sandusky, you are needlessly contentious. The word “miracle” is frequently used to describe the Eucharistic transformation, and it was used in this thread. That is a somewhat careless use based on the technical definition of the word miracle. Whether we call it a miracle or a mystery does not change the doctrine that Christ is fully present in it.
“Covenant blood.” Look it up.
What I find amazing is that you bolded the part that said representation and ignored the part I underlined for you. Zikkaron, man. It is EXACTLY how the Jews viewed the passover. It is such a simple transition. Too bad Protestants ignore their Jewish heritage.ThomasMore1535:
What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its ‘commemorative representation’…which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary…The sacramental re-presentation of CHrist’s sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, involves a most special presence which…‘is called real’ not as a way of excluding all other types of presnce as if they were ‘not real,’ but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present."
I left the church 40 years ago. I know what it teaches; I know all the changes since I left. The morph continues.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. You are right in that it cannot save, as it is not a SUFFICIENT cause of salvation, but it is a NECESSARY one.
What? All he is saying is that Christ’s sacrifice is not to be repeated. We believe the eucharist is the same sacrifice represented (made present). That is hardly a contradictory statement.
No, what’s unbelievable is your inability to understand our argument. Why do you think the OT exists? It was necessary to prepare the people to receive the fullness of truth. When you reject the tradition of the OT, you are not prepared to receive the fullness of truth. Again, don’t claim that our stance doesn’t make sense until you look up the term zikkaron. It shouldn’t be hard. Google it and see what you come up with.
Strong words Thomas!! Did you know that the martyrs of the early church met their deaths because they were defined as “atheists?” They refused to worship the Emperor as God. Now, do you define me an “atheist” because I refuse to worship the “host” as God? As for what Christ said to Thomas, that was in context with believing in Him without seeing. Just as Peter says:
Not at all Thomas! I would rather that all churches which name the name of Christ conform to the Word of God. As Christians our faith is to rest completely in what God has revealed, and the debate on this thread is whether or not Christ in John six truly did command us to believe that He would change common bread and wine into His body and blood (although you can’t see, feel, taste this transformation) for us to literally consume Him, thereby HAVING eternal life. First of all I see nowhere in John six that Jesus “commanded” us to believe such a thing. Secondly, I deny the first part (understanding His words to be nonliteral, figurative), you deny the latter, that though you consider His words to be taken literally, you deny by eating and drinking you actually HAVE “eternal” life.
Please reread 1 Pet. 1:8 above. He’s only revealed Himself to one person since His bodily ascension and that was Paul on the Damascus road. Since then, none of us have seen Him. So your question is non sequitur. We learn of the transfiguration from Scripture, same with His Divinity, even His humanity. You see, our faith must rest in the Word of God - few are those who actually witness the events that subsequently form Scripture. So it really all boils down to this: What does the Word of God actually say?
Thomas, it was truly a miracle that He multiplied the already baked bread and probably broiled fish. And the mechanics behind that powerful miracle are not for me to know, that belongs to God. But He “multiplied” the loaves and fish. It was a creative act. ALL were not eating of one fish and one loaf at the same time. In this world that God created material can be in only ONE PLACE at ONE TIME. That’s just the way it is. The material body of Christ cannot be physically in Heaven at the right side of the Majesty on High, and at the same time be in millions of places on earth. Such an idea totally distorts the definition of a physical “body.” It certainly distorts the doctrine of the humanity of Christ. The human body is not, and never will be omnipresent. It certainly will have far greater abilities in its glorified, resurrected state, but it will NEVER be omnipresent. Matter can only be one place at a time. Remember Jesus took on humanity in bodily (material) form. His body did not take on Divinity. Otherwise He was not (nor is not now) truly man, a true “Kinsman Redeemer.” He did not truly humble Himself and become one of us, but was actually a Superman.
Actually, Thomas, they stumbled BECAUSE they took Him literally (see John 6:63).
So, are you saying Ignatius DIDN’T employ figurative language? He really did become bread when he was martyred? He’s a stalk of wheat in Heaven? You’re confusing me.
For what are you praying?
Thank you, Mercy, for having “mercy” on me. But what I’m about to say you might rescind your mercy.
Yes, and they were unprepared to accept what Jesus literally meant by this statement, or all six of these statements. Yet, even his believers took Him literally, but trusted Him enough to know that His words were life.
The Son humbled Himself and took on human form - bodily. Material in this created world HAS definite boundaries, and to this Christ was/is, in bodily form, limited. Otherwise He did not become, nor is He now, a true man, but was from the time of His incarnation - a Superman. He was not one of us. Not truly human. But the truth is, the Son took on true humanity in bodily form. He took on humanity but His body did not take on Divinity, nor any attributes of Divinty (i.e., omnipresence). A physical, human, material body can be in only ONE place at a time. Otherwise it can no longer be defined as human and certainly not a part of this created, material universe. But is actually spirit and the material is merely an illusion. This is true Gnosticism.
Bene, don’t derail this to a discussion of the multiple meanings of the word mystery in Scripture; this point is about one technical use of the word to distinguish the case in point from the kind of miracle we describe in an event like the multiplication of the loaves or a demonstrable healing.
Mercy, if we succumb to your definition of “mystery” then anyone can introduce any time an unreasonable doctrine into the Christian faith and say, don’t worry about it, it’s a “mystery.”
How’s this, “Do this *‘in recognition’ * of Me.”
Really, where do you find this in the Book of Revelation? In chapter five John sees a vision of the “Lamb” from the tribe of Judah with seven horns and seven eyes, STANDING (as it had been slain) by the throne. It wasn’t slain by the throne it was standing as if it HAD BEEN slain. This, of course is describing Jesus who WAS slain on earth and overcame death. Only He was able to open the Book (Rev. 5:6). He wasn’t slain in Heaven (as you claim). He is now in Heaven but He was slain on earth.
Mercy, there aren’t “multiple meanings” to the word mystery in Scripture. There’s only one, and I told you what it is. There are, however, mulitiple mysteries that were revealed by God in the Scriptures (the Eucharist not being one of them), but only one definition.
Sorry, been away for a few days. Looks like I missed a lot.
If we adhere exclusively to biblical definitions we must dump the Trinity. Nowhere is it suggested that the Bible is all-sufficient to our understanding of these things.
Oh. Silly me.
You’re sounding pretty Catholic here. I do not claim that the lamb was slain in heaven. Sorry if my shorthand here was confusing. But that the *standing *Lamb of Revelation – in the imagery and language of that puzzling vision – can be none other than Christ. This is another whole topic but I reiterate that the marriage feast of the Lamb and Eucharist are inseparable.
But since The Bible is not ever mentioned in The Bible should we not dump The Bible, too?
mercygate, your above interpretation is an exquisite example of eisegetical reasoning.
I don’t mind testy; I too can get testy.
I am certain that there is no mention of the Lamb that was slain on the altar of heaven. If memory serves me, there are no acts of slaying anything in heaven contained in Revelation.