R
RBushlow
Guest
- Status
M
mel27
Guest
Greetings,
I have been reading through the conversations and the exchange of thoughts. It seems to me that you really have a great love for our Lord and the enthusiasm to follow His teaching.
I can only say one thing: Faith is a gift, it is the acceptance of God’s grace that is given to us. and Eucharist is one of these sacrament of graces.
As Ps. 95 says: ‘If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts’.
Christ has already spoken through His apostles and all the other men that He used to relay His message to us – it’s up to us to accept it or fight it.
I am very sure that the thoughts you presented are not really yours, you DID NOT LEARN IT BY YOURSELF. Rather, you chose to accept whoever told you these. If you will tell me that you learn it all by just reading the Bible without someone telling you about it, that is between you and the Lord since He knows what is in your heart.
One day, we will all come face to face with Him and He will ask us if we ‘follow His commands’. I challenge you to think about why you chose to believe these ‘people’ who told you about these meaning and if you think that they are **‘infallible’ **or not.
Like what your name says ‘Lets Obey Christ’ even if it means swallowing our own pride, **especially **if it means swallowing our own pride.
With Love of Christ: mel27
I have been reading through the conversations and the exchange of thoughts. It seems to me that you really have a great love for our Lord and the enthusiasm to follow His teaching.
I can only say one thing: Faith is a gift, it is the acceptance of God’s grace that is given to us. and Eucharist is one of these sacrament of graces.
As Ps. 95 says: ‘If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts’.
Christ has already spoken through His apostles and all the other men that He used to relay His message to us – it’s up to us to accept it or fight it.
I am very sure that the thoughts you presented are not really yours, you DID NOT LEARN IT BY YOURSELF. Rather, you chose to accept whoever told you these. If you will tell me that you learn it all by just reading the Bible without someone telling you about it, that is between you and the Lord since He knows what is in your heart.
One day, we will all come face to face with Him and He will ask us if we ‘follow His commands’. I challenge you to think about why you chose to believe these ‘people’ who told you about these meaning and if you think that they are **‘infallible’ **or not.
Like what your name says ‘Lets Obey Christ’ even if it means swallowing our own pride, **especially **if it means swallowing our own pride.
With Love of Christ: mel27
R
RBushlow
Guest
And peace to you also.
Paul said:
1 Cor 11:23-29 "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is MY BODY that is for you. DO this in rememberance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have no answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. FOR ANYONE WHO EATS AND DRINKS WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, EATS AND DRINKS JUDGEMENT ON HIMSELF.
It is the real presence, body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ that we receive. It is my prayer that the grace of our Lord brings you some day to join us.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
RBushlow said:
Great point!
Jesus Christ is the GRAND TEACHER. Every time He taught symbolically, He would explain and interpret it for them. He would not allow such a misunderstanding to get in the way of their learning what He meant, or else His teaching ability is bad (which I and others refuse to believe)
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and** a pure offering**: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
What more pure offering is there to God the Father, than the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? This will be done daily, as it is done during daily mass (and daily divine liturgy) but nowhere else. No protestant service does this. None.
S
SoldierMike
Guest
It’s quite simple to understand the truth behind the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ at his last supper. Let’s break it down.
First their was God, who for years and years maifiested His power in such ways as talking from clouds, burning bushes, split seas, snakes from canes, full earth floods, etc.
Now these manifestations of Gods power wasn’t enough for the skeptical people of the Earth. Strike one.
Next, since most people didn’t listen to his rules, He figured He would manifest His power by creating His only Son in the form of himself, looking like any other man on Earth, by the Holy Spirit through the perfect vessal,. Mary. Surely the people of the Earth, would listen to one of their own. Didn’t happen. Strike two.
Christ, being of the Father knew His death was imminent and God had His Spirit manifested in to the body (Bread) and blood (wine) so that after His Son’s death, their would still be physical tangible access to an unbelieving mostly unspirit filled people of the Earth. His spirited body and blood ARE in the bread and wine. All we need to do is believe that the spirit filled body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist is real. This body and blood MUST be accepted through the appointed Church. The appointed Church passed from Christ to Peter. Once all on Earth believe, and only then, will we be worth of the return of Christ.
First their was God, who for years and years maifiested His power in such ways as talking from clouds, burning bushes, split seas, snakes from canes, full earth floods, etc.
Now these manifestations of Gods power wasn’t enough for the skeptical people of the Earth. Strike one.
Next, since most people didn’t listen to his rules, He figured He would manifest His power by creating His only Son in the form of himself, looking like any other man on Earth, by the Holy Spirit through the perfect vessal,. Mary. Surely the people of the Earth, would listen to one of their own. Didn’t happen. Strike two.
Christ, being of the Father knew His death was imminent and God had His Spirit manifested in to the body (Bread) and blood (wine) so that after His Son’s death, their would still be physical tangible access to an unbelieving mostly unspirit filled people of the Earth. His spirited body and blood ARE in the bread and wine. All we need to do is believe that the spirit filled body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist is real. This body and blood MUST be accepted through the appointed Church. The appointed Church passed from Christ to Peter. Once all on Earth believe, and only then, will we be worth of the return of Christ.
M
martino
Guest
“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Symbolic interpretation- In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2Sam 23:15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16.
Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as the Protestants say, then what He really meant was “whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life.” This makes total nonsense out of the passage and cannot be the correct interpretation.
**Literal interpretation of “the flesh”- ** It is quite clear from the text that the Jews took Jesus to be speaking literal at the end of John 6, which is why they had such a hard time accepting the teaching. “How can He give us His flesh to eat?”; the Jews must have thought Jesus was commanding them to tear off hunks of His body and devour him on the spot, no wonder they had such a hard time. This is obviously not the correct interpretation either!
Literal interpretation of “the spirit” In verse 63 Jesus tells them that, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Jesus is no longer speaking of “His flesh” but rather “the flesh” or carnal man (see 1 Cor 2:14 through 3:4), who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason. To understand this teaching we must first possess the “spirit” of truth. Jesus was indeed speaking literally but in a spiritual or sacramental way. We need to remember that “spirit” and “symbolic” are very different terms with very different meanings. No Christian would claim that the “spiritual” is merely symbolic, that would mean that God who is pure spirit is not real, or heaven which is a spiritual reality is only a symbol. The apostles knew Jesus was speaking literally, they just didn’t understand “how” this was going to take place, but they believed it because He said it, while everyone else walked away. So if this is the correct interpretation, how do we literally partake of Christ’s body without committing cannibalism? Jesus revealed the answer at the Last Supper when he held to up the bread and said, “This is my body” and also the cup saying, “This is my blood”, commanding them to “do this in remembrance of me.” This is the correct interpretation of John 6.
Symbolic interpretation- In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2Sam 23:15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16.
Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as the Protestants say, then what He really meant was “whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life.” This makes total nonsense out of the passage and cannot be the correct interpretation.
**Literal interpretation of “the flesh”- ** It is quite clear from the text that the Jews took Jesus to be speaking literal at the end of John 6, which is why they had such a hard time accepting the teaching. “How can He give us His flesh to eat?”; the Jews must have thought Jesus was commanding them to tear off hunks of His body and devour him on the spot, no wonder they had such a hard time. This is obviously not the correct interpretation either!
Literal interpretation of “the spirit” In verse 63 Jesus tells them that, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Jesus is no longer speaking of “His flesh” but rather “the flesh” or carnal man (see 1 Cor 2:14 through 3:4), who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason. To understand this teaching we must first possess the “spirit” of truth. Jesus was indeed speaking literally but in a spiritual or sacramental way. We need to remember that “spirit” and “symbolic” are very different terms with very different meanings. No Christian would claim that the “spiritual” is merely symbolic, that would mean that God who is pure spirit is not real, or heaven which is a spiritual reality is only a symbol. The apostles knew Jesus was speaking literally, they just didn’t understand “how” this was going to take place, but they believed it because He said it, while everyone else walked away. So if this is the correct interpretation, how do we literally partake of Christ’s body without committing cannibalism? Jesus revealed the answer at the Last Supper when he held to up the bread and said, “This is my body” and also the cup saying, “This is my blood”, commanding them to “do this in remembrance of me.” This is the correct interpretation of John 6.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
52=53 in Douay Rheims:
Christ reaffirms the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking blood for life, in spite of their objection:
John 6:53-64 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Verse 63 is often misinterpreted to mean “I am deity, you must believe in cannablism because I say so…”
That is not Christ’'s point at all as verse 64 clearly shows where He directly refutes their literal understanding of His saying they must eat His flesh and drink His blood for life.
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
It Christ is not addressing their misunderstanding of eating His flesh then He is a loon, in the face of a hostile mob, babbling about flesh they are not concerned with, talking about Spirit quickening that didn’t concern them here.
They object His saying eating His flesh (with its blood) profits and gives life eternal and He responds by refuting the idea He said that as only the Holy Spirit and eating flesh does not profit spiritually at all (indeed, then they would be likely executed as murderers), His words couldn’t have been speaking about literal flesh, THEY ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE.
The figurative meaning of Eating bread in Christ’s sayings elsewhere means believing in doctrine:
Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Therefore when Christ says these sayings ARE spirit and life He is interpreting them for us, they are not flesh.
The outer flesh covers their true meaning as flesh covers spirit and life.
All who “eat my flesh” = Believe in the revelation of My Person and Work by the Spirit of God, “drink my blood” = confess me as LORD for your salvation, have eternal life.
Then eating this bread (All that is Christ) makes His words spirit and life to the doer.
Not only must you believe in the letter of Christ’s law, you must practice the spirit of it.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
52=53 in Douay Rheims:
Yes, while at first they follow Christ’s figurative usage of bread (vrs 34) as it becomes clear to them Christ is demanding more than intellectual belief (vrs 35ff) in Him for salvation(vrs 29) they start objecting, demanding signs etc (vs 30ff):
Verse 53 identifies exactly what scandalized them:
John 6:53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Christ does not deny the necessity of doing exactly that:
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Verse 63 has been misunderstood to mean “I am Deity therefore you must do as I say.”
However verse 64 rules that out. Here Christ is referring to their demand He manifest signs even though they participated in the miraculous feeding just a day before (vss 22ff). In effect Christ is saying,
"Would my ascension into heaven be enough sign to convince you not so inconsistently and absurdly interpret my words. Clearly only the Holy Spirit can give eternal life, eating literal flesh does not profit the human spirit at all! Therefore the words I spoke to you are not flesh, they are spirit and life:
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The only way words are not flesh, but spirit and life is that they are symbols whose flesh covers the spirit and life of their true meaning.
“Eat my flesh…drink my blood” means “believe in Christ” and all who do that are quickened by the Holy Spirit and have eternal life.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Posting limitations has forced my reply to be in 8 parts. My reply is Footnoted in your text.
1)Incorrect, context proves they understood the language is figurative:
John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
2)Not “obvious,” EXPLICITLY stated by Christ in vss 28f and their response encapsulates the entire event:
John 6: 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
- These knew better, they were willfully blind to Christ’s signs He is the Messiah, they wanted welfare (vs 26f)
Christ then questions their quest for signs (vs 30), would they believe if He ascended into heaven? (vs 63):
30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
John 6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
John 6: 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
*Jesus then explains they cannot believe because the Father hath not enabled them (vss 36f; 65f): *
John 6:36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
John 6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
4)The contrast between the apostles and these sign seekers couldn’t be more clear, God enabled them to see (cp Mt 13:16) therefore they believed!
John 6:67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve?..
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Christ’s saying did not cause them to stumble, they were already stumbled at believing in Him:
28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
Jesus says this is why they would not agree He could not be speaking about eating literal flesh for spiritual profit and life as everyone knows it is the Spirit of God who grants life and eating literal flesh profits the spirit not:
John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Clearly the words Jesus spoke ARE spirit and life and not about literal flesh.
vss 25-31 Christ *encapsulates belief necessary for quickening * but they object and request signs.
Vss 36-37 = vs 65, their disbelief in Christ is because they are not of God.
John 6: 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
John 6:65-66 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
twf:
Rather from a comparison of Jn 6:65ff with Mt 16:5-12 it seems appearent they all interpreted Christ to be speaking of literal flesh eating, that Christ’s response against this in verse 64 didn’t register.
Hence this was a test of everyone’s faith, The Lord will try His people to see what sort they are:
Zechariah 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.
1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man’s work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.
In context Christ says He already knew who were His and who would fall away.
John 6:65-71 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve?
As John includes vs 64 it follows the Twelve eventually realized eating literal flesh with it blood is unprofitable to one’s spirit as only the Holy Spirit quickens unto life eternal:
John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
continued
28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
Jesus says this is why they would not agree He could not be speaking about eating literal flesh for spiritual profit and life as everyone knows it is the Spirit of God who grants life and eating literal flesh profits the spirit not:
John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Clearly the words Jesus spoke ARE spirit and life and not about literal flesh.
vss 25-31 Christ *encapsulates belief necessary for quickening * but they object and request signs.
Vss 36-37 = vs 65, their disbelief in Christ is because they are not of God.
John 6: 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
John 6:65-66 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
My response is in blue font
- Why did Jesus question the Apostles on whether or not they would leave Him as well? They already believed in Him, so why would He suggest that this would be a hard teaching for them to accept if that is all it meant?
Rather from a comparison of Jn 6:65ff with Mt 16:5-12 it seems appearent they all interpreted Christ to be speaking of literal flesh eating, that Christ’s response against this in verse 64 didn’t register.
Hence this was a test of everyone’s faith, The Lord will try His people to see what sort they are:
Zechariah 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.
1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man’s work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.
In context Christ says He already knew who were His and who would fall away.
John 6:65-71 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve?
As John includes vs 64 it follows the Twelve eventually realized eating literal flesh with it blood is unprofitable to one’s spirit as only the Holy Spirit quickens unto life eternal:
John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
- Why did Jesus use a metaphor that the Jews and all ancient audiences would clearly take as literally, for the symbolic meaning meant to inflict grave harm?
Ex 16:4 that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, (Ex 15:25; Dt 8:2, 16).
Christ did not seek approval of the crowd, He sought those who were His, the lost children of Israel:
DRA John 6:15 Jesus therefore, when he knew that they would come to take him by force and make him king, fled again into the mountains, himself alone.
It is quite evident throughout Jesus’ ministry that He rejects the casual disciple (Mk 10:25 Lk 14:25-35) and it is clear in this context He purposely repeats the very saying that scandalized them all in order that they manifest what Christ already knew, who were with Him and who were not.
- Why did St. John choose such literal language when writing his Gospel in the Greek? If it was meant to be symbolic, why did he not simply choose the standard word ‘to eat’? First John has Jesus using the word phago, which simply means to eat (verses 23 to 53), but to, as to emphasize the point, it changes to a much more graphic and literal word to drive the point home to the grumbling Jews. John then moves on to use the word trogo…which conveys the idea of ‘gnawing’ and ‘chewing’. This is not the vocabulary that would be chosen when speaking symbolically.
It is quite evident throughout Jesus’ ministry that He rejects the casual disciple (Mk 10:25 Lk 14:25-35) and it is clear in this context He purposely repeats the very saying that scandalized them all in order that they manifest what Christ already knew, who were with Him and who were not.
- When the Jews grumble about how such a thing is possible (to eat His flesh and drink His blood) Christ just re-emphasizes the point again and again, using literal language. Why?
It is quite evident throughout Jesus’ ministry that He rejects the casual disciple (Mk 10:25 Lk 14:25-35) and it is clear in this context He purposely repeats the very saying that scandalized them all in order that they manifest what Christ already knew, who were with Him and who were not.
- Why did Paul say that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to ‘sin against the body and blood of the Lord’? (1 Cor. 11:27) If it is symbolic, why would God strike you down over it (1 Cor. 11:30) and hold you accountable for profaning the Lord’s body and blood?
Exodus 12:15 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
KJV 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning (diakrinw) the Lord’s body.
1252 diakrinw means “to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer.”
Matt 16:3
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern (diakrinw) the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?(KJV)
This is not anakrinw where one does an thorough examination to render a judgment, it is diakrinw where one discerns what the item represents.
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
- If the Eucharist is symbolic, why did John see Christ as a Lamb who was slain, standing before the Father? This suggests that His sacrifice is being made present before the Father for all eternity (of course, His work is done, but the sacrament transcends space and time). (Revelation 5:6)
KJV Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rather than necessitate continuous sacrifice this fact His sacrifice was applied to all who ever lived before He created proves there was only one offering:
Hebrews 9:24-28 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
- The fact that Christ is said to be a priest forever suggests a sacrificial ministry…if the Eucharist is symbolic, is He still functioning as a priest? (Hebrews 6:20)
- Why is there still an altar in Heaven? (Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7).
I suppose you say this validates RCC ritual of sacrifice, however it does not. In context it validates a Jewish Temple of God:
Revelation 11:1 KJV Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
RCC allegory is too plastic, it can make words mean anything and therefore it is its own best refutation.
- Why does Paul call the Eucharistic table an altar? (Hebrews 13:10)
It is an analogy, we have an altar Judaism’s priests cannot partake from, it is outside the camp. We have no literal city (with a temple and altar), we seek one to come.
In the city to come there is an altar (cf (Revelation 6:9, 8:3, 8:4, 9:13, 14:18, and 16:7), not now.
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
- Why is it that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (You saw a couple quotes earlier in this thread). St. Ignatius was taught by St. John himself…why would he and the Church be so wrong on such an important issue so quickly? (Only a couple decades after the apostle died, we have St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, explaining to us that orthodox Christianity maintains that the Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of our Lord). Why did it take so many centuries for Christians to properly understand this passage if your interpretation is so elementary? (I’m sure there were various sects that may have denied the Real Presence…but they would be heretics that you would not want to be associated with, so this does not help your case).
Against modern Catholic teaching stands those ECF’s who taught chiliasm in conformity with Scripture (Rv 20):
Revelation 20:4…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished…
We must now point out how Papias… says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.-Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 154).
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.-Dialogue with Trypho, LXXX, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 240).
The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand dusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.” In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.
- And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp…-Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. XXXVI-(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, pp. 562-3).
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Nor do they subscribe to Athanasius’ rejection of councils of men as being above divine scripture:
but about the faith they wrote not,
When Athanasius says:
Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe
Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing
***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.
Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the divine scripture is above everything spoken by man = SOLA SCRIPTURA
In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.- Apology, c. vi, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol III, Wm B Eerdmans Pub, 1977 reprint, p. 246.
So until Catholics actually do heed ALL the Fathers teach it is inconsistent you expect I obey them.
Catholic inconsistency undermines their authority completely.
However it is very clear to me Catholics are superimposing their transubstantiation theory on the simple expressions of the fathers just as they wrongly do to the scriptures.
As the idea was not invented till the 9th century it could not have been in the minds of the fathers.
Eating literal flesh does not profit the human sprit nor does flesh quicken, only the Holy Spirit does that. Christ’s words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” ARE spirit and life to all who reject the fleshly meaning of the symbols and concentrate on what the spirit and life covered by the flesh:
John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
As a sola scripturaist (God’s Word is supreme in authority, above all things of men) it is interesting to note Athanasius agrees with Christ the Eucharist is to be understood spiritually, not fleshly:
continued
but about the faith they wrote not,
It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.When Athanasius says:
Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe
Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing
***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.
Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the divine scripture is above everything spoken by man = SOLA SCRIPTURA
In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.- Apology, c. vi, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol III, Wm B Eerdmans Pub, 1977 reprint, p. 246.
So until Catholics actually do heed ALL the Fathers teach it is inconsistent you expect I obey them.
Catholic inconsistency undermines their authority completely.
However it is very clear to me Catholics are superimposing their transubstantiation theory on the simple expressions of the fathers just as they wrongly do to the scriptures.
As the idea was not invented till the 9th century it could not have been in the minds of the fathers.
- Why have all ancient and apostolic Christian traditions always maintained that the Eucharist is the true flesh and body of the Lord (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian)? Protestants and Catholics have been apart for a mere 500 years…the Assyrians have been in schism for 1500 years, 3 times as long, yet they also have no doubt in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they have maintained the ancient teachings of the apostles in this regard.
Eating literal flesh does not profit the human sprit nor does flesh quicken, only the Holy Spirit does that. Christ’s words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” ARE spirit and life to all who reject the fleshly meaning of the symbols and concentrate on what the spirit and life covered by the flesh:
John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
As a sola scripturaist (God’s Word is supreme in authority, above all things of men) it is interesting to note Athanasius agrees with Christ the Eucharist is to be understood spiritually, not fleshly:
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For
I’m a former Evangelical myself, and forgive me if my style above seems to confrontational. I truly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a immeasurable gift. Besides objective arguments, there are also subjective ones. The Eucharist has had a profound impact on many holy people…and many of the saints had a profound devotion to Christ in the Eucharist. Many people have experienced Christ in a very real way through the Eucharist. Many others have witnessed incredible Eucharistic miracles. (Such as the multiplication of the Consecrated Wine, for example, as one of our fellow boarders reported he had witnessed).
It would be sinful if you argued as you do and didn’t believe it. However, as a former Jehovah’s Witness I know sincerity of belief does not make one right.
Objective analysis of the data, one that does not violate parsimony, is the Eucharist is symbolic
Context shows Christ standing there with His disciples, in His body and blood, handing a cup of wine or bread to them.
Nothing in the context indicates this event occurred in a realm where normal laws of time and space are suspended:
Matthew 26:26-28 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The blood of the New Testament He was to shed was literally still in His body, NOT in the cup.
Therefore Christ, who never lied or erred in anything, must have meant this blood was in the cup symbolically.
That is the natural literal interpretation of this event.
Multiplying entities, a reality where time and space does not apply, to accommodate the idea the sacrifice of Christ (which was yet future) was now this bread and wine is a massive violation of parsimony.
Parsimony is used by all of us every day to interpret reality. Casting it aside for personal belief parallels insanity.
The following illustrates parsimony, which characteristic is manifest in all sane interpretation of reality:
*We observe someone outside our 10th floor window rapidly going downward. *
We immediately know:
1)He is flying to another location
2)He is falling to his death.
Answer #1 is non parsimonous as it adds an environment where physics don’t apply, nothing in the event implies such non reality.
continued
what I have said unto you,' says He, is spirit and life;’ as much as to say, `what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal.’- ad Serap iv. 19, from Christian Classics Ethereal Library CD (CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/ NPNF2044.HTMI’m a former Evangelical myself, and forgive me if my style above seems to confrontational. I truly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is a immeasurable gift. Besides objective arguments, there are also subjective ones. The Eucharist has had a profound impact on many holy people…and many of the saints had a profound devotion to Christ in the Eucharist. Many people have experienced Christ in a very real way through the Eucharist. Many others have witnessed incredible Eucharistic miracles. (Such as the multiplication of the Consecrated Wine, for example, as one of our fellow boarders reported he had witnessed).
It would be sinful if you argued as you do and didn’t believe it. However, as a former Jehovah’s Witness I know sincerity of belief does not make one right.
Objective analysis of the data, one that does not violate parsimony, is the Eucharist is symbolic
Context shows Christ standing there with His disciples, in His body and blood, handing a cup of wine or bread to them.
Nothing in the context indicates this event occurred in a realm where normal laws of time and space are suspended:
Matthew 26:26-28 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The blood of the New Testament He was to shed was literally still in His body, NOT in the cup.
Therefore Christ, who never lied or erred in anything, must have meant this blood was in the cup symbolically.
That is the natural literal interpretation of this event.
Multiplying entities, a reality where time and space does not apply, to accommodate the idea the sacrifice of Christ (which was yet future) was now this bread and wine is a massive violation of parsimony.
Parsimony is used by all of us every day to interpret reality. Casting it aside for personal belief parallels insanity.
The following illustrates parsimony, which characteristic is manifest in all sane interpretation of reality:
*We observe someone outside our 10th floor window rapidly going downward. *
We immediately know:
1)He is flying to another location
2)He is falling to his death.
Answer #1 is non parsimonous as it adds an environment where physics don’t apply, nothing in the event implies such non reality.
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Correct analysis of the data always manifests the characteristic of parsimony, false interpretation always violates parsimony. This fact is so universal it is axiomatic the manifest violation of parsimony in Transubstantiation theory proves it is not true.
I hope you are blessed in your journey, as you seek to grow closer to our Lord. Please keep in mind, though, that regardless of how thorough and scholarly a defence of the Real Presence may be, the Eucharist is a mystery, and as such, the mortal mind will never fully comprehend the miracle that occurs during the consecration.
Thanks for the blessing. Just so you know I do consider Catholics Christians (as I do Protestants, Orthodox, all who confess Jesus is LORD).
However I remind you what Scripture says about running ahead of Christ in dogma (2 Jn 1:9), don’t:
2 Peter 1:12 12 For which cause, I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them and are confirmed in the present truth. -Douay Rheims
The truth that was present in the days of the apostle Peter is what we are to be confirmed in. That rules out Transubstantiation which didn’t exist in Peter’s day.
Jude 1:3 3 Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.- Douay Rheims
Christianity is a revealed religion, not developed by men via their private interpretations:
2 Peter 1:20 - 2:1 20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
The above facts render any development of doctrine beyond the parameters set by the apostles a falling away from apostolic truth, a departure from their traditions we are commanded to hold fast:
2 Thessalonians 2:14 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.-Douay Rheims
I thank you for the blessing and repay with my own, may YHWH the Eternal Son see fit we both achieve 100% so that a parade in honor of God’s power to regenerate is made with us as Exhibit A:
2 Peter 1:10-11 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the ever-lasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.-Douay Rheims
END
Whew!
I hope you are blessed in your journey, as you seek to grow closer to our Lord. Please keep in mind, though, that regardless of how thorough and scholarly a defence of the Real Presence may be, the Eucharist is a mystery, and as such, the mortal mind will never fully comprehend the miracle that occurs during the consecration.
Thanks for the blessing. Just so you know I do consider Catholics Christians (as I do Protestants, Orthodox, all who confess Jesus is LORD).
However I remind you what Scripture says about running ahead of Christ in dogma (2 Jn 1:9), don’t:
2 Peter 1:12 12 For which cause, I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them and are confirmed in the present truth. -Douay Rheims
The truth that was present in the days of the apostle Peter is what we are to be confirmed in. That rules out Transubstantiation which didn’t exist in Peter’s day.
Jude 1:3 3 Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.- Douay Rheims
Christianity is a revealed religion, not developed by men via their private interpretations:
2 Peter 1:20 - 2:1 20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
The above facts render any development of doctrine beyond the parameters set by the apostles a falling away from apostolic truth, a departure from their traditions we are commanded to hold fast:
2 Thessalonians 2:14 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.-Douay Rheims
I thank you for the blessing and repay with my own, may YHWH the Eternal Son see fit we both achieve 100% so that a parade in honor of God’s power to regenerate is made with us as Exhibit A:
2 Peter 1:10-11 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the ever-lasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.-Douay Rheims
END
Whew!
T
twf
Guest
Thanks for your respons LOC. I wasn’t expected anything quite that extensive! But I do appreciate it. I’ll try to get back to you soon, but it’s 5AM here at the moment, so I need to sleep still a bit!
By the way, I’d appreciate you not referring to the Catholic Church as the RCC in this context. The Real Presence is the belief of the entire Catholic Church, not just the Latin or Roman Rite (which does make up the vast majority of Catholics…true, but not all as IrishMelkite will attest).
I will ask you for now, however, to defend your claim of the doctrine being invented in the 8th century…
If the Real Presence was invented that late, why do the Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox, both of which who have been out of communion with the Church since the 5th century, also profess it as apostolic truth? I think you should verify this claim…
(Though the Eastern Churches do not have technical philosophical explanations like we do…they simply accept it as a mystery, and take it in faith that the Eucharist is Christ).
God bless,
Tyler
By the way, I’d appreciate you not referring to the Catholic Church as the RCC in this context. The Real Presence is the belief of the entire Catholic Church, not just the Latin or Roman Rite (which does make up the vast majority of Catholics…true, but not all as IrishMelkite will attest).
I will ask you for now, however, to defend your claim of the doctrine being invented in the 8th century…
If the Real Presence was invented that late, why do the Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox, both of which who have been out of communion with the Church since the 5th century, also profess it as apostolic truth? I think you should verify this claim…
(Though the Eastern Churches do not have technical philosophical explanations like we do…they simply accept it as a mystery, and take it in faith that the Eucharist is Christ).
God bless,
Tyler
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
I understand Catholics do not profess a symbolic Eucharist, I only point out, for all practical purposes, it is exactly that. Observe your caveat:
The bread and wine has literally been turned into the literal physical body and blood of Christ (al beit, in a sacramental, not natural, mode), but God has simply left the accents unchanged. The accents are of no consequence (besides their symbolic value)…
You only touch the accidents, not the substance and therefore the essentially symbolic character of the accidents is manifest even if you believe its substance was changed. You cannot experience the substance of these accidents.
There is no real connect between the accidents and the substance, if such connection existed the accidents would change in appearance as its substance changed. For example, a well cooked steak is the substance of food, rotted steak the substance of garbage. The change in accidents caused a change in substance.
Another example is given in one of the posts in this thread, that of a table. It remains a table if a wooden leg is replaced with a plastic one, or if a leg is pulled off.
However such minor change is NOT analogous to Transubstantiation where finite material is changed into Infinite God.
A true analogy would be where a table had all its legs and top utterly burned with fire causing complete change in accidents. The remaining ashes no longer are the substance of a table.
Therefore, in reality, the species of wine and bread are symbolic of the substance to which they have no real contact with.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
DRA John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
It is obvious Christ adapted Jer 15:16 to Himself.
It is also clear eating the bread of XYZ figuratively does mean believing their teaching, Mt 16:11f.
Finally when we insert the alleged meaning you say is intended by the expressions “eat my flesh…drink my blood” we see that meaning is impossible in the context:
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you assault/inflict serious injury upon the Son of man and assault/inflict serious injury upon him, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that assault/inflict serious injury upon me and assault/inflict serious injury upon me hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that assault/inflict serious injury upon me and assault/inflict serious injury upon me abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
It is obvious assault/inflict serious injury upon is not the intended meaning of “eat my flesh” or “drink my blood.”
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
David Brown:
Thanks for correcting the form. Before replying I checked to see if there were “any takers.” Aside from Post #222 who decries the premise as “a Protestant presupposition that came into being at the reformation” he doesn’t offer any refutation of it nor did he list the other things one might do to be saved apart from the act of believing in Jesus Christ. (If any other poster attempted this I’m sorry my search for “results in life” didn’t turn it up.)
It is written:
DRA Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.
3686 onoma signifies “everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.”-Strong’s
Therefore Peter says it is impossible one be saved in other name than Jesus Christ of Nazareth God the Son. His use of ONOMA is broad enough to also preclude being saved “in the name of ones own righteousness” or that of their racial or spiritual community, apart from saving belief in Jesus Christ.
DRA John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
DRA 1 John 4:9 By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him.
No only is this premise sound the idea the Eucharist is “an antidote for mortality” as some fathers claimed, is unsupportable.
Where are the ministries to the unsaved offering them the Eucharist for salvation? Why the emphasis on preaching Jesus when one can wait till they saved via the Eucharist species?
Why doesn’t Peter proclaim “Eat the Eucharist of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house?” (cf Acts 16:31)
He doesn’t because Christ’s expressly says only the Holy Spirit gives life in response to making Christ part of one’s being. Eating literal flesh cannot profit the human spirit at all:
DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
As Christ expressly says His words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” “are spirit and life” it is clear they are not “flesh,” referring to the outer covering of the symbol, rather these symbols convey the inner spirit and life of the word that is clothed by the flesh.
Only act resulting in life is act of believing Act of eating…is act resulting in lifeTherefore, act of eating is act of believing.Now, with a valid form, all that remains is to establish the truth of the premises. Since your opponents assert the minor premise ("Eating…), it is unlikely they will object to that, so it looks like the first premise is what will have to be their target. Any takers?Sorry it took so long to reply, aside from my need to work I’m attempting to answer every post and that takes time.
Thanks for correcting the form. Before replying I checked to see if there were “any takers.” Aside from Post #222 who decries the premise as “a Protestant presupposition that came into being at the reformation” he doesn’t offer any refutation of it nor did he list the other things one might do to be saved apart from the act of believing in Jesus Christ. (If any other poster attempted this I’m sorry my search for “results in life” didn’t turn it up.)
It is written:
DRA Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.
3686 onoma signifies “everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.”-Strong’s
Therefore Peter says it is impossible one be saved in other name than Jesus Christ of Nazareth God the Son. His use of ONOMA is broad enough to also preclude being saved “in the name of ones own righteousness” or that of their racial or spiritual community, apart from saving belief in Jesus Christ.
DRA John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
DRA 1 John 4:9 By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him.
No only is this premise sound the idea the Eucharist is “an antidote for mortality” as some fathers claimed, is unsupportable.
Where are the ministries to the unsaved offering them the Eucharist for salvation? Why the emphasis on preaching Jesus when one can wait till they saved via the Eucharist species?
Why doesn’t Peter proclaim “Eat the Eucharist of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house?” (cf Acts 16:31)
He doesn’t because Christ’s expressly says only the Holy Spirit gives life in response to making Christ part of one’s being. Eating literal flesh cannot profit the human spirit at all:
DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
As Christ expressly says His words “eat my flesh…bread…drink my blood” “are spirit and life” it is clear they are not “flesh,” referring to the outer covering of the symbol, rather these symbols convey the inner spirit and life of the word that is clothed by the flesh.
- Status