Is the "Real Presence" real?

[guanophore]

You’re confusing John 6 with the Lord’s supper and there is no connection there at all.

I went back to catch up on the posts in this thread. I just have t say, this comment absolutely BLOWS MY MIND!!!

One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant."

I think that most people are in protest against the Authority that Jesus appointed for the Church.

We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine.

Do you remember what Jesus instructed the disciples to do when they had a dispute they could not resolve?

In fact, the NT is a product of the Catholic faith, and it entirely represents that faith. The Catholic doctrine IS the context of Scripture. That is why nothing in the NT contradicts Catholic Teaching. They both came from the same Source.

(eeryone should) just read ALL that the Scriptures have to say on this, or any other doctrine.

Well, I agree, which is why I found the quote at the top of this response so shocking. Scripture is not intended to be the Source of doctrine. The Source is Jesus. What is represented in Scripture is what we have from Jesus through the Apostles. But it is the duty of the Church to formulate the doctrine.

Often, as soon as we read ALL that the Bible has to say on a given topic; then, yes, the context does change.

I agree. One of the most derailing practices I embraced in my years as a fundamentalist was trying to grasp doctrine by peicemealing the scripture.

Jesus has been, is, and will be present in many ways besides our communion services.

I agree, but He was very specific about how this particular “service” should be done.

 

[justinthemartyr]

One of the greatest things about being a non denominational protestant, is that I had no authority over me and I could do what i wanted. i could have sexual relationships outside of marriage and it was really the norm at the 18 churches I went to. As long as I had a relationship with Jesus Christ and was "born again’ as interpreted by my protestant brethren, i could do almost anything and still achieve heaven…

Therefore the absence of church authority caused scandal for me and many thousands of others. This was certainly a wide road.

This would also apply to the topic of the Eucharist. Without the church authority, seen in every age, a Christian is able to believe whatever they want, as it pertains to their personal private interpretation of scripture.

Scripture itself does not support this and neither does church history previous to the reformation.

And John 6 has everything to do with the Lord’s supper, unlike some individuals would like to believe.

 

[guanophore]

So; in the Catholic understanding of this subject; the “Eucharist” “re-presents” the Passover? Or, are you saying that by the Eucharist, grace is conferred upon the suppliant or partaker thereof?

Jesus chose the Passover for many reasons, but He is the spotless Lamb that is offered to set us free from captivity. The Passover was the pre-figurement of His sacrifice. It is a memorial meal that is physically eaten by all members of the covenant. It is also an amanesis, or a type of re-enactment. If you have not had a chance, I highly recommend attendance at a Seder meal. This will broaden the understanding of Eucharis.

It is more accurate to say that the Mass re-presents the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. He has been offered for us, once for all time. Through the Mass, we become present at the cross.

This is totally false, for the scriptures tell us clearly that we can “merely eat or drink” “to the glory of God…”

Are you saying that the passage in Corinthians is “totally false” when it speaks about eating and drinking at the Eucharist in a profane manner?

The quote you are using here is about dietary requirements/restrictions, especially in relation to food offered to idols. It has nothing to do with Eucharist.

Your personal opinion on 1 Cor.11 falls flat on it’s face when compared to other scriptures and ALL that Jesus is trying to tell us here.

Actually, that is not a “personal opinion” but the Apostolic Teaching. It has been covered before that a person cannot profane the Body and Blood if such things are not present in the first place. So, I am wondering what you think that passage is speaking about, if not the Eucharist.

Contrary to what you state above; Christ explains Himself all the time:

Jesus did this with those who knew Him best; and today, with those who know their God; His word will be explained to them.

No, He did not. In fact, there are many references to how He taught in parables so that only the faithful would understand. The above verse you cite was made to disciples, and those where were not disciples often did not understand. In fact, even His Apostles were confused, and had to be chastized and educated frequently.

I agree that God wants His disciples to know His word. This is why He established a Teaching Authority.

 

[guanophore]

You are correct; they are two different things; but the context in which I mentioned the fact of eating or drinking to the glory of God, was in reference to the poster of [post #120 ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223473&page=8post #120)who tried to say that Protestants were wrong for concluding that the transubstantiation doctrine was not actually in the physical, literal sense.

OK. That clears up one of the questions I had. Apparently I just did not read down into the thread far enouth.

That poster tried to say that it was impossible for us to “eat or drink to the glory of God” when they said: “How could eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious?” It simply is a falsehood to say it can’t be done; and then try to use this “fact” to “prove” transubstantiation.

I think I am in agreement with you on this point. I don’t think it is possible to eat mere bread and wine in an unworthy manner. If Jesus is not really present, His Body and Blood cannot really be profaned.

You are adding in the idea of “transubstantiation” to what was said. In fact, the Apostolic Teaching, both East and West, is a literal understanding. The Eastern Church does not attempt to “explain” it as does the West with the idea of Transubstantiation. But there is no less reverence for the literal presence. I also agree with you that the Reformist view of symbolic meaning is not new either. There were heresies denying the Real Presence early in the second centry.

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS

“eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

Well, however one understands “literal” that is what the Apostles taught, and that is what John 6 is talking about, and that is why so many walked away, as you apparently have also done.

In my next post; I will be happy to begin a review of the “scripture evidence” supplied by Catholics for those who may be interested.

Evidence of Transubstantiation? No, thanks. I prefer just meditating on it as a Divine Mystery.

when I think of what you have said on this forum about "the real presence;" I must ask first: "Do you worship Christ, or the bread at Mass? In fact, the way you have explained it makes me think that YOU believe the Eucharist teaches that the Roman Catholic Priesthood must be held by me to be creator of the Creator, when they dish out those wafers/bread at your communion service!! Now, that's what I call what YOU called me!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

After the consecration, the elements are no longer bread and wine, but the Body and Blood. We worship Jesus, fully present in the elements. It is Jesus we worship, Who has chosen to make Himself present to us in this mysterious manner.

Priests do not “dish out those wafers”. They offer the Body and Blood of our Lord. God makes HImself present, as He said He would, when the priest follows the instructions He gave. This is what has been believed by the Church for 2000 years. At what point do you think they fell off the rails? Do you think it was the following week, when they celebrated the Lord’s Supper? Did they already misunderstand what He meant?

The only remark in your post that offended me was your comment, where you implied that Catholics are “cannibals” I believe that this comment of yours was in bad taste, inappropriate and that it “crossed the line”.

Well, think of it this way, this is the same accusation that the first generation of Christians got from the Pagans, so you are in very good company. Don’t be offended, Jimmy B! You are in communion with innumerable saints who gave their lives on this point. One of the reasons that Christians were martryed is because they were “atheists” (denied the pantheon) and “cannibals”. It was said of them that “they eat their God, and drown their infants”. So, clearly even the Pagans testify to the Real Presence in making such an accusation. It is ignorant, but reflects their misunderstanding of an actual truth we do embrace.

[/QUOTE]

 

[sambos671]

so you predicted that a ridiculous statement where you compared
Islamic&Buddhist prayers to Catholic prayers and called them “robotic” would throw people off and make them respond to you in a negative way? Wow!! You are a psychic. How did you pull that off? Thats amazing!!! I guess that was supposed to be taken tongue in cheek and we should pat you on the back because at the end of your post you just happen to say that the real presence of Christ may be apparent? Or is it towards the end of your statement on repetition where you try to be cute and cover yourself by stating

No. my prediction was that you or, whoever, would make out something I wasn’t saying. Because that’s what seems to be happening here on both sides of the aisle here. Yeah, my experience has shown me that there are catholics who’s prayers are robotic like repetition and there is no meaning. Yes there are. That is not to say all catholics are like that or there are not protestants like that. My discussion was the Protestant perspective of how that type of prayer can be a hinderance to actual faith which can only be measured by the works we do.
I am only sometimes cute Look. My experience with Catholism is one on people who really couldn’t care about God other than by the ritual they were raised in. Am I saying that there are Catholics beyond my experience that are exemplary in their faith. Yes. However, I don’t know about you but for my family Mass was something we did for 45 minutes on Saturday and Confession (once a month) was a requirement to make sure our “bases” were covered. Was the priest faithful. I’m sure but “those” kind of people were specially Holy and they were required to. Many of the other Catholics I’ve hung around growing up were not much different! Where we or they following the faith really. No. But as a kid that’s how I came to understand the church. Ritual. 45 minutes of the same liturgy every sunday and go on to life my life apart from Jesus the rest of the week. Yes that was my experience. Are there other experience out there? I am certain of it. However, when your raised that way and someone shows you how Jesus makes a difference then your ears pick up. Having been a protestant has helped me know scriptures a lot more and I’m guided much more morally than before. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CATHOLICS DO NOT TEACH GREAT MORALITY!!! I’m expressing my experience. Now that I am studying these matters further I have questons and am getting depper into the matter. Which is why I’m on this site. What happens here is anything I say becomes a generalization for everything. ie. I did not experience good ethical and moral living from catholics I new. therefore somebody will read just a part and say “Are you saying catholics have no Ethics and Morals? How ridiculous! Just go to the CCC and read such and such or have a conversation with any priest” In short Jesus changed my life at a point when I heard it clearly from Protestant teaching. Would the same have been true if I remained Catholic? Very Possibly. But I wouldn’t know because that wasn’t my experience. Has the Catholic Church changed since I left the US and returned? In somethings yes. So that was my point

 

[sambos671]

I really want to have good honest discussion about issues I’m thinking about with great referrence to review. Not: when your done in purgetory you’ll know the truth about the Eucharist. Or All you protestants are the same! You know nothing about anything just “swimm the tiber” ect… Maybe this is just a wrong forum for it and it’s my mistake. Maybe I’m looking for something more academic. I just don’t want to shell out a lot of money for seminary.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Protestant101:

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS “eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

2 Cor 9:
[11] You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving(eucharistein) to God;
[12] for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God.

The meaning of the word “eucharist” is thanksgiving. It’s just simply translated from Greek to English.

As far as “transubstantiation”, do you not know the Last Supper discourses?

Matthew 26:

[26]Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."

[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:
[22]And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."

[23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:
[17] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;
[18] for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
[19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, **"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. **

1 Cor 10:
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
[17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Nowhere does Paul call the bread or the wine a “symbol” of the participation in the body or blood of Christ.

Yes, the way the Church expressed the doctrine reflecting on this great mystery may have needed time to develop, but that hardly negates the fact that the essence of that truth of the real presence in the Eucharist didn’t already exist in the early Church. Like most wonderful things in which we as humans experience we need time to reflect on the wonderful gifts of God in order to fully grasp its full meaning. Like when one experiences the overwhelming joy of matrimony, only after the event is over and one has had time to reflect does one realize the full meaning of the love and joy that exists in the sacrament. The same with the bride of Christ.

The Eucharist is the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to the apostles before His resurrection: “and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”(Matthew 28:20)

The Eucharist is the sign that effects what it signifies. It is the sign of Christ’s presence within His Church, and it truly IS Him present within His Church.

 

[teadough]

No. my prediction was that you or, whoever, would make out something I wasn’t saying. Because that’s what seems to be happening here on both sides of the aisle here. Yeah, my experience has shown me that there are catholics who’s prayers are robotic like repetition and there is no meaning. Yes there are. That is not to say all catholics are like that or there are not protestants like that. My discussion was the Protestant perspective of how that type of prayer can be a hinderance to actual faith which can only be measured by the works we do.
I am only sometimes cute Look. My experience with Catholism is one on people who really couldn’t care about God other than by the ritual they were raised in. Am I saying that there are Catholics beyond my experience that are exemplary in their faith. Yes. However, I don’t know about you but for my family Mass was something we did for 45 minutes on Saturday and Confession (once a month) was a requirement to make sure our “bases” were covered. Was the priest faithful. I’m sure but “those” kind of people were specially Holy and they were required to. Many of the other Catholics I’ve hung around growing up were not much different! Where we or they following the faith really. No. But as a kid that’s how I came to understand the church. Ritual. 45 minutes of the same liturgy every sunday and go on to life my life apart from Jesus the rest of the week. Yes that was my experience. Are there other experience out there? I am certain of it. However, when your raised that way and someone shows you how Jesus makes a difference then your ears pick up. Having been a protestant has helped me know scriptures a lot more and I’m guided much more morally than before. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CATHOLICS DO NOT TEACH GREAT MORALITY!!! I’m expressing my experience. Now that I am studying these matters further I have questons and am getting depper into the matter. Which is why I’m on this site. What happens here is anything I say becomes a generalization for everything. ie. I did not experience good ethical and moral living from catholics I new. therefore somebody will read just a part and say “Are you saying catholics have no Ethics and Morals? How ridiculous! Just go to the CCC and read such and such or have a conversation with any priest” In short Jesus changed my life at a point when I heard it clearly from Protestant teaching. Would the same have been true if I remained Catholic? Very Possibly. But I wouldn’t know because that wasn’t my experience. Has the Catholic Church changed since I left the US and returned? In somethings yes. So that was my point

I understand where you are coming from. Please forgive me for coming off so strong. I have had a really bad week and I have been finger pointing and making accusations for others behavior without looking inside at what is going on in my life that is causing me to feel the way I do. It has nothing to do with Catholicism or Protestant theology. I have been ripping people on both sides on here and in my mind.

It’s funny,when I get like this I feel less inclined to call on He who lifts me. I am the type of person who will sit there and wallow in my own mess and guilt for a while before I snap out of it.

Once again,please forgive me and I hope to see you on CAF for many days to come.

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus chose the Passover for many reasons, but He is the spotless Lamb that is offered to set us free from captivity. The Passover was the pre-figurement of His sacrifice. It is a memorial meal that is physically eaten by all members of the covenant. It is also an amanesis, or a type of re-enactment. If you have not had a chance, I highly recommend attendance at a Seder meal. This will broaden the understanding of Eucharis.

It is more accurate to say that the Mass re-presents the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. He has been offered for us, once for all time. Through the Mass, we become present at the cross

1/ Do you have any comment about the scriptures I quoted a post or two ago from Hebrews? I don’t have the specific texts with me at the moment, but they do say that additional sacrifices are NOT needed because of Christ’s one for all.

2/ Are you saying that the Catholic Mass is the only way for Christians to be “present at the cross?”

3/ It seems that Catholics on this forum are mixing up “Passover” with the occassional OT practice of Priests who would “eat the sacrifical lamb.” You seem to saying they are the same thing by connecting both to the “Eucharist” and using them to “prove” it is “Biblical” to say what you do about the bread literally being Christ?? I would like to see some clarifications on these items I have written out. Thankyou.

 

[justinthemartyr]

1/ Do you have any comment about the scriptures I quoted a post or two ago from Hebrews? I don’t have the specific texts with me at the moment, but they do say that additional sacrifices are NOT needed because of Christ’s one for all.

2/ Are you saying that the Catholic Mass is the only way for Christians to be “present at the cross?”

3/ It seems that Catholics on this forum are mixing up “Passover” with the occassional OT practice of Priests who would “eat the sacrifical lamb.” You seem to saying they are the same thing by connecting both to the “Eucharist” and using them to “prove” it is “Biblical” to say what you do about the bread literally being Christ?? I would like to see some clarifications on these items I have written out. Thankyou.

The eucharistic sacrifice is not an additional sacrifice and the passages in hebrews are confirming of the church’s teaching on this. It is the same exact sacrifice represented at every Mass.

Yes, the same sacrifice of Christ at calvary is represented at every mass, and therefore the only way to truly be present at the cross of calvary is to be at the mass, whether you are worthy to receive or not.

Passover is the OT “type” of the final “passover” in the NT which Christ, the spotless Lamb of God gives Himself to His disciples for them to eat as the final sacrificial Lamb. He also has them drink His blood, upstanding the OT passover in a new and more perfected way. All signs and wonders of the Ot are more perfectly fulfilled in their NT “antitypes”. This is called 'typology".

The OT passover has everything to do with the validity of the NT final sacrifice of Jesus and the Eucharist.

 

[Protestant101]

The eucharistic sacrifice is not an additional sacrifice and the passages in hebrews are confirming of the church’s teaching on this. It is the same exact sacrifice represented at every Mass.

Yes, the same sacrifice of Christ at calvary is represented at every mass, and therefore the only way to truly be present at the cross of calvary is to be at the mass, whether you are worthy to receive or not.

Passover is the OT “type” of the final “passover” in the NT which Christ, the spotless Lamb of God gives Himself to His disciples for them to eat as the final sacrificial Lamb. He also has them drink His blood, upstanding the OT passover in a new and more perfected way. All signs and wonders of the Ot are more perfectly fulfilled in their NT “antitypes”. This is called 'typology".

The OT passover has everything to do with the validity of the NT final sacrifice of Jesus and the Eucharist.

Are you sure we even have to “be present at the cross?” Who says so? What do you mean: “present at the cross?”

If we are, are you sure that the Catholic mass, is the ONLY way to get there for christians?

How can you say that at the last supper, Jesus actually gave the disciples his literal blood and flesh to drink? That makes them vampires and cannibals. Catholics have taken the “flesh” (bread) and the “blood” (wine), too literally when they should have taken it symbolically. Like the scripture that says : (Gen.4:3), “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground;” “This is my blood” is not a literal term; it is to symbolize the flesh and blood of Jesus

 

[teadough]

Protestant101

Don’t forget about the thread I started. I know you may be busy.

Mar 15, '08, 7:44 pm
teadough
Senior Member

Join Date: January 10, 2008
Location: NC-------Charlotte DIocese
Posts: 416
Re: Is the “Real Presence” real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protestant101
You won’t like my answer; but I will give it anyways. What Adventists teach about the subject of “Michael The Archangel” has nothing to do with this subject of “The Real Presence.” I would like to keep on topic here. How about you? Why are you trying to distract from the topic? Try starting another thread for that subject, and see what happens.

Sure. Let’s hear all about it.

Here you go forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…21#post3433421

---

 

[justinthemartyr]

Are you sure we even have to “be present at the cross?” Who says so? What do you mean: “present at the cross?”

If we are, are you sure that the Catholic mass, is the ONLY way to get there for christians?

How can you say that at the last supper, Jesus actually gave the disciples his literal blood and flesh to drink? That makes them vampires and cannibals. Catholics have taken the “flesh” (bread) and the “blood” (wine), too literally when they should have taken it symbolically. Like the scripture that says : (Gen.4:3), “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground;” “This is my blood” is not a literal term; it is to symbolize the flesh and blood of Jesus

Can you think of a different way to be present at the cross?
Do you disagree with my previous statements and explanantions?

Jesus gave them his glorified flesh and blood, entirely different than that of 'vampires and cannibals".

Plus it was recorded through the early ages in the church that christ held himself within His own hands.

I am only attesting of what jesus said and did, and then what his one church said and did following His ascension. what else do I have to go by?

 

[sambos671]

By the way Protestant 101 do you hold to the “investigative judgement” and the shut door doctrine? Just curious.

 

[NDfan]

One of the greatest things about being a non denominational protestant, is that I had no authority over me and I could do what i wanted. i could have sexual relationships outside of marriage and it was really the norm at the 18 churches I went to. As long as I had a relationship with Jesus Christ and was "born again’ as interpreted by my protestant brethren, i could do almost anything and still achieve heaven…

Justin I don’t know why any Christian church would accept sexual relationships outside of marriage nor why it would be the norm. I would seriously question those churches as well as your understanding of scripture. We are taught by scripture to NOT live a sexual immoral life. Saying that as long as you have a relationship with Jesus and are born again allows you to do anything you want is a clear contradiction of what Jesus taught. It’s quite unfair to point this to non-denominational Protestants as this is precisely what I am and can assure you this is not the norm nor is it anything close to what we teach.

Therefore the absence of church authority caused scandal for me and many thousands of others. This was certainly a wide road.

It’s not the absence of church authority that caused scandal. It’s the absence of using scripture as the authority that caused your scandal.

This would also apply to the topic of the Eucharist. Without the church authority, seen in every age, a Christian is able to believe whatever they want, as it pertains to their personal private interpretation of scripture.

Christians do have the ability to read and interpret scripture. What they can’t do is contradict scripture. Quoting a few lines from early church fathers to prove a belief is hardly proving what they actually believed. Chrystostom didn’t believe the Eucharist had any presence because of the Priest. He taught it was an act of Christ in response to Faith. The RCC clearly teaches the opposite. Eusebius believed in some sort of presence but didn’t subscribe to transubstantiation. So clear unity prior to the reformation doesn’t exist as you may think.

Scripture itself does not support this and neither does church history previous to the reformation.

Your interpretation of scripture doesn’t support it. Scripture does not state that Jesus turned the bread and wine into HIS body and blood. Jesus said this is my body and blood using wine and bread as the elements. We are left to interpet that statement and must use other parts of scripture to do that.

And John 6 has everything to do with the Lord’s supper, unlike some individuals would like to believe.

John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper with respect to confirming that we are eating Jesus flesh and blood. That part of the teaching is Jesus use of those words to tell people to believe in HIM. Using the bread analogy could be thought of as a foreshadowing of the Lord’s supper but at this point in Jesus ministry it was way too early to even speak of the Lord’s supper.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Justin I don’t know why any Christian church would accept sexual relationships outside of marriage nor why it would be the norm. I would seriously question those churches as well as your understanding of scripture. We are taught by scripture to NOT live a sexual immoral life. Saying that as long as you have a relationship with Jesus and are born again allows you to do anything you want is a clear contradiction of what Jesus taught. It’s quite unfair to point this to non-denominational Protestants as this is precisely what I am and can assure you this is not the norm nor is it anything close to what we teach.

It’s not the absence of church authority that caused scandal. It’s the absence of using scripture as the authority that caused your scandal.

Christians do have the ability to read and interpret scripture. What they can’t do is contradict scripture. Quoting a few lines from early church fathers to prove a belief is hardly proving what they actually believed. Chrystostom didn’t believe the Eucharist had any presence because of the Priest. He taught it was an act of Christ in response to Faith. The RCC clearly teaches the opposite. Eusebius believed in some sort of presence but didn’t subscribe to transubstantiation. So clear unity prior to the reformation doesn’t exist as you may thing.

Your interpretation of scripture doesn’t support it. Scripture does not state that Jesus turned the bread and wine into HIS body and blood. Jesus said this is my body and blood using wine and bread as the elements. We are left to interpet that statement and must use other parts of scripture to do that.

John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper with respect to confirming that we are eating Jesus flesh and blood. That part of the teaching is Jesus use of those words to tell people to believe in HIM. Using the bread analogy could be thought of as a foreshadowing of the Lord’s supper but at this point in Jesus ministry it was way too early to even speak of the Lord’s supper.

Not true at all.

it is the absence of the proper authority to teach scripture which was at fault. Scripture does not interpret itself. the apostles interpreted scripture for the people and guided the people in the first centuries. The only reason we see scripture being used in the NT was when the OT was used to prove the coming of the messiah. It was the Church leaders teaching and guiding the people and straightening out misconceptions and answering questions.

Many churches, (such as a certain popular politician’s church right now) interpret scripture to say that homosexuality is okay(sex before marriage) say that divorce is okay, say that contraception is okay etc…things that were never taught by any church according to scripture in the first 1500 years of christianity. it is the misintepretation of scripture and the insufficiency of scripture alone which is at fault and causes scandal. 500 years of scripture alone has shown us this fact. The divisions and chaos makes it very evident.

Are you saying that your are infallible NDFAN, in your interpretation of scripture?

John 6 never, ever uses anything that even remotely resembles figurative language, at all. what part of “this IS MY BODY” is figurative or symbolic?

 

[NDfan]

Not true at all.

it is the absence of the proper authority to teach scripture which was at fault. Scripture does not interpret itself. the apostles interpreted scripture for the people and guided the people in the first centuries.

No, scripture does intrepret scripture. Teaching authorities can help you understand scripture and how to apply it. But to say someone can’t interpret scripture and needs an authority is absurd. The Apostles didn’t teach scripture. What they taught is written in scripture.

The only reason we see scripture being used in the NT was when the OT was used to prove the coming of the messiah. It was the Church leaders teaching and guiding the people and straightening out misconceptions and answering questions.

So if I’m correct you are saying that the NT only exists to show the connection to OT prophesies of Christ? That there’s absolutely no other purpose of scripture? Before I answer this you need to clarify more what you mean here.

Many churches, (such as a certain popular politician right now) interpret scripture to say that homosexuality is okay(sex before marriage) say that divorce is okay, say that contraception is okay etc… it is the misintepretation of scripture and the insufficiency of scripture alone which is at fault and causes scandal. 500 years of scripture alone has shown us this fact. The divisions and chaos makes it very evident.

I wouldn’t disagree that irrational interpretations of scripture are a part of our society today. But that doesn’t mean it is wrong for me or you or anyone to have scripture in our hands. The only thing I would ask is to show me where contraception is forbidden in scripture.

Are you saying that your are infallible NDFAN, in your interpretation of scripture?

No I’m definitely not infallible nor do I claim to be infallible. But then again I don’t think anyone is infallible. The only thing that is infallible to me is the Word of GOD. And those Words are contained in scripture and in scripture alone.

I don’t think we can just run off and interpret the Bible on our own. I always seek assistance. But I will not say that one person or group of people are absolutely right on every single piece of scripture.

 

[justinthemartyr]

No, scripture does intrepret scripture. Teaching authorities can help you understand scripture and how to apply it. But to say someone can’t interpret scripture and needs an authority is absurd. The Apostles didn’t teach scripture. What they taught is written in scripture.

So if I’m correct you are saying that the NT only exists to show the connection to OT prophesies of Christ? That there’s absolutely no other purpose of scripture? Before I answer this you need to clarify more what you mean here.

I wouldn’t disagree that irrational interpretations of scripture are a part of our society today. But that doesn’t mean it is wrong for me or you or anyone to have scripture in our hands. The only thing I would ask is to show me where contraception is forbidden in scripture.

No I’m definitely not infallible nor do I claim to be infallible. But then again I don’t think anyone is infallible. The only thing that is infallible to me is the Word of GOD. And those Words are contained in scripture and in scripture alone.

I don’t think we can just run off and interpret the Bible on our own. I always seek assistance. But I will not say that one person or group of people are absolutely right on every single piece of scripture.

No, I am not saying that about the OT and NT. I am saying that the only place IN scripture that we see the scriptures being searched, is for the prupose of the prophecies of the messiah. I stated this just in case you used the berean story for proof of sola scriptura.

contraception?
be fruitful and multiply, have a full quiver, and onan spilling his seed to the ground and then being killed by God. just a few. Where does scripture say you CAN use it? Heck, no church accepted the use of contraception until the anglican church in 1929. ALL of christianity was unanimous on this fact for the first 1900 years of christianity. simple.

If the only thing that is infallible is scripture, then where did we get the scriptures? who decided which books given for the canon of the Bible were inspired, and which were not? who decided this? who specifically did God guide into all Truth and infallibility on the matter of the canon of scripture, because I do not see the canon of scripture listed for me in the scriptures, therefore scripture is not the sole authority, it is also the pillar and ground of Truth, the Church of the living God. 1 tim 3:15
Scripture is not infallible, it is inerrant. The only thing deemed to be infallible is the church’s infallible teachings on faith and morals.

if you don’t think that group is absolutely correct on every aspect of scripture they interpret, then what makes them infallible on certain one’s and who is the judge of it? you? if so, then you are claiming infallibility, and that means you must be infallible on every single aspect of scripture, right?

 

[Protestant101]

John 6 never, ever uses anything that even remotely resembles figurative language, at all. what part of “this IS MY BODY” is figurative or symbolic?

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

What part of this is “figurative/symbolic?” It is obvious to anyone that blood does not literally have a “voice” that talks to us from the ground. The John 6 uses of “blood” and “bread” or “flesh” are used in the same SYMBOLIC way.

 

[justinthemartyr]

what do you mean " a voice that talks to us from the ground"?

what does gen 4 have to do with this topic?

you are grasping at straws.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)