Cyber you’re mixing 2 conversations here. Jesus never said this is my body and blood in John 6. The connection of John 6 to the Lord’s supper is a scriptural interpretation and in fact John never even records those words, this is my body and this is my blood at the last supper. Let’s not confuse the topic of the thread with the question at hand.God is extremely forgiving of people who commit a sin but honestly believe that they are doing good. But it’s still a sin, and they will have to make some kind of penance for it.
However, this particular question is among those that confuses me the most. Jesus said, “This is my body”, and “This is my blood”. Some of His disciples were surprised at this and asked Him to clarify. He said it again. He told them that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Some of them found this so disturbing that they got up and left. But still He repeated the same thing. When Jesus told a parable, He would then tell His disciples what it meant. When He said something figurative, He would explain it to His disciples. But when He meant something literally, He would repeat it no matter how many times someone asked for clarification. This pattern is well established in the Gospels. Not to mention that the Greek word used doesn’t literally translate to “eat”, it translates to “gnaw”. Sounds pretty specific to me.
He is the Bread of Life, foreshadowed many times in the OT, the Manna from Heaven. He is the Pascal Lamb, sacrificed and consumed. God was very specific that the Passover lamb had to be free of blemishes, with no broken bones. The Gospel writers were careful to point out that the Romans intended to break His legs, but they didn’t.
The parallels are complete, and Jesus’ own words are as specific as human language is capable. I don’t understand what the debate is about. Even Martin Luther was devoted to the Eucharist. It wasn’t until later groups tried to distance themselves from Catholicism that the question even came up.
PJN if someone grabs a host and says this is Jesus and then proceeds to worship the host itself then that’s idoltry. Remember GOD took up physical presence in the Temple when the smoke filled it. GOD didn’t become the Temple and the Jews didn’t in turn worship the Temple itself. They considered the Temple a holy place of worship but they didn’t worship the physical stones and marble that made it up. Likewise Jesus doesn’t become the bread making it something that should be worshipped. HIS presence is purely for spiritual feeding and this can be seen in the Didache. Hope this helps.“To those that much has been given, much will be demanded.” All Christians are familiar with the Gospel message. Let me put it this way, God is all merciful, and God is all just. So if the real presence is false, then we are kneeling and worshipping a piece of bread. If God is anything like he sounds throughout all of scripture and tradition, then I am pretty sure he would damn them all to hell. This isn’t one of those small mistake kind of things. This is huge. If the real presence is false, then it is idolotry. One can not say maybe they did not know better. It is pretty clear cut. We are all familiar with the incident with the Golden Calf. Well, I would wager God would be even more mad now, if the real presence was false. I would like to hear more from those who do not believe in the real presence. I would like their opinion on the matter.
I think that a clarification of the truth about the Eucharist is perfectly appropriate here, since it challenges the very idea of it being idolatry. As for the paraphrasing of scripture, I had no idea that so many people refused to see the very obvious connection between the passages. Again, this is a relatively new phenomenon, resulting from nothing but a hatred for Catholicism. Do those who believe that devotion to the Eucharist is idolatry also believe that Catholics are cannibals? Because I’ve heard that one too.Cyber you’re mixing 2 conversations here. Jesus never said this is my body and blood in John 6. The connection of John 6 to the Lord’s supper is a scriptural interpretation and in fact John never even records those words, this is my body and this is my blood at the last supper. Let’s not confuse the topic of the thread with the question at hand.
Catholics misinterpret 1 Cor 10-11 everytime.**Paul settled this question for me once and for all many years ago, not to mention the early church fathers faith in the real presence of the Consecrated Host.
1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry.
15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; **
No just miss guided.IDo those who believe that devotion to the Eucharist is idolatry also believe that Catholics are cannibals? Because I’ve heard that one too.
I think not.Catholics misinterpret 1 Cor 10-11 everytime.
Paul was instructing the Corinthians who ate a “love feast” or regular meal as a Lords Supper were being exclusionary and lacked charity. Paul was instructing them that they needed to share because the folks who did not have any were part of Christ body and needed to be discerned as such.
1 Corinthians 10:14-33
14Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
This doesn’t sound like admonishing those who don’t share. It sounds like just what it is, a warning not to get involved in clearly pagan practices. Read the whole thing, people, not just the convenient parts.31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
CJ you are the one that conbined the two.Chapters 10 and 11 of 1 Corinthians are completely different topics. The latter half of 11 does indeed deal with a lack of charity, but 10 does not. 10 is a warning against mixing Christian practices with pagan ones.
Clear enough now?
Did I now? Perhaps you could remind me of the passages that I quoted? I would argue that it was you who combined them, referring to Catholic misinterpretation of chapters 10-11. I agreed with your understanding of chapter 11, but sought to correct your statement including chapter 10 into the mix.CJ you are the one that conbined the two.
I take exception to this aguement of intent and I point you to the Book of Exodus, chapter 32:Worshipping before wood or stone would not in itself be idolatrous. What would be idolatrous is the belief that there was either no objective referent which existed independently of that wood or stone, or, alternatively, that the supposedly objective referent had a nature very dissimilar to that of the actually existing God.
HiThis is an excellent question you posed here. All the Catholic faith saints were not afraid to proclaim the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And so do I. In fact they went to their deaths believing this doctrine instituted by Jesus Christ himself at the last supper.
Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever Amen
**Oh really Hisalone, so where do you get your infallible instruction on this text? You are not being truthful to the text only partly truth, because Paul is describing both the sacrificial meal of the body and blood of the Lord and the Agape meal which is also called a love feast.Catholics misinterpret 1 Cor 10-11 everytime.
Paul was instructing the Corinthians who ate a “love feast” or regular meal as a Lords Supper were being exclusionary and lacked charity. Paul was instructing them that they needed to share because the folks who did not have any were part of Christ body and needed to be discerned as such.
Paul did not invent it, did you read in the 1Cor.11:23… that Paul is handing on what was handed to him from Jesus.Hi
I think Jesus did not believe in the Eucharist nor did Mary; it is in my opinion invention of Paul.
Thanks
Hisalone you are not wrong, Paul is describing an agape meal but also the Consecrated bread and cup of blessing being the body and blood of the Lord. Paul is addressing converted Jews and converted Gentiles, who are now going to be baptised christians, and sharing a love feast together. Now the Last Supper sacrafice meal was not shared with the unbaptised, These candidates for baptism only heard the word of God. These were not recieved into full communion until after their baptism. maybe this cleared scripture may make more sense to you.
Here is St. Jude supporting St. Paul about being uncharitabel during the love feast or agape meal. Just a note, remember the Christian Jews were just learning how to associate with the Gentile converts of St. Paul. What we are witnessing here is both Gentile and Jew now Christian, coming together to eat a love feast or agape meal together.
11 Woe to them! They followed the way of Cain, abandoned themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 9
12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, 10 as they carouse fearlessly and look after themselves. They are waterless clouds blown about by winds, fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead and uprooted.
13 They are like wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameless deeds, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.
**This agape or love feast, comes from the full Jewish meal chaburah, this did not translate well with the Corinthians behavior, because the chaburah was a solemn meal, this is why later by the end of the first century we find the Eucharist or Last supper seperated from the love feast or agape meal. Now remember all attended the scriptural readings, but the "Breaking of Bread was reserved for the “Christian home” not for the unbaptised.Catholics misinterpret 1 Cor 10-11 everytime.
Paul was instructing the Corinthians who ate a “love feast” or regular meal as a Lords Supper were being exclusionary and lacked charity. Paul was instructing them that they needed to share because the folks who did not have any were part of Christ body and needed to be discerned as such.
Stop with this Jesus and Paul taught differently already.Hi
I think Jesus did not believe in the Eucharist nor did Mary; it is in my opinion invention of Paul.
Thanks
READ in context chapter 10 address eating food offered to idols chapter 11 addresses selfish practice in agape meals. Do not read more into the text than was their afnd read and ponder on the text not on some commentary.**Oh really Hisalone, so where do you get your infallible instruction on this text? You are not being truthful to the text only partly truth, because Paul is describing both the sacrificial meal of the body and blood of the Lord and the Agape meal which is also called a love feast.
Gabriel I have broken the text down very simply so even a child could understand it. Do not bring your confussion into a very straightfoward script. Paul is addressing the Corinthian church and thier practice of not sharing in the sacrifical meal.**
No.1 yes in this early stage of the church, mainly jewish customs, conducted an agape meal, with the breaking of bread and the liturgy of the word. It was not just a meal. I dont get your interpretation other than trying to fit 20th century thought into the text.
It is a very straight foward text if you read it in context and dont bring into false presuppositions.
No.2 Why is it that non Catholics do not believe in infalliblility some how manage to always come up describing ancient text infallibly? I get this all the time from non catholics.
Again read the text. You are trying to set up a straw man arguement.
No3. What is it that Paul was talking about when he describes this meal as being the bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? The cup of blessing that we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? What about in verse 18… where Paul is comparing this meal as you say to a sacrafice, then in verse 21 Paul states "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?
You are reverting back to Chapter 10 which is about eating food offered to idols. CONTEXT!CONTEXT!CONTEXT!
No.4 does this sound like an agape meal, if you eat a meal you provoke the Lord to jealous anger? I never heard of the agape meal to do such a thing, have you? or is Paul talking about something other?
No.5 1 Cor.11:17-30 , describes about the abuse at Corinth, because part of their day of the Lord celebration, One part was the liturgy of the Word, 2nd part was the breaking of bread, verse 23 For I recieved from the Lord what I also handed on to you,…verse 24 “This is my body that is for you”… “This cup , after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood”.
These formulas were not part of the agape meal.
Is that derived from the text? From the TEXT they are one and the same.
Now to participate in this Liturgy of the body and blood of the Lord, was not for everybody like the agape meal. This Eucharistic rememberance of the sacrafice of the Lord, was only for the baptised Christians who already had a faith in the true presence. This cup of blessing of the blood of the Lord and body of Jesus was not given to unbelievers, only the liturgy of the word of God and the agape meal was shared to all new comers and faithful alike.
CONTEXT!CONTEXT!CONTEXT!
you are only giving to me what you have heard rather than chew on gnaw on study the word of God which is Christ. The word became flesh and dwelt amoung us. Feed on that flesh, His word.
No 6. verse 27 “Therfore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord”. Now since when did a curse get proclaimed from an agape meal, Love feast? verse 29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
So I ask you since when does anyone get sick or die from eating a Love feast or the agape meal, that has a curse of judgement attached to it?
By not discerning the Body of Christ which is all members of Christ Church
1 Corinthians 10-11 is describing both the agape meal and the Eucharist sacrafice, or the Lords supper, which has a curse attached to it. Now remember Paul knows not to give the body and blood of the Lord to any one who is not discerning of the body of Jesus Christ, these are accursed with sickness and death.
We cant pick and chose what we want out of scripture to fit our own ideologies, we must discern them dilegently in their full context first, then come away enlightened for today. Not the other way around.
Now that I have revealed a 2000 year old teaching to you, please reread chapters 10 and 11 from a first century perspective.