How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rinnie]

So to date we know that the Baptist faith does indeed deny Christ in the Eucharist.

What other Protestatant faith deny him?

 

[Deacon_JAR]

Deacon JAR;6657826:

Catholics,

Had an apostles shared in the Last Supper with Christ, partaking of the bread and cup, and died before Christ was cruxified, would that apostle had received eternal life?

Did the New Covenant go into effect at the Last Supper or Christ’s death on the cross?

If at the Last Supper:
If the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper, via transubstantiation, then there would have been no need for Christ to die for our redemption to take place for Christ was sacrificed.

If on the Cross
If the wine remained wine, but represented Christ’s blood, as the third cup of the Passover represents the blood of the Passover lamb, then the redemption still had not taken place. Therefore Christ still had to be cruxified.

The New Covenant was a contract that only went into effect upon the death of Christ. At that point, our redemption was secured for those in Christ.

My brother Shawn, may the Peace of the Lord be with you.

Had an apostles shared in the Last Supper with Christ, partaking of the bread and cup, and died before Christ was cruxified, would that apostle had received eternal life?

Moses and Abraham did not partake of the bread and cup at the Last Supper but we all believe they are saved.

All 12 of the apostles ate from the bread and drank from the cup but one of them, Judas Iscariot, we believe did not receive eternal life. Right after Jesus distributed the bread and presented the cup (Lk. 22-19-20) He said, “And yet behold the hand of the one who IS to betray me IS with me on the table.” (Lk. 22:21)

Then Jesus said, *“The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but WOE to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THAT MAN IF HE HAD NEVER BEEN BORN.” (Mat. 26:24-25)" * I am not judging Judas; I am quoting the scriptures.

Did the New Covenant go into effect at the Last Supper or Christ’s death on the cross?

In the history of the Hebrew nation, covenants were sealed through “blood” and we all believe the New Covenant was sealed by the “Blood of the Lamb of God” sacrificed on the altar of the cross. Blessed be His Precious Blood!!! The graces of His “saving action” were not only for the generations of those days but for all previous and future generations.

There is no scriptural evidence of the celebration of the breaking of the bread and drinking of the cup after the Last Supper and before Pentecost; before His death on the cross and before His glorious Ascension to heaven. Before Pentecost: “All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer…” (Acts 1:14) After Pentecost: "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and the communal life, to the BREAKING OF THE BREAD and to prayers." (Acts 2:42)

I reaffirm what I said on my previous post. The first Christians 1) were **devoted **to the breaking of the bread (LK. 2:42); (2) understood with this celebration they were proclaiming His death (1 Cor 11:26), and (3) were to continue this celebration “until He comes again.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

• “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you PROCLAIM the death of the Lord until HE COMES.” (1Cor. 11:26)*

 

[shawn38]

Excellent!

So we know the New Covenant began at the Last Supper and reached its fulfillment at the Crucifixion.

You say “began”. Interesting choice of words. What redemptive benefits are gained from the time of the Last Supper and before Christ’s crucifixion?

At the Last Supper, Christ did not drink of the Cup of Redemption (3rd cup). That was later.

 

[PRmerger]

You say “began”. Interesting choice of words. What redemptive benefits are gained from the time of the Last Supper and before Christ’s crucifixion?

At the Last Supper, Christ did not drink of the Cup of Redemption (3rd cup). That was later.

Since the marriage covenant is an icon of the New Covenant we share with Christ, what benefits are gained from the time a couple commits to each other before God with their “I do”?

The Catholic answer is clear: the benefit one receives from becoming someone’s Beloved.

 

[brkn1]

Excellent!

So we know the New Covenant began at the Last Supper and reached its fulfillment at the Crucifixion.

The benefits of Christ’s one Sacrifice did not reach fulfillment at the Crucifixion as you claim.

There had to also be the burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory at the right hand of the Father, before even the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all believers.
Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, no benefits of the New Covenant were possible.

 

[PRmerger]

The benefits of Christ’s one Sacrifice did not reach fulfillment at the Crucifixion as you claim.

There had to also be the burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory at the right hand of the Father, before even the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all believers.
Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, no benefits of the New Covenant were possible.

Could you please cite your Scripture source for this?

(BTW, I did not say anything about the “benefits” of the New Covenant reaching fulfillment at the Crucifixion.)

 

[PRmerger]

If the Mass is one in the same sacrifice as Christ’s crucifixion, was the Lord’s Supper with the apostles also one in the same?

Yes. The Last Supper is where Jesus instituted the Eucharist. The Passover sacrifice is completed after Jesus drinks the “Fourth Cup” while on the Cross–thus, Jesus said, “It is finished”. What was finished? The final Passover sacrifice.

 

[tarbal79]

RevKevin I would like to know if Baptism is a symbol or if it is as Scripture states we are a new creature. I need to know so I can try to explain the Real Presence in the the Eucharist. I also think that if you truly believe that no one is infallible than you, by your admission, have to admit you might be wrong on the issue of the Real Presence.

 

[shawn38]

shawn38;6658379:

All 12 of the apostles ate from the bread and drank from the cup but one of them, Judas Iscariot, we believe did not receive eternal life. Right after Jesus distributed the bread and presented the cup (Lk. 22-19-20) He said, “And yet behold the hand of the one who IS to betray me IS with me on the table.” (Lk. 22:21)

Ageed. The bread and wine after the supper.

I reaffirm what I said on my previous post. The first Christians 1) were **devoted **

to the breaking of the bread (LK. 2:42); (2) understood with this celebration they were proclaiming His death (1 Cor 11:26), and (3) were to continue this celebration “until He comes again.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

Agreed and Amen!

In the history of the Hebrew nation, covenants were sealed through “blood” and we all believe the New Covenant was sealed by the “Blood of the Lamb of God” sacrificed on the altar of the cross.

Agrred!

So if the New Covenant was sealed by the “Blood of the Lamb of God” sacrificed on the altar of the cross, why were not the apostles redeemed immediately upon partaking of the body and blood? If they were, Christ did not have to die on the cross. It would seem that if the body and blood of the Last Supper are the same as the body and blood of the mass, the same redemptive attributes would exist.

Just as the bread and wine (grape juice) nourishes me physically, I find spiritual nourishment in remembering and especially proclaiming Christ particularly during communion.

 

[shawn38]

The benefits of Christ’s one Sacrifice did not reach fulfillment at the Crucifixion as you claim.

There had to also be the burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory at the right hand of the Father, before even the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all believers.
Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, no benefits of the New Covenant were possible.

Christ’s redemptive work was completed on the cross, hence “It is Finished!” I agree that He still needed to ascend to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit had to come to leads us into the truth.

The apostles were not yet baptized or received power.
Acts 1: 5For John baptized witha water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” …8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you

 

[rev_kevin]

RevKevin I would like to know if Baptism is a symbol or if it is as Scripture states we are a new creature. I need to know so I can try to explain the Real Presence in the the Eucharist. I also think that if you truly believe that no one is infallible than you, by your admission, have to admit you might be wrong on the issue of the Real Presence.

The Baptism is not part of this thread. This thread is about the Eucharist. You can explain the Real Presence without going off topic.

I never said I was correct or wrong, I am stating my beliefs on the matter. Now have you ever thought that the CC or you might be wrong? After all there is no one, except Jesus, that is infallible and that no one includes the Pope who is only a human being like the rest of us, capable of making mistakes.

 

[rev_kevin]

If Jesus Meant that his Flesh was just a symbol why didn’t he just say that then? Why did he say this is a hard saying. What would make it a hard saying if he meant it was only a symbol then? I do not think any would walk away from him if he said it was a symbol. But scripture tells us quite clear! Jesus did not call them back and say hey listen you misunderstood me. There was no misunderstanding. Christ was quite clear. They know what they heard, they even repeated it as they walked away.

And how many today still do not accept this hard teaching and still deny him in the sacrament and still walk away. How sad!!

Well the same can be said, if he meant it to be his real body why didn’t he say, this is my real body, it really is my body. But he didn’t now did he. So the argument of why he didn’t say this or that can go both ways.

They said, this is very hard to understand, How can anyone accept it? Now what was Jesus talking about before this. Jesus was talking about being the bread of life and eating his flesh. They took him literally and that is not what Jesus was saying. He was saying that you need to believ in him, that he is the Son of God and he was sent down from heaven as the bread of life to save the world. He was talking about his Father, God and they only knew that he was the son of Joseph and that they know his father and mother. How can he say, I came down from heaven? They could not understand this about him being the son of God and that he is the bread that came down from heaven. And they didn’t understant the eating his flesh which means you are to believe in him and the Father who sent him. See they could not believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Jesus said, the things I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But some of you don’t believe. What were they to believe, that they are to believe in him and who he says he is. Then they left and Jesus asked the remaining disciples if they were going to leave also and Peter said, Lord to whom would we go? You alone have the WORDS that GIVE ETERNAL LIFE. We BELIEVE THEM and we know you are the Holy One of God. See they believe in Jesus. They believed that he was the bread of God, the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. How did Jesus give life to the world. By his suffering and death on the cross. Keep in mind that this was before the Last Supper, when Jesus, as you believe, made bread and wine into his body and blood. How can he or why would he say these things when it had not yet happened, the Last Supper. And why didn’t John mention the Last Supper if it was so important and that Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood? Could it be that John understood it to be just a symbol and not actually his body? Eating his flesh or his body meant that you Believe in him and all the Good he stands for. And if you believe in him you will have eternal life. It don’t mean that it is his real body.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Catholics believe in Transubstatiation.
It does not matter what non-Catholics believe, that is why they are not Catholic.

 

[rev_kevin]

Actually I get your point very clearly but it seems you do not get mine.

How is He the Bread of Life? Isn’t it that we only know that He is the Bread of Life because He said so in John 6. Well then, read the rest of John says and find out what else He says about Himself.
I have read all of John 6 several times and know what he said about himself.
Why would bread be a good symbol of His body? Bread is made of flour, how does that symbolize His body?
Because he is the bread of life that came down from heaven. Why would he make bread into his real body if its made out of flour?
And that is exactly what I said as well. That this is the Body of Jesus that will be sacrificed the following day on the Cross.

Well no.  I think you need to re-read the synoptic gospels.I was responding to what you wrote, didn't you say that the rememberance would only be a rememberance of the meal. Read what you wrote.

  So here are two accounts.

    Luke 22:19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do THIS in memory of me.".And?

  Matthew 26: 24-28 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, [16](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew26.htm#foot16) and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

And?
When Jesus said do THIS, what is the THIS? The THIS is the offering up of His Body to be eaten by the disciples. When you break bread in church you are to remember his sacrifice.

  When He says drink from this cup, He does not say this is the wine that symbolises my blood. No, He says This is my blood. What sort of blood? The blood that will be shed for the forgiveness of sins.The wine was a symbol of his blood that was to be shed for our sins.

No they were not. Jesus did not say this represents or this symbolizes my body / blood. Jesus said this is my blood, this is my body. Using them as a symbol. Bread was a main staple that was eaten at every meal. So he used the bread as a symbol because every time they would break bread at a meal they would remember his sacrifice.
St Augustine wrote that at the last supper, Jesus held his body in his hands.So thats what he believes but that is not what Jesus meant.

Nope. That is not what Jesus said. I think you have a hearing/comprehension problem. Read what the text said.
NOW THIS IS UNCALLED FOR. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM THEM. SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT A CHILD WOULD DO.
Wrong. You’re putting words into Jesus’s mouth. Words He never said. Stick to what He said. Maybe that’s what you wanted Him to have said but that is not what He said.

  Either like Peter you believe in Him and believe that He has the words of eternal life or like the others, you don’t believe he has the words of eternal life and walk away.Oh I believe he has the words of eternal life and I  would never walk away from him. ]

Nope. That is why I said, if you read John 6, it does not make sense by itself because He is telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood and yet surely He does not expect His apostles to kill him and tear him apart and devour Him.I know that, thats why he used the bread as a symbol of his body.

Then comes the last supper and they must have thought, Aaaah, so this is what He meant last year when He said eat my body, drink my blood.

No they knew what he meant before the last supper. John 6 68-69 “Simon Peter replied, Lord, to whom would we go? You alone have the words that give eternal life. We believe them and know you are the Holy One of God.”
If he said He is the bread of life then He is bread of life. How is He bread of life? Well he showed the apostles exactly at the Last supper precisely how.
No it was on the cross that he showed how.
No, because that is not what he said.

You’ve got that confused. He said in John 6 those who eat his flesh and drink his blood are the ones who have eternal life.My Bible says, I assuer you anyone who believes in me already has eternal life. John 6:47

 

[rev_kevin]

Catholics believe in Transubstatiation.
It does not matter what non-Catholics believe, that is why they are not Catholic.

And this is a news flash?
Here’s another news flash, thats not the only reason we are not Catholic or that we left the CC.

 

[rev_kevin]

*I have asked about this before - don’t you mean the “Real Presence”? However you keep talking about the real presents and I am wondering what you mean by presents. Never heard of this before - and you are not the only Protestant to refer to the “real presents”.

I am confused.

God bless
Cinette*

Mispelt, Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Cinette]

*Hmmmm… if I were Protestant and I came to this thread I would say "Yes, these Catholics have a point there … Hmmm…yes why did the disciples walk away? And Jesus did not call them back, He did not say “Hey I didn’t mean it like THAT! Come back, let me explain what I really mean!”

No, immediately as they left He asked the Apostles whether they too would leave and Peter said “Lord to whom can we go, you have the words of Eternal Life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

This is why we need Faith which is believing because we trust and love and not because we understand. There would be no need for Faith if we understood all the mysteries of Life and Faith.

Remember it was not long before that that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Even so, I do believe and I have said it before that, had I lived in those days I too would have turned my back and left. Sad but true. I have the witness of 2000 years to back up my Faith. Praise God!.

God love you
Cinette*

 

[rev_kevin]

*Hmmmm… if I were Protestant and I came to this thread I would say "Yes, these Catholics have a point there … Hmmm…yes why did the disciples walk away? And Jesus did not call them back, He did not say “Hey I didn’t mean it like THAT! Come back, let me explain what I really mean!”

No, immediately as they left He asked the Apostles whether they too would leave and Peter said “Lord to whom can we go, you have the words of Eternal Life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

This is why we need Faith which is believing because we trust and love and not because we understand. There would be no need for Faith if we understood all the mysteries of Life and Faith.

Remember it was not long before that that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Even so, I do believe and I have said it before that, had I lived in those days I too would have turned my back and left. Sad but true. I have the witness of 2000 years to back up my Faith. Praise God!.

God love you
Cinette*

Jesus also talked in parables, did everyone get what he was saying then. NO so why didn’t he say, Hay this is what I meant when I said this…Because those who believed understood and those who didn’t believe didn’t understand. The same when the other disciples left and some stayed, Peter said it, not hard to understand why they stayed. They have come to believe and know he is the Holy One of God. The others didn’t understand that.

The first part of your post is easy to say what, if you were a prostant would say because you are Catholic and believe the way the CC teaches and their teachings. If you werer a prostant you probably would say, What?

 

[Cinette]

rev_kevin:
*Oh Man rev kevin!!! Benedictus can be excused for being frustrated with you because no matter how many times she says and points to the scripture you read through your own interpretation and cannot SEE the truth. You must excuse her for that surely? We have proved so many times from the scriptures that the bread and wine is CONSECRATED into the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said so!

So I guess we must leave it at that - we can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it to penetrate into your heart - that is His job.

God love you
Cinette
*

 

[brkn1]

Christ’s redemptive work was completed on the cross, hence “It is Finished!” I agree that He still needed to ascend to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit had to come to leads us into the truth.

The apostles were not yet baptized or received power.
Acts 1: 5For John baptized witha water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” …8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you

We all agree that Christ needed to ascend to Heaven to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant.

This presents a serious problem for those who claim that the Real Presence means that we go back in time to the actual one Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.
The resurrection does not happen until many days later and, if the resurrection has not happened during the Mass, then the participants would be yet in their sins as Paul explained. Catholics claim that some sins are forgiven by means of the sacrifice of the Mass, which can not be if the resurrection is not included in the Mass time frame.