Disciples Doubts

  • Thread starter Thread starter gclark2110
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fisherman_carl said:
The Eucharist is instituted at the last supper. Jesus said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ What is ‘this’ that Jesus is talking about that we are to do in remembrance of him? ‘this’ is the Eucharist where Jesus takes bread and says, ‘this is my body’. And he takes wine and says, ‘this is my blood.’

In John 6 Jesus is making a covenant with those who would believe in him. He commands those who believe in him to eat his body and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. That is a command with a promise that Jesus will give us his body and blood to eat and also give us eternal life if we eat it. It is a covenant between him and those who obey his command.

This covenant was first manifested at the last supper when Jesus provided his body and blood for the disciples and continues to be made manifest at each Eucharist by his commandment to his disciples to do this in remembrance of me. Jesus said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ (1 Cor 11:25). Right there in scripture it says ‘this cup is the new covenant.’

The sacrifice on the cross is Christ making good on his promise. As he said, in Jn 6:53, ‘the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek because he offered a sacrifice of ‘bread’ just like Melchizedek. But Jesus’ bread is no ordinary bread but it is his own flesh offered as a sacrifice on the cross made manifest to us through the Eucharist.

Without the Last Supper no one would know that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice. What Jesus instituted at the Last Supper was a covenant that was ratified on that cross. As you said the will and testament is put in effect when the person dies. But, the will and testament is written and agreed to before the person dies. John 6 and the Last Supper gives us that will and testament of Jesus. Thus, it is entirely feasible to say that the new covenant was instituted at the Last Supper and put into effect through Christ’s death and Resurrection.
Click to expand...
Very cogent indeed, Fisherman Carl. And in the earlier reference to Scott Hahn which I made, Dr. Hahn points out that there is no reference to the Last Supper in John, but John was no doubt familiar with the Synoptic Gospels and their narration of this event. I submit, then, that the clear parallels between the meaning of John 6 and the meaning of Matthew 26: 26-29 can hardly be dismissed. Both passages describe the initiation of the New Covenant prior to the Crucifixion, and perhaps more importantly, both passages emphasize transubtantiation in the Eucharist.
 
William_C said:
Then it is your opinion that Jesus enticed His disciples to sin. Way to go.
Click to expand...
Going with this facile argument for the moment- even if Jesus had enticed his disciples to sin, He would have immediately forgiven them. Of course, He didn’t entice His disciples to sin because as soon as He said the words in John 6, the New Covenant was initiated and any “sin” under the Old Covenant was irrelevant as any facet of the Old Covenant which contradicted the New Covenant was invalid.

But I don’t see you denying Transubstantiation, William. Bravo, and welcome to the fold! When will you be starting RCIA?
 
“When do you believe time ended? Please include the month, day and year.”

Thank you for the graciously-phrased question.

If something ceases to be, it’s not perpetual. Even if it might come back into existence later, like the temple, or the Aaronic priesthood, or the assorted Leviticus rituals, it still wouldn’t be perpetual.
 
kkollwitz said:
If something ceases to be, it’s not perpetual. Even if it might come back into existence later, like the temple, or the Aaronic priesthood, or the assorted Leviticus rituals, it still wouldn’t be perpetual.
Click to expand...
Not really. When Paul says that we are not under the Law, but under Grace, it does not mean that the Law is not perpetual. It simply means that there is something greater than the Law. Something that, if complied with, will allow us to fulfill the Law.

Thus when Christ says: " So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets", salvation becomes truly universal: as promised through the prophet Jeremiah, God “put the Law in our mind and wrote it in our heart” so that “no longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know the Lord, from the least of them to the greatest”. This is the New Covenant that is in Christ.

Salvation becomes universal in that before only the chosen people had been instructed by God on the fundamental commandments. However with the coming of Christ, it becomes evident that perhaps I never learned or heard of the commandment “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”, but if I love my neighbor, I will not do those things and acknowledge them as wrong. The Law thus, in a way, ceases to be, but is still perpetual.

Another example: the korban Pesakh. God instructs the people - through Moses - about the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, and in Exodus 12:14 He says:
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Click to expand...
It is evident that the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb has ceased to be - yet it remains perpetual in Christ, the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice is indeed kept as a memorial for ever.
 
I would also like to share a particularly interesting statement of Martin Luther on this topic:
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Click to expand...
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Click to expand...
 
Solomon’s Temple was expected to be perpetual. It wasn’t. It was destroyed. But that aside- do you believe the law against consuming blood is indeed perpetual?

Others may have the last word.
 
Faithdancer said:
Going with this facile argument for the moment- even if Jesus had enticed his disciples to sin, He would have immediately forgiven them.
Click to expand...
James says God doesn’t tempt people to sin (Jas 1:13-14), isn’t that correct?
40.png
Faithdancer:
Of course, He didn’t entice His disciples to sin because as soon as He said the words in John 6, the New Covenant was initiated and any “sin” under the Old Covenant was irrelevant as any facet of the Old Covenant which contradicted the New Covenant was invalid.
Click to expand...
You’re wrong, and that is because you continue to ignore God’s word to the Hebrews in which He clearly says, Jesus “is the mediator of the New Covenant BY MEANS OF DEATH…” and that a testament **“HAS NO POWER AT ALL ** while the testator lives.”

I’m wondering, are you being taught to ignore God’s word in your theology class, or is that something you’re determined to do on your own?
40.png
Faithdancer:
But I don’t see you denying Transubstantiation…
Click to expand...
You don’t see me agreeing with it either.
 
kkollwitz said:
“When do you believe time ended? Please include the month, day and year.”

Thank you for the graciously-phrased question.
Click to expand...
Well? Where’s your answer>?
40.png
Kkollwitz:
If something ceases to be, it’s not perpetual. Even if it might come back into existence later, like the temple, or the Aaronic priesthood, or the assorted Leviticus rituals, it still wouldn’t be perpetual.
Click to expand...
I suggest you look up the definition of perpetual.
 
Faithdancer said:
Very cogent indeed, Fisherman Carl. And in the earlier reference to Scott Hahn which I made, Dr. Hahn points out that there is no reference to the Last Supper in John…
Click to expand...
Sure there is, in John 13. Gee, makes you wonder what else Mr. Hahn may be wrong about, eh?
 
William_C said:
James says God doesn’t tempt people to sin (Jas 1:13-14), isn’t that correct?

You’re wrong, and that is because you continue to ignore God’s word to the Hebrews in which He clearly says, Jesus “is the mediator of the New Covenant BY MEANS OF DEATH…” and that a testament **“HAS NO POWER AT ALL ** while the testator lives.”

I’m wondering, are you being taught to ignore God’s word in your theology class, or is that something you’re determined to do on your own?

You don’t see me agreeing with it either.
Click to expand...
Your argument is circular, relying on two sections of Scripture. I really don’t know what Bible you are using, but I don’t see the word “testament” at all in mine- not in Hebrews 9:16, or in Hebrews 9:15 through 23, for that matter. You don’t acknowledge the exegesis of world class theologians and can’t be bothered with scholarship. Very curious indeed!
 
William_C said:
OK. I deny transubstantiation.

Happy now?
Click to expand...
Yes, as it clarifies your motives for rejecting John 6, which is Gospel, in favor of one verse from Leviticus and another from Hebrews which, weighty as they may be are not Gospel.
 
William_C said:
Sure there is, in John 13. Gee, makes you wonder what else Mr. Hahn may be wrong about, eh?
Click to expand...
I guess I need to be more specific for you, sorry- I forgot about the literal thing. And I don’t want to misquote Dr. Hahn. In actuality, there is no reference to the institution of the Eucharist and new Covenant mentioned in John 13. This is why these are discussed in John 6.

There are three words or phrases in John 13 which do indicate that a meal is taking place- “during supper” [Jesus] “rose from Supper” and the word “morsel.”

The institutions of the Eucharist and the New Covenant are covered fully in John 6.
 
Faithdancer said:
Your argument is circular, relying on two sections of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Your statement shows you don’t what a circular argument is.
40.png
Faithdancer:
I really don’t know what Bible you are using, but I don’t see the word “testament” at all in mine- not in Hebrews 9:16, or in Hebrews 9:15 through 23, for that matter.
Click to expand...
The one I have open on my desk is the NKJV.
40.png
Faithdancer:
You don’t acknowledge the exegesis of world class theologians…
Click to expand...
Sure I do.
40.png
Faithdancer:
…and can’t be bothered with scholarship.
Click to expand...
I’ve never said that. That’s your interpretation of what I said. It’s a good thing you rely on the church to interpret for you. You’re not very good at it.
40.png
Faithdancer:
Very curious indeed!
Click to expand...
Regarding the things you make up? I’d say “odd” is the better word. 😉
 
Faithdancer said:
I guess I need to be more specific for you, sorry- I forgot about the literal thing.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to be more specific for me. It’s Scott Hahn’s reputation you are besmirching.
40.png
Faithdancer:
And I don’t want to misquote Dr. Hahn. In actuality, there is no reference to the institution of the Eucharist and new Covenant mentioned in John 13. This is why these are discussed in John 6.
Click to expand...
There’s no mention of them in John 6, either, according to your catechism, which I’ve pointed out to you several times now.
40.png
Faithdancer:
There are three words or phrases in John 13 which do indicate that a meal is taking place- “during supper” [Jesus] “rose from Supper” and the word “morsel.”

The institutions of the Eucharist and the New Covenant are covered fully in John 6.
Click to expand...
That’s not what your catechism says, as I’ve pointed out to you several times now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top