I just must ask

  • Thread starter Thread starter BILL_PICK53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
campeador said:
1 Cor. 11:27–28:

Note: it does NOT say ‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the symbolic remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord.’
Click to expand...

The Ark Uzzah touch and was killed was not the actual presence of God but it represented God the Savior.​

Note: the verses you quote did not say, ‘Whoever eats the Body of Jesus or His Blood’.
 
Dokimas said:
-The Ark Uzzah touch and was killed was not the actual presence of God but it represented God the Savior.
Click to expand...
Friend, The Ark of the Covenant was much more than a ‘representation’ of God.
From Exodus 25:8-11:
"Let them construct a sanctuary for Me,** that I may dwell among them**. According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it. They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it.”
Click to expand...
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Yahweh used to speak to his servant in a cloud over the oracle (Leviticus 16:2). This was, very likely, also the way in which he communicated with Josue after the death of the first leader of Israel (cf. Joshua 7:6-1). The oracle was, so to say, the very heart of the sanctuary, the dwelling place of God; hence we read in scores of passages of the Old Testament that Yahweh “sitteth on [or rather, by] the cherubim”.
Click to expand...
Most Christians agree with this understanding. Here is what a quick search brought up. From rationalchristianity.net:
The Ark of the Covenant was an embodiment of God’s presence with the Israelites. The atonement cover (or “mercy seat”) that covered the ark was God’s throne (2 Sam 6:2) and God’s presence was above it (Lev 16:2); it was also the place where God met Moses and gave him commands (Ex 25:22). If someone approached the ark, they would effectively be in God’s presence - a sinner standing before a holy God who does not tolerate evil (Ps 5:4-6) - and would die as a result of their sins.
Click to expand...
 
campeador said:
Friend, The Ark of the Covenant was much more than a ‘representation’ of God.
From Exodus 25:8-11:

QUOTE]​

My experience when someone calls me friend in the manner you did here, I’m being condescended to. No big deal I’m sure in many ways I’m far below you.

BTW, you make a good point. I’m not sure if it’s a big deal but didn’t God dwell between the cherebim over the Mercy Seat which was on top of the Ark?

However, seems God is not always present in the Ark. He promises to always be present with a true believer (Hebrews 13:5)

You didn’t respond to my comment that the 1 Corinthians 11 verse does not say, ‘Whoever eats the Body of Jesus or drinks of His Blood’.
Click to expand...
 
Dokimas,

I apologize for any condescension. I promise I didn’t mean it that way. I’m new here, and well, looking back at my posts, it might seem to others that I wasn’t always being kind. I’ve learned one thing for sure: I’m not nearly as smart as most people here so if I want to make a good point, I’d better research it well and provide links so I don’t look like a complete fool!

I’ll address you anyway you’d like. If Dokimas is fine, than that’s what I’ll use. Honestly, I’m trying to be respectful.

Now , I must get ready for evening Mass. I’ll try to address your comment about 1 Corinthians 11as soon as I’m able.
 
campeador said:
Dokimas,

I apologize for any condescension. I promise I didn’t mean it that way. I’m new here, and well, looking back at my posts, it might seem to others that I wasn’t always being kind. I’ve learned one thing for sure: I’m not nearly as smart as most people here so if I want to make a good point, I’d better research it well and provide links so I don’t look like a complete fool!

I’ll address you anyway you’d like. If Dokimas is fine, than that’s what I’ll use. Honestly, I’m trying to be respectful.

Now , I must get ready for evening Mass. I’ll try to address your comment about 1 Corinthians 11as soon as I’m able.
Click to expand...
Friend is fine. I’m sure it’s a priviledge being your friend. God bless you.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Why do you make sweeping statements like this Bill? You don’t know. You can’t know whether or not all non-Catholics take almost all of the bible literally and I’m pretty sure that it just is not true. I know it’s not true for this non-Catholic.
Click to expand...
Richard, If you can not answer the question,Please do not give your opinion
 
I can’t speak for anyone else, but this non-Catholic does her very best to understand the Bible as John Martignoni claims Catholics do, in a “literal” but not “literalist” way, according to the best I can make out of the Author’s intent.
Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense. The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”
Click to expand...
So far as the Real Presence, color me somewhere in Anglican/Lutheran range: I believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist spiritually, so not physically but not merely symbolically or memorially either.
 
BILL_PICK53 said:
Why do non-catholic take almost all the Bible LITERALLY, but will when it comes too John chapter 6 they say it is a Symbol or figurative and the Bible does not say it is,WHY
Click to expand...
Not all non-Catholics take all the Bible literally, but they do take passages literally that would support a Protestant view. If taking the Scripture literally supports a Catholic view, then it is NOT taken literally. The basic assumption is ALL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IS WRONG. That may not be stated, but that is the assumption.

I crossed the Tiber, in March 2008.
 
=Dokimas;6642417]-
There’s enough Biblical evidence not to take your understanding of ‘communion’.
Click to expand...
BTW, the CC doesn’t take it as literal as you make them out to take it. Why are the ‘bread’ and the ‘wine’ offered to all each and ever time ‘communion’ is taken? Remember Jesus offered His Body AND His Blood. Also remember the ‘Last Supper’ included Both the Body AND the Blood.
Click to expand...
Before anyone accuses others of not being accurate, don’t you think they themselves should be accurate, especially when they are supposed to have ALL the correct understandings?
Click to expand...
1Corinthians 11:
Click to expand...
23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread AND drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Click to expand...
Note: Paul did NOT say, ‘for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you eat the Body of Jesus and Drink His Blood.’
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say? Verse 27 says "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup in an unworthly manner will be guilty of** profaning the body AND blood of the Lord.**
 
Dokimas said:
I noticed that too. The CC is ‘literalist’ when it comes to ‘communion’. **Evangelicals take it literal **(as Jesus intended), IMO. Funny how that works out. 🙂
Click to expand...
How? Jesus took bread and said this IS my body? Yet you do not take that literally. You said he did not mean that it was His body it was only a symbol. . You take a literalist interpretation not a literal interpretation.
 
My friend Dokimas,

If there were no real presence of God in the Ark of the Covenant, why were the sinful killed after profaning the Ark(1 Samuel 6:19)? If there is no real presence of Our Lord in the bread and wine, how can one be ‘guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord’?
Dokimas said:
However, seems God is not always present in the Ark. He promises to always be present with a true believer (Hebrews 13:5)
Click to expand...
As long as the Israelites were faithful to God, the Ark remained with them.
 
Third_Day said:
How? Jesus took bread and said this IS my body? Yet you do not take that literally. You said he did not mean that it was His body it was only a symbol. . You take a literalist interpretation not a literal interpretation.
Click to expand...
Read posts 14-15 to see how we or I came up with this conclusion.
 
campeador said:
My friend Dokimas,

If there were no real presence of God in the Ark of the Covenant, why were the sinful killed after profaning the Ark(1 Samuel 6:19)? If there is no real presence of Our Lord in the bread and wine, how can one be ‘guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord’?

As long as the Israelites were faithful to God, the Ark remained with them.
Click to expand...
How can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord you ask.
In 1 Corinthians 11 27 Her Paul gives specific instructions on how the Lord’s Supper should be observed.
1] We should take the Lord’s Supper thoughtfully because we are proclaining that Christ died for our sins [11:26]
2] We should take it worthily, with due reverence and respect. [11:27]
3] We should examine ourselves for any unconfessed sin or resentful attitude and be properly prepared. [11:28]
4] We should be considerate of others, waiting until everyone is there and then eating in an orderly and unified manner. 11:33}
See Paul said that no one should take the Lord’s Supper inworthily, he was speaking to the church members who were participating in it without thinking of its meaning, which he states in verse 26 “For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup. you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.” Those who participated without thinking of its meaning were guilty of sinning against the body and blood or the Lord. This is why we should prepare ourselves for Communion through healthy introspection. confession of sin, and resolution of differences with others. These actions remove the barriers that affect our relationship with Christ and with other believers.
 
rev kevin,

Very little to disagree with there. So you believe in the Real Presence?🙂
 
rev_kevin said:
Read posts 14-15 to see how we or I came up with this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Literal means that you take into consideration the audience that was listening to Jesus as well as all the customs and idioms of speech that the audience listening would have had.

In John 6 when Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood he also said “and the bread which I shall give…is my flesh”. (verse 51)

Jesus was not speaking in symbolic language because His audience listening said “How can this man give us his flesh to eat” and they also said “this is a hard saying who can listen to it”.

Only 10 chapters later Jesus says this to his disciples “I have said this to you in figures” (John 16:25)

And in verse 29 the disciples said “Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure” " John 16:29

Jesus never made any attempt in John 6 to correct his disciples. He said what He meant. He did not speak in figures in John 6 or when He took bread and said “this IS my body”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top