How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[PRmerger]

Re the Church Fathers. Naturally, the Church Fathers that have been labeled so by the Church are going to agree with the Church. Otherwise, they have been excluded from the approved list of Church Fathers.

I’ve read most of them at sometime along the way, even ‘heretics’ like Tertullian and Origen

You don’t see the contradiction in the juxtaposition of those two statements? If the Church did, as you claim, only labeled as ECFs, those who agreed with the Church, why do you include Tertullian and Origen? Were they or weren’t they ECFs? If so, were they heretics? If so, then did the Church only label those who agreed with them as ECFs?

 

[KathleenGee]

Tertullian wrote brilliant treatises but later fell into a heretical form of ascetism…but that doesn’t mean his earlier work is to be excluded.

 

[rev_kevin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility? This was in response to “and God said let there be light, so it was.” I see what you are doing and you won’t get me caught up in this trap.

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs. I have a grasp of transubstantiation, but I believe it was meant as a symbol of his body and blood. I see no evidence to say different.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.
This is my body the bread is a symbol of his body and I have not seen any evidence to state otherwise. If I take a some clay and form it into a human shape hold it up and say this is my body, is it my real body or a symbol of my body? A symbol of course, Just like Jesus held up the bread and said this is my body, it was a symbol.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

**What evidence do you have of this? **

Trap? The only trap you have been trapped is by following a church founded BY HUMANS centuries later. The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL whether you care to admit or not!

What evidence do I have? It is called early church history.Read it sometime Rev and stop being like the majority of Protestants who cannot stand it because it conflicts with all of their novel beliefs.

And what other evidence do you have for the last 2,000 years it was always taught as being symbolic? NONE! Nothing but your private interpretation of scripture,which in no shape or form is going to rebuke what the early church taught and believed.

Go ahead turn blue in the face,nothing you say will disprove what history has recorded.Consuming a symbol-eh?

I took your advice and this is what I found:
The doctrine (Eucharist) was approved by Council of Trent in the 16th century and the term was first used in the 12th century.
Eucharist is Greek (eucharistia) meandiing thanksgiving.
Eucharist is a symbol, that’s what St Augustine called it in the 4th century of the Christian era, “per modum symboli.”

When Jesus was about to die for the sins of the world, he had one last meal with his disciples. At this point Jesus wanted to teach the meaning of his death. Jesus took bread and tore it in pieces, saying this is my body. representing his body which will be torn and shredded for you. My body will be broken for your sake. The cup of wine was a symbol of Jesus’ blood which would be spilt for your sake. So the symbolic action of the Eucharist is that Jesus was saying these elements represent his death on the cross for our sins.

 

[Cinette]

Help me understand–what have I misunderstood?

*You do not understand our Faith and you have every right to disagree.

I, on the other hand, do not believe that Faith is a matter of opinion. You are free to choose. However I ask myself why you are on this thread? What is your purpose? You are argumentative and aggressive. There is no openness and there is no camaraderie. You want to be nasty. Therefore there is no pleasure in discoursing with you.

I come on these threads to learn and when I can participate I do. People like tqualey are extremely courteous and amiable and try to explain. There is value in his participation. I also get a sense that the Protestants are presenting their beliefs honestly although we may not believe as they do. We get an understanding of what they believe. It is interesting to discourse with them.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility? This was in response to “and God said let there be light, so it was.” I see what you are doing and you won’t get me caught up in this trap.

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs. I have a grasp of transubstantiation, but I believe it was meant as a symbol of his body and blood. I see no evidence to say different.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.
This is my body the bread is a symbol of his body and I have not seen any evidence to state otherwise. If I take a some clay and form it into a human shape hold it up and say this is my body, is it my real body or a symbol of my body? A symbol of course, Just like Jesus held up the bread and said this is my body, it was a symbol.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

**What evidence do you have of this? **

Trap? The only trap you have been trapped is by following a church founded BY HUMANS centuries later. The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL whether you care to admit or not!

What evidence do I have? It is called early church history.Read it sometime Rev and stop being like the majority of Protestants who cannot stand it because it conflicts with all of their novel beliefs.

And what other evidence do you have for the last 2,000 years it was always taught as being symbolic? NONE! Nothing but your private interpretation of scripture,which in no shape or form is going to rebuke what the early church taught and believed.

Go ahead turn blue in the face,nothing you say will disprove what history has recorded.Consuming a symbol-eh?

Luke 22:19 “Then he took a loaf of bread and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, GIVEN FOR YOU.” Do this in remembrance of me.” Here Jesus asked the disciples to ead the broken bread “in remembrance of me.” He wanted them to remember his sacrifice, the basis for forgiveness of sins, and also his friendship, which they could continue to enjoy through the work of the Holy Spirit. Given for you, he gave his body as a sacrifice for our sins. There is no real presents of his body here. The bread is a symbol of his body that is about to be broken.

Luke 22: 20 “After supper he took another cup of wine and said, ‘This wine is a token of God’s new covemant to save you-and agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.’” Now in the OT times, God agreed to forgive peopl’s sins if they brought animals for the priests to sacrifice. When this sacrificial system was inaugurated, the agreement between God and his people was sealed with the blood of animals. But animal blood did not in itself remove sin, only God can forgive sin, and animal sacrifices had to be repeated day after day and year after year. Jesus instituted a “new covenant” or agreement between God and his people. Under this new covenant, Jesus would die in the place of sinners. Jesus’ sacrifice would never have to be repeated, it would be good for all eternity.
There is no real presents here. His blood is a new covenant and is shed for our sins.

Mark 14: 22-25 There is no real presents here. Jesus took 2 traditional parts of the Passover meal, the passing of bread and the drinking of wine, and gave them new meaning as representations of his body and blood. He used the bread and wine to explain the significance of what he was about to do on the cross.

1 Corinthians 11:22-26 “For this is what the Lord himself said and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, This cup os the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it. For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.” Once again there is no real presents here.

Matthew 26: 26-29. The same no real presents here.
They all, except Matthew, state that the bread isa symbol of his body which is given up for our sins. Aand the wine is a symbol of his blood that will be shed for our sins and is a new covenant between God and man. Now were does it mean that it is his real body and blood. It clearly states what it means.

 

[rev_kevin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility? This was in response to “and God said let there be light, so it was.” I see what you are doing and you won’t get me caught up in this trap.

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs. I have a grasp of transubstantiation, but I believe it was meant as a symbol of his body and blood. I see no evidence to say different.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.
This is my body the bread is a symbol of his body and I have not seen any evidence to state otherwise. If I take a some clay and form it into a human shape hold it up and say this is my body, is it my real body or a symbol of my body? A symbol of course, Just like Jesus held up the bread and said this is my body, it was a symbol.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

**What evidence do you have of this? **

Trap? The only trap you have been trapped is by following a church founded BY HUMANS centuries later. The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL whether you care to admit or not!

What evidence do I have? It is called early church history.Read it sometime Rev and stop being like the majority of Protestants who cannot stand it because it conflicts with all of their novel beliefs.

And what other evidence do you have for the last 2,000 years it was always taught as being symbolic? NONE! Nothing but your private interpretation of scripture,which in no shape or form is going to rebuke what the early church taught and believed.

Go ahead turn blue in the face,nothing you say will disprove what history has recorded.Consuming a symbol-eh?

Transubstantiation: Latin-Transsubstantiatio Greek-Metousiosis
The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ we by Hildebent de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century, By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use. In 1215 the Four Counciles of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubtantiation into the body and blood of Christ.

 

[rev_kevin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility? This was in response to “and God said let there be light, so it was.” I see what you are doing and you won’t get me caught up in this trap.

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs. I have a grasp of transubstantiation, but I believe it was meant as a symbol of his body and blood. I see no evidence to say different.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.
This is my body the bread is a symbol of his body and I have not seen any evidence to state otherwise. If I take a some clay and form it into a human shape hold it up and say this is my body, is it my real body or a symbol of my body? A symbol of course, Just like Jesus held up the bread and said this is my body, it was a symbol.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

**What evidence do you have of this? **

Trap? The only trap you have been trapped is by following a church founded BY HUMANS centuries later. The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL whether you care to admit or not!

What evidence do I have? It is called early church history.Read it sometime Rev and stop being like the majority of Protestants who cannot stand it because it conflicts with all of their novel beliefs.

And what other evidence do you have for the last 2,000 years it was always taught as being symbolic? NONE! Nothing but your private interpretation of scripture,which in no shape or form is going to rebuke what the early church taught and believed.

Go ahead turn blue in the face,nothing you say will disprove what history has recorded.Consuming a symbol-eh?

Now about your first sentence here, I never said that Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances, so don’t say something or insinuate something I never said. :dts:

About my face turning blue it would only be me holding my breath waiting for you to see the truth of what Christ meant. But I won’t give you the pleasure

 

[Cinette]

But what it has to do with is the sufficiency of Christ’s death for the atonement of sins. The mass signifies that Christ’s death was not sufficient.

The Paradox

“Real Presense” believers ridicule non-real presense believers on the basis that we put Christ in a box, that Christ can’t do everything He wants like transforming bread and wine into His body and blood.

Yet, “Real Presense” believers fail to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient at forgiving all sins of the believer and that additional atoning work (ie. mass) is necessary.

Non-real presense belivers are expected to believe that Christ can do everything except for dying once for all sins.

Christ cannot do everything! Can He lie?

*The Mass has NOTHING to do with believing that Christ’s death was not “sufficient at forgiving all sins …(see above) and that additional atoning work is necessary”. How absurd! It is the FIRST time I hear of such *&^%$#@):"!!! The Mass is following Jesus’ instruction to “do this in rememberance of me” and much more (see the Catechism)

Oh man!

In regard to Christ dying for our sins I believe that in doing so Christ opened the gates of heaven for us *- we must die with Christ so that we can rise with Him. Still, we need to make reparation for our sins, we need God’s grace so that we can be holy and avoid sin.

When we repent of our sins we need to go through a process of purification. We ask God to help us and give us a clean heart. We pray to avoid sin.

We certainly don’t think that now that Christ has died for our sins it means that we can have a field day and do our thing - enjoy our sins and carry on because Christ has paid for our sins. I believe we need to strive for holiness and this is a daily thing until the day we die.

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

You are 100% correct Triune. But try explaining that to many Baptists and Fundamentalists. What I cannot understand is the constant denial of the early church writings? I mean is pride deep one cannot bring themselves down to admit they have been taught wrong?

BTW: I have never considered Lutherans/Anglicans as “Protestant” per se.

As a Catholic I can admit the church during Luther’s time was in need of much reform. It was a wake up call for the RCC.

*The process of reformation had already begun before Luther rebelled - it was not necessary for him to leave. The Church is continually in need of reform just as we are in continual need of conversion. There must always be tension between good and evil and the evil one is always looking for an opportunity to destroy and corrupt. We have to deal with the secular world with its pernicious ideas and philosophy. New age thoughts often manages to influence even people in the church. We must learn about our faith so that we can recognise these evils. It is a constant struggle.

Cinette*

 

[Reuben_J]

Luke 22:19 “Then he took a loaf of bread and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, GIVEN FOR YOU.” Do this in remembrance of me.” Here Jesus asked the disciples to ead the broken bread “in remembrance of me.” He wanted them to remember his sacrifice, the basis for forgiveness of sins, and also his friendship, which they could continue to enjoy through the work of the Holy Spirit. Given for you, he gave his body as a sacrifice for our sins. There is no real presents of his body here. The bread is a symbol of his body that is about to be broken.

…

He did not mention symbol. He did not say, “Take this bread as a symbol of my body”. He said, “This is my body” as he gave the bread to his disciples. (Emphasis mine).

Jesus who can heal the sick, drive demons, calm the storm, and raise the dead, should have no problem in turning the bread into his real body and blood.

In any case, for Christians of faith there should be no problem in believing that a priest who invokes the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name to the glory of the Father will turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. No problem at all; it is just a matter of faith. Miracle happens. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and will be, forever.

 

[Cinette]

Christ spoke in symbolic language all of the time. “I am the door.” “I am the gate.” Etc. My own experience is that few Catholics I know really believe in the substantive change in the Eucharistic elements. The idea that a certain prayer by a priest turns bread into flesh and wine into blood is simply too far out of sinc with modern thinking and knowledge to be acceptable.

*Not all the time Roy.

Consider this: If Jesus was talking in symbolic language when he said “For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed” why did the disciples turn away? they said “How can we believe this” and turned away. Also if they had misinterpreted Jesus’ words why did Jesus not call them back to explain? No he repeated himself…“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you have no life in you”

No Roy - Jesus was DEFINITELY not speaking in symbolic language. THINK about it.

Also ask yourself in Corr (is it 1 Corr:11?) why would you be putting Judgment upon yourself if you received a mere symbol unworthily??? Huh?

I do believe you need to read John 6 prayerfully and meditatively.

Do we UNDERSTAND transsubstantiation? No! But we believe because we trust Jesus. We cannot possibly believe everything christianity teaches us. We believe through FAITH.

*

 

[brkn1]

1- Christ ceertainly did speak frequently in symbolic language. The problem is John 6 is not symbolic … really. Was it recorded that anyone ever walked out on Christ because He compared Himself to a door, a vine, a sower of seed? No.

2- This is not a problem for the modern mind at all! The first century Jews had the same problem - maybe even moreso - and they walked out on Christ after asking (but, not waiting for a reply) “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Notice, they did not walk out and say, “How can this man use such a metaphor?”

You seem to ignore the main reason the Jews walked out, which was because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah from God the Father… That rejection was the main sin of the Jewish nation. They did not accept that Jesus came down from heaven. They insisted that Jesus was the son of Joseph, whose mother and father they knew. They did not accept Jesus’ claim of being the Son of God, which would make Jesus equal to God.

Look at Peter’s reply to Jesus’ question about whether the twelve would go away also.
“Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and we are sure that thou art that Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the living God.”
Notice that Peter’s confession is about believing that Jesus is the Christ and not about literally eating Jesus’ flesh etc.
The primary reason why the other unbelieving disciples left was that they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah as Peter and the other apostles did (excepting Judas).

 

[larkin31]

*You do not understand our Faith and you have every right to disagree. *I am married to a Catholic. I was married in the Catholic Church. I understand a good bit of it, but not all, for sure. I grew up in a Protestant minister’s household. I know my religion quite well even though I am agnostic today.

I, on the other hand, do not believe that Faith is a matter of opinion. You are free to choose. However I ask myself why you are on this thread? What is your purpose? You are argumentative and aggressive. There is no openness and there is no camaraderie. You want to be nasty. Therefore there is no pleasure in discoursing with you

 

[larkin31]

Jesus who can heal the sick, drive demons, calm the storm, and raise the dead, should have no problem in turning the bread into his real body and blood.

No one has argued that this act would be impossible for an omnipotent God. The question has been, Is this what Jesus means?

 

[Cinette]

You seem to ignore the main reason the Jews walked out, which was because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah from God the Father… That rejection was the main sin of the Jewish nation. They did not accept that Jesus came down from heaven. They insisted that Jesus was the son of Joseph, whose mother and father they knew. They did not accept Jesus’ claim of being the Son of God, which would make Jesus equal to God.

Look at Peter’s reply to Jesus’ question about whether the twelve would go away also.
“Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and we are sure that thou art that Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the living God.”
Notice that Peter’s confession is about believing that Jesus is the Christ and not about literally eating Jesus’ flesh etc.
The primary reason why the other unbelieving disciples left was that they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah as Peter and the other apostles did (excepting Judas).

*brkn1 - my bible says that it was the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus and went away - it doesn’t say the Jews.

Disciples are followers of Christ at that time and so, although they were Jews, they had accepted Christ as the Messiah. It was because they found it difficult to accept "eating His flesh and drinking His blood that they turn away!!* It was the disciples NOT the “Jews”. Which translation of the bible do you have?

I have just checked a Protestant bible (New Living Tradition) and it also says “disciples”.

Yes, sure Jesus then turned to the Apostles and asked whether they were also going to go and, since they believed and trusted Jesus (even though they did not understand) they said they they believed he was the Messiah and had the words of eternal life. I have no problem with that - what is your problem??

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

I am married to a Catholic. I was married in the Catholic Church. I understand a good bit of it, but not all, for sure. I grew up in a Protestant minister’s household. I know my religion quite well even though I am agnostic today.

. There is error in these criticisms of me. You misjudge my motives. And I stay only on the threads for “non-Catholic religions.” Why are you on these threads over here? This is where you are much more likely to find disagreement and dissension.

Me too. I have snipped only when I have witnessed unfair or inaccurate generalizations to begin with. Even here you are ascribing false negative motivations to me without actually knowing what you are talking about. There are several things I could speculate about your motives, but to do so would be discourteous. I will simply state that you are wrong. If you consider it an affront to be told that you are wrong, then I suggest that you not practice ascribing motives to anonymous posters on the internet.

OK Larkin31 I will accept that your motives are to learn just like me and apologise to you for being “discourteous” as you say. However, next time you get )(&%$#@?"! I will remind you of what you said on this thread.

Incidentally being married in the CC to a Catholic doesn’t mean that you know the Faith! I was a misinformed Catholic who left the Church for 27 years and am now back for good and just loving it - learning so much. My atheist husband converted (influenced by a Jew) and we now attend daily Mass.

*

 

[cruisin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brkn1
You seem to ignore the main reason the Jews walked out, which was because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah from God the Father… That rejection was the main sin of the Jewish nation. They did not accept that Jesus came down from heaven. They insisted that Jesus was the son of Joseph, whose mother and father they knew. They did not accept Jesus’ claim of being the Son of God, which would make Jesus equal to God.

Look at Peter’s reply to Jesus’ question about whether the twelve would go away also.
“Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and we are sure that thou art that Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the living God.”
Notice that Peter’s confession is about believing that Jesus is the Christ and not about literally eating Jesus’ flesh etc.
The primary reason why the other unbelieving disciples left was that they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah as Peter and the other apostles did (excepting Judas).

*brkn1 - my bible says that it was the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus and went away - it doesn’t say the Jews.

Disciples are followers of Christ at that time and so, although they were Jews, they had accepted Christ as the Messiah. It was because they found it difficult to accept "eating His flesh and drinking His blood that they turn away!!* It was the disciples NOT the “Jews”. Which translation of the bible do you have?

I have just checked a Protestant bible (New Living Tradition) and it also says “disciples”.

Yes, sure Jesus then turned to the Apostles and asked whether they were also going to go and, since they believed and trusted Jesus (even though they did not understand) they said they they believed he was the Messiah and had the words of eternal life. I have no problem with that - what is your problem??

Cinette

You are right, it does say disciple, but can you prove here that, they where His disciples because they accepted him as “THE” Messiah? or where they following Him for some other reason?

We see later in this same chapter ( John 6) Judas continueing to be a disciple but yet did not believe Him to be the Messiah.

You are making an assumtion that because John calls those that left disciples, they believed he was the Messiah. The two is not neccassarily synonomous.

sorry brkn1 had to chime in here. Hope you don’t mind.

Cinette, when you have to use squiggleys to cover up your language, you begin to lose credibility with me. Fowl langauge seems to be used when people get frustrated and no longer know what to say. I find for myself, that is the best time to be silent until one figures out the best response. As christians we are to rise above the world, not lower ourselves to it. " be in the world, but of the world"

 

[Cinette]

You are right, it does say disciple, but can you prove here that, they where His disciples because they accepted him as “THE” Messiah? or where they following Him for some other reason?

We see later in this same chapter ( John 6) Judas continueing to be a disciple but yet did not believe Him to be the Messiah.

You are making an assumtion that because John calls those that left disciples, they believed he was the Messiah. The two is not neccassarily synonomous.

sorry brkn1 had to chime in here. Hope you don’t mind.

Cinette, when you have to use squiggleys to cover up your language, you begin to lose credibility with me. Fowl langauge seems to be used when people get frustrated and no longer know what to say. I find for myself, that is the best time to be silent until one figures out the best response. As christians we are to rise above the world, not lower ourselves to it. " be in the world, but of the world"

*What is your definition of a disciple then?

In my understanding when the word disciple is used in the NT it refers to those who were follows of Jesus. I have never heard of any other definition.

Cruisin - I don’t swear or use fowl language - not my habit. If you think that squiggleys are to cover up for fowl language that is your “definition”.

Cinette*

 

[rinnie]

Jesus did not say let this be my body and it was his body. He did not say let this be my blood and it was his blood. It is a symbol of his body and blood. Show me in history when the bread and wine became his real body and real blood. The Apostles didn’t mention that it was.

You are quite correct there Rev Kev. Jesus did not say let this be my body. Jesus said let me give you the exact words.

1 Cor 11:24 And after he had given thanks, broke it and said This IS my BODY that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

In the same way he said: This is the new covenant IN MY BLOOD.

There it is Rev Kev that History you wanted to see. Quite Clear!!

Therefore my beloved avoid idolatry. I am speaking to sensible people judge for yoursleves what I am saying.

The cup of blessing that we bless IS IT NOT A PARTICIPATION IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? The bread we break IS IT NOT A PARTICIPATION IN THE BODY OF CHRIST!!!

There you got it Rev Kev. Communion with Christ is EXCLUSIVE INCOMPATIBLE with any other such communion!! It is the living Christ. He said THIS IS my Body This IS MY BLOOD.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rev Kevin,

I am really not sure what it is you are trying to prove with this cut-and-paste approach to scripture.

There obviously are multiple problems with the following:

1- John 6: “My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink”

2- Matthew, Mark and Luke: Last Supper Discourse “THIS is My Body”

3- 1Corinthians: Private revelation to Paul: “THIS is My Body”.

According to you, none of these guys got it right! It is all symbolism and can be explained away. Those 1st Century Jews were offended by the mere use of a metaphor in John 6 and walked away from the Person Who fed 5,000 because He did not look like bread or was crazy and wanted them to cannabalize Him. The Early Church Fathers mistakenly recognized that the common bread and wine was changed into the Body, Blood, Human Sould and Divinity of Christ… and for 16 Centuries, this group who claimed to have been following Christ and had the promise of Christ to keep them from error with Guidance from the Holy Spirit - had been misled! Fortunately, your group and those like it… decided to take (and abridge) the Bible given by the Catholic Church - claimed the Bible but not the one that authenticated it - and denied Jesus to be physically hidden under the appearance of bread in the Consecrated Host - set the world straight… Right?

Really, Rev, if one is driving down the road and comes to a sign that says, “Yield” - you can stop, or you can slow down and look for on-coming cars - but, you ignore the clear direction at your own peril. My question to you - and, really, to all of those who chant “symbol” when confronted with the Eucharist is: What part of THIS IS MY BODY isn’t clear? We are NOT ASKED to understand how this happens - we are asked to believe that the One Who can do all things - actually did what He said He did. We believe that Christ: walked on water, cured incurable diseases, drove out devils, fed thousands, raised the dead - and, of course rose Himself … but, He just was joking around when He said, THIS is my body when he handed the Bread to His Apostles. Amazing how He slipped that one in one us!

Now, I understand that this entire issue is a matter of Faith. And, ultimately, I have taken this as far as I can. If your claim that, apparently, Christ revoked the pledge He gave to Peter in giving him the keys and that he had the power to bind and lose on heaven and earth (unless He slipped that one in on us, too…) Then 1600 years later…God then repudiated the Church He founded on Peter, said He did not mean what He said about Bread being His Body and turned this all over to men who have spun out about 20,000+ versions of what He meant. That Christ is physically present in the Bread and Wine after the Words of Consecration was a Divine misunderstanding… or something like that. Right?

But, you know… what I have always found strange is that many protestant groups loudly proclaim that creation took place in six 24-hour days. Why? “Because the Bible tells me so…” This same group loudly proclaims the bread stayse bread becuse - even though clearly written - the claim is ‘symbol’. Obviously a six day creation could never be a symbol - so, either one is literal or one is not… but, I am sure you can explain away this apparent contradiction in convenient literalism…

God bless

Luke 22:19 “Then he took a loaf of bread and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, GIVEN FOR YOU.” Do this in remembrance of me.” Here Jesus asked the disciples to ead the broken bread “in remembrance of me.” He wanted them to remember his sacrifice, the basis for forgiveness of sins, and also his friendship, which they could continue to enjoy through the work of the Holy Spirit. Given for you, he gave his body as a sacrifice for our sins. There is no real presents of his body here. The bread is a symbol of his body that is about to be broken.

Luke 22: 20 “After supper he took another cup of wine and said, ‘This wine is a token of God’s new covemant to save you-and agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.’” Now in the OT times, God agreed to forgive peopl’s sins if they brought animals for the priests to sacrifice. When this sacrificial system was inaugurated, the agreement between God and his people was sealed with the blood of animals. But animal blood did not in itself remove sin, only God can forgive sin, and animal sacrifices had to be repeated day after day and year after year. Jesus instituted a “new covenant” or agreement between God and his people. There is no real presents here. His blood is a new covenant and is shed for our sins.

1 Corinthians 11:22-26 “For this is what the Lord himself said and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, This cup os the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it. For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.” Once again there is no real presents here.

Matthew 26: 26-29. The same no real presents here.
They all, except Matthew, state that the bread isa symbol of his body which is given up for our sins. Aand the wine is a symbol of his blood that will be shed for our sins and is a new covenant between God and man. Now were does it mean that it is his real body and blood. It clearly states what it means.