be a memorial of a FUTURE event when He would be killed on the cross!

Christ was not killed at the last supper! (obviously!) That proves “symbolism” then and there!

#4. In 1Cor 11:22-26 the entire ceremony is stated as a memorial service “Do this in REMEMBERANCE” of Me

#5. In John 6 the “faithLESS” disciples make the “too literal” cannibalistic argument – and the RCC takes the side of the FaithLESS group in John 6!

#6. In John 6 Christ says “Literal flesh and blood is WORTHLESS it is my WORDS that have spirit and life” – by contrast to the complaint of the faithLESS disciples who can only think about cannibalism.

#7. In Heb 10 we find the explicit argument that Christ’s sacrifice is complete “ONCE for ALL TIME” and that instead of “continual sacrifice” we have “AN END to ALL sacrifice”.

#8. In Luke 22 Christ said of that Passover cup – (that HE calls “The fruit of the vine”) that He would drink of that same cup AGAIN with us in heaven. The sacrifices is LONG ended after the cross and certainly ended in heaven itself!


But man's tradition has dictated that we "ignore these details" in God's Word and believe the argument about "confecting God" that the RCC would have us believe.

Choose you this day whom you will serve.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Even the RCC admits that it's view of "confecting God" and "continual sacrifice" in direct contradiction to the ONCE FOR ALL time sacrifice of Christ in Heb 10 that "puts a STOP to ALL sacrifice" -- is in fact idol worship IF its claims to confect God are in error.

RC Eucharist is “idolatry” (if non-Catholics are right) according to the RCC - if it's claims to "confect God" are in fact error.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Eliyahu]

Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this , that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood

Catholic don't believe that the substances are transformed to another completely, but the accidents remain the same!