All have sinned.. including Mary.

[NDfan]

So the ECF had no knowledge whatsoever of the seder meal , nor did any of the church leaders for the next 2,000 years?

This is taking the usual path:

1. We have to accept your undrestanding of a seder meal.
2. we have to agree to ignore any part of Scripture that disagrees with you thesis AND
3. We have to accept you personal interpretation of those scripture verses you claim are relevant

It’s not understanding my interpretation of the seder meal. It’s understanding the seder meal itself. Scripture doesn’t disagree with anything regarding the seder meal. Matter of fact scripture supports it 100%. And I’m not asking you to accept anything from me. I’m merely giving you an explanation. The problem is you have an issue with accepting something that can refute RCC teachings so you revert back to the usual defense tactics.

With regard to the ECFs and the seder meal? I’m sure many of them did know and understand it. I’m also sure that over the next few thousand years others knew as well. Does that mean they really understood? Or are we misunderstanding them?

 

[NDfan]

“…This is the new covenant in my wine…” NOPE

You can’t really be this naive can you?? Let me state again so you can understand. The 3rd cup of redemption was understood to symbolize the blood of the Lambs. So when Jesus referred to the cup as the new covenant in HIS blood, the Apostles understood completely what HE was doing. They were no longer honoring the blood of the passover lambs from the Exodus. They were to now honor Jesus blood. Just as the cup of redemption was understood to symbolize the blood of these lambs, the Jews never thought they were actually drinking blood. Yet the Jews referred to this cup as the blood of the Lambs of the passover. Red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood. This is why in the early church we see those who mixed red wine with water when partaking in the Lord’s supper. Repeating this same tradition.

 

[NDfan]

The point I was making about the ECF’s is that you have to take a longer and more dangerous leap to make your point as a Protestant on many issues that separate us. Not to mention some of the fancy footwork you have to do with scripture. This is true for Church Authority, the Eucharist, the sacrament of confession, and so on.

Elvis I disagree brother. What leaps do I have to make specifically?

---

My point is not to make the ECF’s infallible because many of them weren’t speaking infallibly. I am also pointing out the fact that the Church taught this for centuries before the Protestant Revolution.

---

Actually that’s not true. We hardly see anything regarding Mary in the first few centuries other then when she is mentioned with Christ. It’s not until the 4th and 5th centuries that these beliefs became more prominent. No early church father from the 1st or 2nd century comments on Mary’s sinless nature. If they do then show it to me. I’d genuinely be interested in reading it.

One big mistake Protestants make when alluding to the historicity of Catholic dogmas is when the dogma is pronounced. They assume that this is a new belief. On the contrary, a Dogma or doctrine is something that has already been believed and taught but is pronounced when it is brought into question.

---

I understand that. But something that Protestants make a good point of is that the RCC herself admits that many dogmas were created because they feel they understand scripture better. So not everything is as old as you may think.

I guess if you don’t accept the Authority that Jesus gave to his Church (Matt. 18:15-19, Matt. 28:18-20, John 16:13-15), you will have a hard time with Marian Doctrines, the Eucharist, Confession and the rest.

---

I don’t think Jesus gave the authority to the church like you imply. This authority is derived from interpretations of scripture and more specifically some of the ones quoted above. But then the RCC flat out says that the Bible is subordinate to the church. How can you derive authority from a subordinate? Having problems with authority is different from scriptural interpretations. I don’t believe that the RCC was ever given the final authority to interpret scripture.

Remember that it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the New Testament.

---

I must say that I’m glad we can disagree without hurling uncharitable insults.

The Catholic church did preserve the Bible throughout the ages. But I don’t think this makes them the ultimate authority on interpretations. As far as insults I hate that as well. I appreciate the feedback you provide and always look forward to good natured discussion with you:thumbsup:

PEACE

 

[Lapell]

What is vitally important in studying Scripture is the context. The context of the wine and wineskins has nothing to do with Mary but on the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God was something totally new and different than what preceded it.

How can you tell that it could not have ALSO to do with Mary and the Word becoming flesh? God and sin just can’t go together…

 

[estesbob]

The Catholic church did preserve the Bible throughout the ages. But I don’t think this makes them the ultimate authority on interpretations. As far as insults I hate that as well. I appreciate the feedback you provide and always look forward to good natured discussion with you:thumbsup:

PEACE

But it appears you believe you are. Step back a moment and vlook at this from our point of view -you dismiss the Real Presence becuase you took a class that taught you what the Seder meal is all about and that refutes all who went before you.

You have embraced a philosophy where “truth” is whatever one want to make it.

 

[Lapell]

I am absolutely not denying the essential meaning of the passage! The connection with Mary, her Immaculate Conception and the virginal birth of Jesus is just a corollary that certainly helps me accept the dogma on Mary’s Immaculate Conception. That’s all there is to it…

 

[peary]

The church teaches that Elizabeth conveived through the power of the Holy Spirit. But this is false because we know that Zechariah lost his speach due to his doubt that he would get Elizabeth pregnant. It’s the same thing for Abraham. Sarah was barren and when GOD told Abraham she would have a boy, Sarah laughed in the shelter. But that doesn’t mean Sarah conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Church has NEVER taught that Elizabeth conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church teaches that CHRIST was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and no one else.

 

[justasking4]

How can you tell that it could not have ALSO to do with Mary and the Word becoming flesh?

Read the passage. Is there any mention of “Mary and the Word becoming flesh”?

God and sin just can’t go together…

If thats the case how Jesus Who was God live among sinful men?

 

[NDfan]

The Church has NEVER taught that Elizabeth conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church teaches that CHRIST was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and no one else.

Thanks peary. I didn’t think so. Someone on the thread stated that and it blew me away.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

But it appears you believe you are. Step back a moment and vlook at this from our point of view -you dismiss the Real Presence becuase you took a class that taught you what the Seder meal is all about and that refutes all who went before you.

You have embraced a philosophy where “truth” is whatever one want to make it.

Estes that’s not true. I didn’t take a class and then decide to switch beliefs. I never believed in the real presence for various reasons. Studying the seder meal and the afikomen confirmed what Christ was doing that night. I would suggest that you read Christ in the passover. Also if you ever get a chance, attend one of the Jews for Jesus presentations on the seder meal. It’s very educational and eye opening. Not to refute the real presence but just to understand what Jesus was doing with the Apostles that night.

I’ve always believed in a spiritual presence. I don’t think the Priest turns the wafer into Jesus flesh and the wine into HIS blood. Chrysostom wrote this as well. If Jesus is present it’s in response to our faith in partaking in the meal. We’re derailing the thread

PEACE

 

[Zooey]

MrS I’m not confusing anything. Just because Jesus said this IS my body doesn’t mean literal body. Again if you understand the seder meal it makes more sense. Try understanding what the 3rd cup of redemption means. This was the same cup Jesus gave to the disciples after the seder meal was complete. Only the wine mixed with warm water SYMBOLIZED the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Jesus was now telling us it was HIS blood. HE doesn’t say I am turning this into my blood. He also doesn’t say this is a cup of my blood. He wanted the Apostles who were Jewish and understood what the 3rd cup meant to now see that it was Jesus blood that provided our redemption.

The problem is once the Gospel started to reach outside of Jerusalem non-Jewish church leaders who did not understand this rich Jewish tradition tried to apply their greek backgrounds in philosophy to the meaning of this IS my body.

Aso with respect to your above statement on authority, Chrysostom himself stated that the Priest had nothing to do with any change the Eucharist underwent. He stated it was the work of Jesus in response to Faith.

Oy vay!!
OK, Houston, we have a problem. A big choice here…

On one side: Jesus Christ, God become man. Who says, “This is”, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, here.

And over on the other side, there is our friend ND, who keeps quoting Bill Clinton: “It all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”.uch:

I don’t know about anybody else around here, but I am sticking with the Man with the nail-scarred hands. The Man who, as He was dying on a Roman cross, said: “Woman, behold your son”; and “Son, behold your mother”.

:dts: ND & Mr Bill will have to play in the sandbox at somebody else’s house.

 

[NDfan]

Oy vay!!
OK,Houston, we have a problem. A big choice here…

On one side: Jesus Christ, God become man. Who says, “This is”, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, here.

And over on the other side, there is our friend ND, who keeps quoting Bill Clinton: “It all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”

I don’t know about anybody else around here, but I am sticking with the Man with the nail-scarred hands. The Man who, as He was dying on a Roman cross, said: “Woman, behold your son”; and “Son, behold your mother”.

:dts: ND & Mr Bill will have to play in the sandbox at somebody else’s house.

You really like those icons Please don’t compare me to Bill Clinton. So because Jesus says this is my body you take HIM literally? Well then have you cut off your hands and gouged out your eyes:ehh: Jesus says if your hand has caused you to sin cut it off so only it goes to hell and spares the rest of the body. No ifs, ands, or buts as you say. Actually the Greek word he used means literally to chop off:bigyikes:

As far as defining "is’ and that whole mess you just simply miss the point.

And can you explain the meaning of women behold your son and son behold your mother? Did Jesus literally change the blood line of John so that Mary was his mother now? Be careful with these literal statements as you can fall off the cliff.

PEACE

 

[jediliz]

how did a discussion on Mary sinning (She NEVER sinned. God chose her before she was born to become his Son’s Mother.) turn into a discussion disputing the Catholic belief in the True Presence?

 

[HiggDo]

how did a discussion on Mary sinning (She NEVER sinned. God chose her before she was born to become his Son’s Mother.) turn into a discussion disputing the Catholic belief in the True Presence?

Life happens…

 

[MrS]

You can’t really be this naive can you?? Let me state again so you can understand. The 3rd cup of redemption was understood to symbolize the blood of the Lambs. So when Jesus referred to the cup as the new covenant in HIS blood, the Apostles understood completely what HE was doing. They were no longer honoring the blood of the passover lambs from the Exodus. They were to now honor Jesus blood. Just as the cup of redemption was understood to symbolize the blood of these lambs, the Jews never thought they were actually drinking blood. Yet the Jews referred to this cup as the blood of the Lambs of the passover. Red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood. This is why in the early church we see those who mixed red wine with water when partaking in the Lord’s supper. Repeating this same tradition.

You are boxing yourself in.

The New Covenant is not dependant on the old…it fulfills the old. Your faulty interpretation of that seder meal is keeping you in the Old Testament.

As for being naive, perhaps St Paul was naive… for it is he who says in the infallible Scriptures what the importance of the consecrated bread and wine really is. No condemnation would occur if it was simply your symbol.

As for John 6… you have also tried to ignore the very real words of Christ… “Truly, Truly,…” and “Amen, amen…”

These are oaths that what He is about to say is real, not misleading or up to an individual interpretation.

.

 

[estesbob]

Estes that’s not true. I didn’t take a class and then decide to switch beliefs. I never believed in the real presence for various reasons. Studying the seder meal and the afikomen confirmed what Christ was doing that night. I would suggest that you read Christ in the passover. Also if you ever get a chance, attend one of the Jews for Jesus presentations on the seder meal. It’s very educational and eye opening. Not to refute the real presence but just to understand what Jesus was doing with the Apostles that night.

I’ve always believed in a spiritual presence. I don’t think the Priest turns the wafer into Jesus flesh and the wine into HIS blood. Chrysostom wrote this as well. If Jesus is present it’s in response to our faith in partaking in the meal. We’re derailing the thread

PEACE

I beleive in the real presence-you do not. We both claim to be led by the Spirit. How do we resolve that?

BTW-one of my best friends is Jewish. I have been blessed to have celebrated the seder meal with his famiy many times.

 

[estesbob]

You are boxing yourself in.

The New Covenant is not dependant on the old…it fulfills the old. Your faulty interpretation of that seder meal is keeping you in the Old Testament.

As for being naive, perhaps St Paul was naive… for it is he who says in the infallible Scriptures what the importance of the consecrated bread and wine really is. No condemnation would occur if it was simply your symbol.

As for John 6… you have also tried to ignore the very real words of Christ… “Truly, Truly,…” and “Amen, amen…”

These are oaths that what He is about to say is real, not misleading or up to an individual interpretation.

.

And the Apostles said “This is a hard teaching” It looks like 2,000 years later it is still a hard teachng.

 

[brkn1]

You are boxing yourself in.

The New Covenant is not dependant on the old…it fulfills the old. Your faulty interpretation of that seder meal is keeping you in the Old Testament.

As for being naive, perhaps St Paul was naive… for it is he who says in the infallible Scriptures what the importance of the consecrated bread and wine really is. No condemnation would occur if it was simply your symbol.

As for John 6… you have also tried to ignore the very real words of Christ… “Truly, Truly,…” and “Amen, amen…”

These are oaths that what He is about to say is real, not misleading or up to an individual interpretation.

.

You are on the right track about oaths.
That is exactly what Jesus was doing as He took the cup and said: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20)
Jesus was declaring the oath of the New Testament with that cup of wine, which He earlier called the “fruit of the vine”.
Jesus also called Himself a Vine, but that was a figure of speech, as we all know. Jesus often used figures of speech to describe Himself or others.
The word “is” can also be used in a figure of speech, so to say it can only be used one way is a poor argument.

 

[honeysuckle]

MrS I’m not confusing anything. Just because Jesus said this IS my body doesn’t mean literal body. Again if you understand the seder meal it makes more sense. Try understanding what the 3rd cup of redemption means. This was the same cup Jesus gave to the disciples after the seder meal was complete. Only the wine mixed with warm water SYMBOLIZED the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Jesus was now telling us it was HIS blood. HE doesn’t say I am turning this into my blood. He also doesn’t say this is a cup of my blood. He wanted the Apostles who were Jewish and understood what the 3rd cup meant to now see that it was Jesus blood that provided our redemption.

The problem is once the Gospel started to reach outside of Jerusalem non-Jewish church leaders who did not understand this rich Jewish tradition tried to apply their greek backgrounds in philosophy to the meaning of this IS my body.

Aso with respect to your above statement on authority, Chrysostom himself stated that the Priest had nothing to do with any change the Eucharist underwent. He stated it was the work of Jesus in response to Faith.

The Seder is nothing whatsoever like the Eucharist because as you correctly point out, it is an Old Testament Type, and communicates through symbol. The Seder is not *purely *a symbol, but a Type. Old Testament Types are fulfilled by New Testatment realities.

I would say rather than carry the symbolic meaning of the Seder into the New Covenant, the Eucharist fulfills the Seder Type with the body and blood of Christ.

We are living with New Testament covenant Types that will be fulfilled in eternal life realities, so we are progressing from shadow to light. (I Corininthians 13 1-12) Rather than participate in the Eucharist, and through this worship become one with Christ, in eternal life we will be one with Christ as His bride.

 

[brkn1]

You are boxing yourself in.

As for being naive, perhaps St Paul was naive… for it is he who says in the infallible Scriptures what the importance of the consecrated bread and wine really is. No condemnation would occur if it was simply your symbol.

.

The Eucharist is our affectionate and grateful remembrance of what Jesus did for us as we proclaim it by celebrating and partaking of it the way Jesus showed us.
To do it insincerely does make us subject to condemnation, whether it is a symbol or not.
Ananias and Saphira found that out when they were less than sincere in their offering to the church, as did those who were insincere that Paul spoke about in the early church.