S
Stephen_C
Guest
Ok…sorry. If my remark was seen as less the charitable…I do apologize for that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
John, When Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me”, in means so much more than, “Hey, remember Me”.
This participation is echoed in Paul’s words that we’ve covered in Corinthians:Unfortunately, our English word “remember” cannot begin to do justice to the Greek anamnesis used by Paul and Luke. Our word “remembrance” suggests that we think about Jesus’ life and death in our minds as an event that is in the past for us. There is no doubt that idea is included, but the Greek word means more. Anamnesis means that the thing to be “remembered” is an otherworldly reality that is made present to the one “remembering.” The past events of Jesus’ life are taken up into the heavenly realms and is now made real to the worshiping community.
Thus, when Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” he is calling on his apostles to reenact the night and giving his assurance to them is that he will be with them in the future reenactment just as much as he was with them that first night. Anamnesis is not primarily a mental event on our part; it is a liturgical event on the part of *Jesus’ *appointed representatives, the apostles and their successors. We remember Jesus in our minds because he is here again just as he was with the apostles—physically.
The physical presence of Jesus on the altar underlies Paul’s rhetorical questions in I Corinthians 10:16, 17. These references to the Eucharist occur in a context of admonitions to avoid idolatry. Why should we avoid associations with false religions? Why should we not participate in pagan ritual? Paul’s question in verse 16 assumes a powerful truth: “Isn’t the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Isn’t the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” The Corinthians already know the answer to this question. Yes! This meal is a real participation, a genuine communion in these heavenly realities—the body and blood of Christ. The union with the one Lord excludes participation in the rituals of other gods.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Church Militant,
Everyone that participated should be applauded.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Thank you CM. I must say, I have not seen a debate that has gone through so many posts in such a short amount of time that has stayed so close to the original topic!Hey guys…regardless as to whether we agree or disagree with BA’s beliefs, let’s please remain charitable and deal with the doctrine in question and not assert personal remarks like this.
BA has not done this to us so far as I have seen.
Everyone that participated should be applauded.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Not Worthy,
Let me ask you this. How could they have “remembered” these things if they had not already taken part in that salvation?
The elements of the Lord’s supper are symbolic elements to “remind” us of what we have already done.
John
www.gideonsword.net
I totally agree. It was more that just “remember me”, He was exhorting the Apostles to remember His body that was broken (on the cross), and the Blood that He shed (for their sins), and to do this (Lord’s supper) to remind them that they have partaken of His salvation.John, When Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me”, in means so much more than, “Hey, remember Me”.
Let me ask you this. How could they have “remembered” these things if they had not already taken part in that salvation?
The elements of the Lord’s supper are symbolic elements to “remind” us of what we have already done.
John
www.gideonsword.net
V
VociMike
Guest
Rather than argue about the meaning of scripture, why not just show us when the Church started teaching the “error” of the Real (substantial, not just symbolic or spiritual) Presence? Show us the historical evidence of the Church adopting this heresy (for that is what it would be, if it were not taught by the apostles). Show us the councils that debated the question. Show us the writings of those who fought the heresy. Show us the true bishops who spoke out against this heresy, and even died to oppose it. Show us the decrees and the wars and the martyrs who fought against this heresy. Show us some evidence of this monstrous heresy invading every corner of the Church, both east and west.If I am right about this interpretation of John 6, it would be illogical to believe that the early Church taught transubstantiation.
And although you can prove through recorded history that the CC has indeed taught transubstantiation since 1215ad, you cannot prove that it was a practice of the “true Church” at any point in history… neither would it matter if they did… it still would not negate the truth.
The logic is inescapable. If it is claimed that an enormous event happened in history, but no historical evidence can be offered for that claim, then that claim must be rejected. And surely the adoption of an idolatrous heresy by the entire Christian Church would count as an enormous event. So provide your historical evidence.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
vocimike,
Whatever the Catholic Church’s teaching remained, became, or opposed is irrelevent when you have the Apostles writings, and and account of Jesus’ words to investigate.
Even if I took on such a task (to prove what you asked)… and I proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Catholic Church diverted from an earlier teaching oppositional to transubstantiation…what what it prove?
It would only prove that someone in early church history interpreted the words of Jesus and Paul the same as I have… it still would do nothing to prove what the truth of Jesus and Paul’s words were.
In the same way, for you to claim the Ignatius agrees with you still does nothing to actually prove what the truth of those passages is, it only proves that Ignatius agrees with you.
As a matter of fact, I do have proof that there are others who have disagreed with the Catholic Church on transubstantiation earlier than the reformation… But I’m not going to cite them because it will do nothing to prove my point. It will only lead to off topic discussion as to whether or not they are “true Christians”.
I can stand on my own interpretations, I don’t need to stand on anyone elses. And I don’t need to quote historical circumstances regarding transubstantiation… we have the words of Jesus himself to interpret here, and the writings of Paul on the matter.
John
www.gideonsword.net
I am now, and have argued my point from an interpretation of the Earliest of Church Fathers… The writings of the Apostles themselves.The logic is inescapable. If it is claimed that an enormous event happened in history, but no historical evidence can be offered for that claim, then that claim must be rejected. And surely the adoption of an idolatrous heresy by the entire Christian Church would count as an enormous event. So provide your historical evidence.
Whatever the Catholic Church’s teaching remained, became, or opposed is irrelevent when you have the Apostles writings, and and account of Jesus’ words to investigate.
Even if I took on such a task (to prove what you asked)… and I proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Catholic Church diverted from an earlier teaching oppositional to transubstantiation…what what it prove?
It would only prove that someone in early church history interpreted the words of Jesus and Paul the same as I have… it still would do nothing to prove what the truth of Jesus and Paul’s words were.
In the same way, for you to claim the Ignatius agrees with you still does nothing to actually prove what the truth of those passages is, it only proves that Ignatius agrees with you.
As a matter of fact, I do have proof that there are others who have disagreed with the Catholic Church on transubstantiation earlier than the reformation… But I’m not going to cite them because it will do nothing to prove my point. It will only lead to off topic discussion as to whether or not they are “true Christians”.
I can stand on my own interpretations, I don’t need to stand on anyone elses. And I don’t need to quote historical circumstances regarding transubstantiation… we have the words of Jesus himself to interpret here, and the writings of Paul on the matter.
John
www.gideonsword.net
C
corvidae
Guest
I think the thing that people are trying to show is…
If we are interpreting words here, how do we know these words are correct. When did people start interpreting them wrongly.
Yes, we do have the writings of Jesus and the Apostles, but how should we interpret these writings? Surely everything they said and did is not written down, in fact John says that NOT everything is written down. So how do we know what they taught on their own writings.
For Catholics, we look back, we look back at the earliest writings on the gospels we can find, to the ECF’s, to the earliest church teachings. We try and find evidence for how to interpret hard passages.
So it is no argument at all to say, we do not need to look at ECF’s or any other early documents, we can simply read the writings of the Apostle’s. We need help in interpreting them, we need to know what people who knew these men thought they mean. WE need help.
You have relied on yourself. You say you do not need to rely on any one elses interpretation, but how do you know yours is right.
Catholics rely on eachother, we assist eachother. It is a personal journey to Christ, but it is also a journey accompanied by our friends and families. We must assist eachother. Why should we say, I will help you, and pray for you, but I will NOT interpret scripture with you.
If the saying that two heads are better than one is true, then why is it considered wrong to rely on the thousands of men, much more intelligent than I, who came before me. We are not simply saying, “whatever the church says is right”, we investigate, search, reason, and do historical studies.
To get back to the point. You interpretation has taken the words of the Gospels and Paul, and in my opinion, have put your own ideas into them. Catholic interpretation instead looks to see if we can find the intention behind the words, how they fit with the rest of scripture, etc.
It seems that you began by saying John 6 is symbolic, and after that you had to say that other verses refering to the last supper and John 6 had to be symbolic. If John 6 is not symbolic, these other verses can be taken at face value.
One last little rant, who said it was Jesus taking the position as head of the household. As far as I can tell from the verse, the only men there, were the disciples on the road and Jesus.
You must understand, according to Catholics, after the last supper, blessing and breaking bread is a term for the Eucharist. We believe the Eucharist was instituted at the last supper, and so everything after that refers to this supper and what happened there.
Remember, I am but one man, there are better apologist than I here, refuting me does not refute them
A lone Raven
If we are interpreting words here, how do we know these words are correct. When did people start interpreting them wrongly.
Yes, we do have the writings of Jesus and the Apostles, but how should we interpret these writings? Surely everything they said and did is not written down, in fact John says that NOT everything is written down. So how do we know what they taught on their own writings.
For Catholics, we look back, we look back at the earliest writings on the gospels we can find, to the ECF’s, to the earliest church teachings. We try and find evidence for how to interpret hard passages.
So it is no argument at all to say, we do not need to look at ECF’s or any other early documents, we can simply read the writings of the Apostle’s. We need help in interpreting them, we need to know what people who knew these men thought they mean. WE need help.
You have relied on yourself. You say you do not need to rely on any one elses interpretation, but how do you know yours is right.
Catholics rely on eachother, we assist eachother. It is a personal journey to Christ, but it is also a journey accompanied by our friends and families. We must assist eachother. Why should we say, I will help you, and pray for you, but I will NOT interpret scripture with you.
If the saying that two heads are better than one is true, then why is it considered wrong to rely on the thousands of men, much more intelligent than I, who came before me. We are not simply saying, “whatever the church says is right”, we investigate, search, reason, and do historical studies.
To get back to the point. You interpretation has taken the words of the Gospels and Paul, and in my opinion, have put your own ideas into them. Catholic interpretation instead looks to see if we can find the intention behind the words, how they fit with the rest of scripture, etc.
It seems that you began by saying John 6 is symbolic, and after that you had to say that other verses refering to the last supper and John 6 had to be symbolic. If John 6 is not symbolic, these other verses can be taken at face value.
One last little rant, who said it was Jesus taking the position as head of the household. As far as I can tell from the verse, the only men there, were the disciples on the road and Jesus.
You must understand, according to Catholics, after the last supper, blessing and breaking bread is a term for the Eucharist. We believe the Eucharist was instituted at the last supper, and so everything after that refers to this supper and what happened there.
Remember, I am but one man, there are better apologist than I here, refuting me does not refute them
A lone Raven
B
bibleapologist
Guest
cordivae,
Because I have the Holy Spirit to teach me…You have relied on yourself. You say you do not need to rely on any one elses interpretation, but how do you know yours is right.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Now you are begging the question. You must then assert that you, and you alone, have been taught by the Holy Spirit, because you will quickly discover that others (including Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses) make the same claim about how they have been taught. So you say the Holy Spirit teaches you one thing, and your neighbor another. One is led by the Holy Spirit to baptize infants, another only to baptize confessing adults; one is led into the Catholic Church and another out of it, one into a Baptist Church and another into a Methodist Church; one is led by the Holy Spirit to believe that those who die without hearing the Gospel necessarily go to hell, others that there is some doubt - this goes on and on. God is not contradictory. The Church long ago realized that we need an umpire on earth to decide such questions, and God gave us the Magisterium. Without it two Christians in sincere disagreement can only claim each is led by the Holy Spirit and the other is deceived. Look at what Luther and Calvin said about each other, for example.cordivae,
Because I have the Holy Spirit to teach me…
V
VociMike
Guest
You are dodging my question (and the question any historian would ask, and expect to be answered). We know that the entire non-Protestant Church today believes in the Real (substantial, not symbolic or spiritual only) Presence. You claim that the entire Church of the Apostles did not believe in the Real (substantial, not symbolic or spiritual only) Presence. I simply want you to show me, in the historical record, when this heresy swept through the entire Church and conquered it. In particular, I want to see evidence of the vehement opposition to the spread of the heresy of the Real Presence.I am now, and have argued my point from an interpretation of the Earliest of Church Fathers… The writings of the Apostles themselves.
Whatever the Catholic Church’s teaching remained, became, or opposed is irrelevent when you have the Apostles writings, and and account of Jesus’ words to investigate.
Even if I took on such a task (to prove what you asked)… and I proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Catholic Church diverted from an earlier teaching oppositional to transubstantiation…what what it prove?
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
This is a debate of your opinions on faith vs the Truth of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church. No wonder it seems like such a large task at hand for you.Catholig,
That is a pretty unfair statement don’t you think? In fact I have not dodged anything that has been thrown at me as yet. But, keep in mind, I am in an unfair debate (although willingly). There are many Catholic defenders against little 'ol me.
H
HailMary
Guest
What is a “new testament Christian?” Does that mean you ignore the OT? Whoa.According to the article I referenced, and the many posts I have added to this thread, I believe people in Church started denying the Eucharist when the Catholic Church started proclaiming it.
The Bible, which is absolutely an accurate historical record of the first Churches of the New Testament, didn’t regard the Lord’s supper as a sacrament, or “eucharistic”. They viewed it as an ordinance commanded by Jesus to be recognized among Christians to “remember” Jesus by.
As a New Testament Christian, I don’t base my doctrine or theology on the teachings of a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity… I base my doctrine and theology on the written Word of God… which is what we should all be doing.
John
www.gideonsword.net
L
Lukelion
Guest
Before I am “burned at the stake”, or worse yet, excommunicated from my beloved church, I need to know what truth you think I am rejecting??? Jesus was true God and true Man. I did not clarify this part of the statement, as it not up for discussion in this conversation. I did clarify I fully believe in the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread, which is the premise of this entire thread. Is it God I am offending, or just you? My point is this:The word “heretic” is from the greek word “heretick”. The definition of that word is: a person who makes a schismatic decision.
Please don’t use quote definitions which are exclusive to the Catholic Church. The term “heretic” is not just someone who disagrees with the Catholic Church.
You have been given the truth… more than once. According to the scripture it is dangerous to continue rejecting the truth…
John
www.gideonsword.net
**If it is possible for the astonishing, seemingly contradictory miracle for the word to become flesh, isn’t it a possibility for another astonishing, seemingly contradictory miracle for the Body of Christ to exist under the outward appearance of bread ? **
Lukelion
T
Truthstalker
Guest
istB]Originally Posted by bibleapolog
Catholig,
That is a pretty unfair statement don’t you think? In fact I have not dodged anything that has been thrown at me as yet. But, keep in mind, I am in an unfair debate (although willingly). There are many Catholic defenders against little 'ol me.
One billion people yelling at you that you are wrong still doesn’t make you right. Whether you have dodged something I will leave to others to decide. I think some will provide what they regard as examples. But it is an unfair debate: Catholic Truth that is settled against little ol’ you. 2000 years of Catholic theology carefully developed, documented and backed up against an unproven and undocumented and dubious assertion. You are correct in saying it is an unfair debate.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Truthstalker,
I am sorry for answering this question as I know it is off topic. To answer this question does qualify my authority to address the original topic though.
John
www.gideonsword.net
If the same infallible scripture (the Bible) assures us of the promise of the Holy Spirit, and we, upon faith in Christ according to the Word of God recieve that same Holy Spirit and that same Holy Spirit (according to the promise) teaches us a truth that is contradictory to another person or group who also claims the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can then begin to draw some hypothesis regarding those people…Now you are begging the question. You must then assert that you, and you alone, have been taught by the Holy Spirit, because you will quickly discover that others (including Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses) make the same claim about how they have been taught… God is not contradictory.
- They believed a lie which they thought to be the truth regarding scripture, and never actually received the Holy Spirit.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- They have once believed, but have been led astray by false teaching. And like Balaam made the decision to fulfil the lusts of the flesh.
2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
- Or those of the second sort who after being convicted by the Holy Spirit regarding the lie they believed, continue to resist God and refuse repentance regarding the matter and therefore having their conscience seared as with a hot iron…
Do you think maybe the ECF possibly gave heed to seducing spirits? Why do priests forbid to marry? Why do you forbid to eat meat on Friday? Could it be that thier conscience was seared with a “hot iron”?1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I am sorry for answering this question as I know it is off topic. To answer this question does qualify my authority to address the original topic though.
John
www.gideonsword.net
C
corvidae
Guest
John I think the thing is, how do YOU know that the Holy Spirit is guiding YOU but not THEM.
I assure you, they are just as convinced of their truth as you are, so how do WE know who the Holy Spirit is guiding and who it is not?
A lone Raven
I assure you, they are just as convinced of their truth as you are, so how do WE know who the Holy Spirit is guiding and who it is not?
A lone Raven
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…
Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.
You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.
I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.
You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.
I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.
John
www.gideonsword.net
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Here’s something else I found on the topic:
Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” – a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests. In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as “Do this in remembrance of me,” but this does not do full justice to the words.
First of all, the word poiein or “do” has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,
*“There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.” *
He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:
*
"This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . " *
Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as offer, as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as offer. Jesus’ word anamnesis, usually translated remembrance, also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,
*
“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins.” *
The word for reminder in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.
An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God’s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,
“Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, *anamnesis] for you before your God.”
Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord’s Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord’s Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did. Jeremias states,
*
“[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord’s Supper] may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’ How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’”* (Jeremias, 252).
So Jesus’ command to the disciples to “do this in memory” of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God’s mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us.
This comes from James Akin’s essay: The office of the New Testament Priest:
Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” – a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests. In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as “Do this in remembrance of me,” but this does not do full justice to the words.
First of all, the word poiein or “do” has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,
*“There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.” *
He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:
*
"This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . " *
Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as offer, as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as offer. Jesus’ word anamnesis, usually translated remembrance, also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,
*
“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins.” *
The word for reminder in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.
An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God’s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,
“Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, *anamnesis] for you before your God.”
Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord’s Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord’s Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did. Jeremias states,
*
“[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord’s Supper] may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’ How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’”* (Jeremias, 252).
So Jesus’ command to the disciples to “do this in memory” of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God’s mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us.
This comes from James Akin’s essay: The office of the New Testament Priest:
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But that ignores what Paul said. We are participating in the Supper. We don’t just remember, we “make it present” each time we celebrate the Mass.Not Worthy,
I totally agree. It was more that just “remember me”, He was exhorting the Apostles to remember His body that was broken (on the cross), and the Blood that He shed (for their sins), and to do this (Lord’s supper) to remind them that they have partaken of His salvation.
Let me ask you this. How could they have “remembered” these things if they had not already taken part in that salvation?
The elements of the Lord’s supper are symbolic elements to “remind” us of what we have already done.
John
www.gideonsword.net
V
VociMike
Guest
I have not questioned your character or spiritual condition, so don’t say that I have.Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…
Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.
I have simply asked you for historical evidence that the entire Church at some point fell into the heresy of the Real Presence (or transubstantiation, as you refer to it). You have made an historical claim, that the historical entity known as the Church made a drastic change in its teachings at some point in time. I simply want to know of the evidence for this claim. Now, there are only three possible replies that you can make to my question:
- There is no evidence, but it happened anyway. This invalidates your claim completely for all people but the conspiracy/coverup crowd.
- There is evidence, but you will not supply it to me. If this is the case, why not?
- There is evidence, and you will supply it to me. In that case, I look forward to seeing it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.