Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

  • Thread starter Thread starter terryobrien80
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HamtramckSteve said:
You’re right, Old Scholar. Ignatius must mean it’s a symbolic event, just like St. Paul says it’s a symbolic event in 1 Corinthians 11 29-30 (I used the KJV just for you!)

11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Oh, wait. What does St. Paul mean about unworthily and not discerning the body?

And what’s this? That’s why many in Corinth are weak and sick and some died? Because they ate a symbol?

Yikes. If it’s only a symbol, why would we end up with damnation, sickness and death? Sounds like God treats it more seriously than a symbol.
Click to expand...
Although it is symbolic, it is a spiritual event and to take of it unworthily would be a sin and Paul is warning about that. This is a holy communion and should not be taken lightly. Christ said to do this in remembrance of him and such a commemoration should be done properly.

They are eating bread but at the same time it is said to be the body and blood of the Lord. Remember that at this time the apostles knew nothing of the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. This is a holy feast and both the bread and the cup are to be made use of and no one should be deprived of either as is done in some churches today. Is yours one of them?
 
eagertolearn said:
In the Eucharist “a supernatural transformation” a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69).

ETL
Click to expand...
O.S. … do you really expect to see the supernatural Body/Blood of Christ in the Eucharist ? Christ is invisibly present via H.S. to all Christians … not just at Eucharist. He will not be seen again by mankind til the end days.

Most of matter here on earth is empty space. An atom is 99 % empty space. There is plenty of room inside material wine/bread chemical structure for Christ’s supernatural body to exist. Christ is present in the hosts … but, He is invisible. It takes spiritual eyes to perceive the Lord. Certainly you understand this concept … as frequently taught to us by Christ himself.
 
Old_Scholar said:
This is a holy feast and both the bread and the cup are to be made use of and no one should be deprived of either as is done in some churches today. Is yours one of them?
Click to expand...
Do you already know the answer to this and ask it for an ulterior reason?
 
BRB said:
O.S. … Catholics refer to the Eucharist as the ‘non-bloody’ sacrifice. When we drink from the cup … we see and taste wine. When we take the bread … we see and taste the bread.

If we were to chemically analyze the blessed hosts in a lab … a scientist would only find wine and bread.

But, the essense of Christ is within the substance of the earthly food and beverage. One who partakes of the Eucharist in faith with proper understanding of Christ within … will perceive ALL of Christ in the sacrament. Body/blood/ and H.S.

Since you don’t currently have the faith to accept the Eucharist for what it really is … it does you no good. You receive neither spiritual / physical healing, nor forgiveness of venial sins when you partake on strictly ‘symbolic’ basis.

You are probably not bringing harm on yourself — as Paul talks about… because you have been partaking in ignorance. But, now that you know you are in error … in the future you could potentially do yourself harm, if you continue to partake in unbelief.
Click to expand...
I am not concerned because as I have said before, I DO believe it is the body and blood of Christ spiritually, but not physically as you admit. If it were physical, then we would be sacrificing Him again every time we do it and He told us to do it often in remembrance of Him. That is why I believe as I do.

But then I am naive enough to believe that Christ is in me all the time…
 
Lampo said:
Matt. 26:27-28: "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood…”
Click to expand...
If you are going to quote me—please do it in context. Her is what I said:
Read what Christ Himself called it, AFTER He said this is my blood:
Click to expand...
Matt 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Click to expand...
This is when I said, “notice He did not say my blood.”

I hope you did not intend to portray me improperly…That is not how Christians should act…
 
Old_Scholar said:
I trust all the traditions of the church that does not contradict the written word of God and doesn’t add to it or take away from it. There are many traditions and they are important. But once a tradition begins to involve faith and morals, then it must be found in Scripture or it is false.
Click to expand...
Where in Scripture does it say that all teachings are found within Scripture?
 
Saint Augustine had the right idea when he said, “I would not believe in the Gospel if the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” He was aware that before the Catholic Church determined the Canon of the bible, there was no “bible” that anyone agreed on. This, of course, crushes Sola Scriptura for protestants whom can never give a satisfactory definition to what christians did prior to the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century which determined what defined the bible. Furthermore, the arrogance of Sola Scriptura is overlooked by us living in the 21st century. How can this be the truth, personal interpretation of the bible-no authority at all, if the 75% of the world was illiterate prior to the 16th century? How can this possibly be the truth if prior to the printing press invention, only the elect, rich, and clergy could get their hands on the Scriptures? That is ignorance. Before 1933, EVERY protestant church inherited the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. Of course, that is no longer the case. That is simply a reality that describe the evolution of many protestant faiths to accommodate societies needs because they can do whatever they want, even to the point of re-writing Church history to fit whatever is taught in their local bible study.

through His Sacred Heart,
CR
 
Lampo said:
I guess you’d disagree with St. Justin Martyr, correct?
Click to expand...
I believe he is saying the same thing but if he is to be taken literally, then I can’t believe Augustine. So which one would you believe? You can’t believe them both!
 
Old_Scholar said:
If you are going to quote me—please do it in context. Her is what I said:

This is when I said, “notice He did not say my blood.”

I hope you did not intend to portray me improperly…That is not how Christians should act…
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t intend to portray you improperly. I do apologize.
 
Old_Scholar said:
I believe he is saying the same thing but if he is to be taken literally, then I can’t believe Augustine. So which one would you believe? You can’t believe them both!
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe both. I absolutely believe you are interpreting St. Augustine out of context too. I wonder if Pope Benedict XVI knows this about Augustine and what you claim?
 
Lampo said:
Is the list of which books should be included in Scripture in the Bible?
Click to expand...
The church didn’t give us the Bible. It was the people of the church who had accepted it as authoritative and partly because of all the “thus saith the Lords” in it and all the “It is writtens” in it. They recognized God’s voice in the books and many of them were considered Scripture as they were being written. Read 2 Peter for confirmation of that.

The reason for the official canon by the church was to exclude some other books that were being taught in some of the churches. They took the books, that were always taught anyhow, and considered them canon and thereby eliminated those that did not belong.

They had to ask the questions: Was it accepted by the overall church. Did the people bear witness of it by the Holy Spirit and did it not conflict with the already revealed body of Scripture. The Church was able to reject false books and this would insure the right ones were accepted because it would delay their recognition. At that time and even hundreds of years afterwards, there were numerous false letters and forgeries circulating, they identified them as false by putting them alongside the apostles teachings already delivered. They have the content that was consistent with the already accepted writings.
 
Old_Scholar said:
I DO believe it is the body and blood of Christ spiritually, but not physically as you admit. If it were physical, then we would be sacrificing Him again every time we do it …
Click to expand...
Christ is our ‘living sacrifice’. He is continually offering Himself to us via the Mass. We are not serving a dead Lord. Our living Lord continues to serve mankind on perpetual basis … as often as we meet and remember His passion for us 2000 yrs ago.

You clearly believe you possess His H.S. already … on continuous basis, so you say.

Why would you have a problem allowing ALL of Christ fill you with physical and spiritual healing on the occasion of celebration of Mass / Lord’s Supper ?
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Is that where the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura finds its roots? In the bible? Where?!?!??
Click to expand...
There are many but for starters, check these two:

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”

Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Everything was always checked against the Scriptures. If it couldn’t be proven there, it was false…
 
Couple things that Sola Scriptura followers can’t answer:

Math 1:16 vs Luke 3:23 (Joseph’s father)

Matt 1:16
And **Jacob **begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke 2:23
and Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat

**By using the bible alone, try to explain this apparent contradiction SS followers

**Luke 18:35 vs Mark 10:46 (healing the blind man)

Luke 18:35
Now it came to pass, when he drew nigh to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way side, begging.

Mark 10:46
And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho, with his disciples, and a very great multitude, Bartimeus the blind man, the son of Timeus, sat by the way side begging.

**By using the bible alone, try to explain this apparent contradiction SS followers

**Enjoy.
 
eagertolearn said:
To understand Transubstantiation there are two things we should consider: Accidental and Substantial.

Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.

In the Eucharist “a supernatural transformation” a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69).

chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_5.htm

The Eucharist contains both “Body and Blood”. You will see the priest consecrates a small piece of Eucharist into the Chalice too. You can take the Eucharist alone or you can take both if offered. The Church said it is OK either way.

Hope it helps.

🙂

ETL
Click to expand...
So they don’t do it as Christ commanded???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top