John 6 and Eucharist?

[Verbum_Caro]

sandusky:

Christ brought to completion the entire work of redemption, ie., He paid the penalty for sin “in full”

Hi sandusky.

I’m a little bit confused by your use of the phrase “brought to completion the entire work of redemption”, since Christ, at that time, had not yet risen and St. Paul says in Romans 4:25 (which Bene7 previously quoted)that Christ was “rasied for our justification.” Could you explain what you mean by the entire work of redemption*?*

sandusky:

The Gk word here translated “it is finished” has been found written on papyri used as receipts for taxes meaning, “paid in full”.

Interesting! I have seen this fact cited before, but I can never track down an actual source for it. Do you know where we can find out about the actual papyrus? In my research I keep finding an endless string of citations to other authors who describe this papyrus, but I just can’t find out about the original discovery. Can you help at all? I am not trying to contradict you, I am, rather, hoping to find out some more information on it since I have come across this point before.

Thanks!
VC

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

Bene said in a previous post it is not possible … that makes it an issue because this eliminates one of your arguments.

It really doesn’t eliminate an argument.

Here is what bene said:

bene7:

Did you even think about what I replied to you? A human body can miraculously, by the power of God, walk on water (Peter did for a little while). But a material, human body cannot be in more than one place at one time. It is a part of this material universe. Jesus, in His human, bodily form cannot be in more than one place at a time (omnipresent), otherwise he was/is not truly human. He cannot be, in bodily form, in Heaven and millions of places on earth at the same time.

I agree with what bene says here.

However, God can supercede natural law; I think that bene would agree with that, but will let him speak to that himself.

When God supercedes natural law, that is what we have referred to as a miracle, and we have also insisted that when God performs miracles, He does so in a visible manner, so that we may know that it is from Him, so that His people are not fooled.

In addition to that, I would also add that that miracles are not the norm. We see them in the O.T., and in the N.T. during Christ’s life, and after, but once the church gets up and running, and all of the apostles die, they disappear. If I am not mistaken, there are no miracles spoken of in the epistles.

I don’t know if bene agrees with that or not; he can speak for himself on that.

ncgolf:

Mercygate stated it earlier … it is a question of authority. My belief rests in the Bible and those that help define what it is telling me through the Catholic Churches 2,000 year history. Those lead me to people such as Acquinas and John Paul II or else if not the Church then to someone like you.

If we both believe the Bible to be true … then what else can we rely on, whom do you trust?

It is definitely a question of authority.

I believe the Bible is the authority, and the church is subject to the Bible; that is how things operate in my world.

You believe that the Church is the authority, and the Bible is subject to the Church; we truly do operate in different realms.

I believe, as Paul states, the scripture is sufficient to lead one to salvation, and I would agree that he is talking about the O.T., but God, inspiring the writers, as Peter tells us, had in mind the N.T. as well, or He never would have made such a statement.

So your issue is not with me, but Paul, and ultimately, God.

 

[sandusky]

Aaron I:

The point we are making is that we are participating in the same sacrifice. Now yes, I have caught up reading the posts and I do realize that you have answered this claim. I must add, however, that you have answered it rather poorly. Basically, you claim that zikkaron is not universally held now among Jews. My problem is that you provide no documentation (whereas Philthy provided a JEWISH source) for this. You attended a Passover service and didn’t realize that the past was made present. I have a strong feeling that if you were to attend a Catholic mass, you wouldn’t have gathered that that is a zikkaron event either.

Also, consider that when “Adam knew Eve” they had sex. Knowledge to the Jews implied an intimate experience. How much of a stretch is it that memory implies that same intimate experience.

Don’t dismiss the zikkaron argument without documentation.

I think this should be directed to bene7, and not me. Although I have been to numerous Passover seders as well. I discussed this on another thread, and posted here the other day, with respect to the Gk word anamnasis which is translated remembrance in the Last Supper accounts. I have read other pieces on that word, and find differing opinions. Some say it carries an intense emotional meaning, but even so, it is at best a vicarious participation, as only Christ was nailed to the cross for sins, and not us, and we appropriate the benefits through faith, and not a sacrament, IMHO.

 

[sandusky]

Verbum Caro:

Hi sandusky.

I’m a little bit confused by your use of the phrase “brought to completion the entire work of redemption”, since Christ, at that time, had not yet risen and St. Paul says in Romans 4:25 (which Bene7 previously quoted)that Christ was “rasied for our justification.” Could you explain what you mean by the entire work of redemption?

He was indeed raised for our justification, and on the cross paid the penalty for ours sin, as Peter says, ”He Himself bore [the penalty for] our sins on the cross…and by His wounds we are healed” (1 Pet 2:24); and Paul says as well, ”He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…” (2 Cor 5:21). The penalty/redemptive, or purchase phase was finished on the cross.
Verbum Caro:

Interesting! I have seen this fact cited before, but I can never track down an actual source for it. Do you know where we can find out about the actual papyrus? In my research I keep finding an endless string of citations to other authors who describe this papyrus, but I just can’t find out about the original discovery. Can you help at all? I am not trying to contradict you, I am, rather, hoping to find out some more information on it since I have come across this point before.

I cannot; it is one of those little morsels that I have yet to run down to the original.

However, I can tell you that the same Gk word teleo, is used in Mt 17:24 and Rom 13:6 with reference to paying taxes.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky-

sandusky:

Philthy,
In quoting Grudem, you make a weak, misleading, out of context appeal to authority.

Such strong words…

sandusky:

Grudem’s full context runs 25 lines from which you pull less than four lines.

Irrelevent so far.

sandusky:

Overlaying Grudem’s statement concerning Christ’s resurrection body onto the John 6 passage, specifically the “eat My flesh, drink My blood section, which is your focus, then I must conclude that Jesus did mislead those who were there.

OK, good, I think. You agree with me. Im confused. What happened to weak, misleading and out of context?

sandusky:

The reason for that is your insistence that the John 6 passage is a prelude to the Last Supper, and therefore, the two passages are inextricably connected (I find that is out of context as well).

What? Where did you come up with this “baloney”? I never made any reference to the Last Supper. I think you just made that up. You’ll probably try to use this against me later…

sandusky:

However, with that in mind, Christ, in John 6, does withhold vital information from those disciples who left, as well as from those who stayed, in that, He did not tell them that what He meant was that He was going to change bread and wine into His body and blood, and that they would not really be eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but would instead be doing so under the elements of the bread and the wine.

Why are you restating my argument for me and agreeing with it?
You are supposed to be showing me how it is weak and out of context. I smell a rat…

sandusky:

Your scenario is further mired, when in Mark…

Mark? How did we get to Mark? Ahhh, I had a feeling this is how it would play out. It turns out that YOUR argument relies on establishing a connection to the Last Supper - not mine. You are a sneaky one, Sandusky. :yup: First you claim I made the connection to John 6 so that later you would look legitimate in bringing it up…
Smooth…as you would say.

sandusky:

Your scenario is further mired, when in Mark…, He adds that He will not drink the fruit of the vine, (wine), until He returns, implying that the cup He had just held up and said was filled with His blood, was not blood at all, but was, in fact, just wine.

Further mired? You haven’t presented anything else to “mire” my argument with, you have agreed with it up to this point. This is the ONLY thing you have presented which even begins to invalidate my argument. And guess what? Its not from John 6. You had to pull the Last Supper in to do it. Perhaps that is why you accused me of linking the two when, in fact, I did not. Don’t get me wrong - it’s a point worth thinking about - I give you credit there, but the fact remains that I never made any link from John 6 to the Last Supper to support my application of Grudems concept to John 6. And the fact that Jesus refers to the “fruit of the vine”
in Mark is not what I would call a compelling refutation.

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

[/color:

sandusky

]

Instead, His wording, in John 6, misled those present into believing that they would have to eat His flesh, and drink His blood, in the human form in which it stood before them, and so, they left, and who can blame them; what He said they must do, was contrary to the law they were under.
Yes, I know. You are agreeing with me again.
[/color:

sandusky

]
I am certain Grudem would agree with me, that in your scenario, Christ did mislead those present.

Yes, I know. You are agreeing with me again.
[/color:

sandusky

]In context Grudem’s statement sets up a condition, as shown by the phrase If the customary form….

Not so fast. There is A conditional for applying the CONCEPT, but is not the ONLY conditional valid for applying the CONCEPT. The CONCEPT does not necesitate the specific CONDITION to be applied.
Don’t race past that paragraph until you understand it fully. The CONCEPT (that Christ cant mislead) applies to ANY form of Christ’s communication with the Apostles. His behavior,His speech, His appearance, etc. all possess the power to communicate, and Grudem’s concept can be applied to any of them. Grudem correctly applied the CONCEPT to the message Christ communicated through his appearance. I correctly applied the CONCEPT to Christs communication through his speech. It is perfectly valid, as I told you before. Either disagree with the CONCEPT or agree with my conclusion.
[/color:

sandusky

]The customary form Christ presented to those in John 6 was His human body, and not bread and wine, which is the customary form of the Eucharist; that is misleading.

You are attempting to force the John 6 language into the “costumary form” language used by Grudem. If you have read and understand my paragraph above it should be perfectly clear that there is no need to do so. The issue is communication, not form.
[/color:

sandusky

] If John 6 is left in context, and not wrongly forced into context with the Last Supper, then Christ did not mislead.
Well this is what you are supposed to be proving, not simply stating as fact. Look what you wrote above:
[/color:

sandusky

]"His wording, in John 6, misled those present into believing that they would have to eat His flesh, and drink His blood, in the human form in which it stood before them(ie not in the Last supper context)…
Do these two statements of yours not contradict each other? I think they do and you still have some explaining to do.
[/color:

sandusky

]He gave them all the information they needed,
On what basis do you make this claim? None as far as I can tell. In fact, you might say its begging the question. And where, in the NT is there precedent to show that when he spoke to the Apostles he would leave them confused because they should have understood?
[/color:

sandusky

]
and as He shifted from plain language to figurative language, they misunderstood Him, and He let them leave, while misunderstanding. I have illustrated that in my post #226, that puts the parallel passages of John 6:40 and John 6:54 side by side…
Yea I saw that - it was very good: thanks!
[/color:

sandusky

] Here is a standard illustration of the out of context fallacy you employed:.
Sandusky, that is not at all what I have done. I will let anyone who reads these exchanges judge for themselves the validity and force of my argument.

 

[Philthy]

[/color:

sandusky

]
That type of out of context appeal to authority, coupled with your begging the question, displays the weakness of your argument.
So, just for the record, your attempt at deconstructing my argument is founded on three things:

• An erroneous assumption that the CONCEPT could not be applied to the form of communication in John 6
• The fact that outside of John 6 Jesus refers to the Last Supper cup as the “fruit of the vine”
• Your opinion that Jesus gave them all the information they needed to understand him correctly

Well, again, I thank you for your time and thoughts, but I simply respectfully disagree that you have demonstrated anything which even approaches a justification of your characterization of my comments as “weak, misleading, or out of context”. I will let others decide for themselves.

Peace

Phil

 

[NotWorthy]

sandusky:

It is definitely a question of authority.

I believe the Bible is the authority, and the church is subject to the Bible; that is how things operate in my world.

You believe that the Church is the authority, and the Bible is subject to the Church; we truly do operate in different realms.

This is not Catholic Teaching, for you are implying that if the Catholic Church conflicts with the Bible, then the Catholic Church has authority to over-ride the Bible. Correct me if I’m misinterpreting your statement.

The Catholic Church however doesn’t not conflict with the Bible. Our Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, is part of the three-legged stool that guides us to the Truth, along with The Word of God in both forms, the written being the Bible, and the Oral being Sacred Tradition. They should never conflict.

If I misunderstood you, I’m sorry.

Notworthy

 

[sandusky]

Philthy,

I am confused as well regarding your posts #420-422.

Answer a couple of things for me, as I suddenly feel as though I am talking to someone else.

Forgive me if I have put words in your mouth concerning the John 6 “eat my flesh, drink my blood verses” and the statements at the Last Supper, “this is my body, this is my blood” statements. Are you saying that you agree that there is absolutely no connection between those two sections of scripture—John 6 and the Last Supper accounts?

Next, it seems that you have changed your mind, and that you agree with what I am saying in my post #400. In that post, I am concluding that Christ did mislead those who left, as well as those who stayed. Do you agree with that?

Philthy, will you post all of Grudem’s thoughts beginning with paragraph 2 of page 612 and continuing 4 lines into page 613?

I’m going to need some time to digest what you are saying in your last 3 posts; I am unable to make much sense out of them right now.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Philthy,

I am confused as well regarding your posts #420-422.

I have that effect on people.

sandusky:

Answer a couple of things for me, as I suddenly feel as though I am talking to someone else.

That can’t be good

sandusky:

Forgive me if I have put words in your mouth concerning the John 6 “eat my flesh, drink my blood verses” and the statements at the Last Supper, “this is my body, this is my blood” statements.

No problem - there have been a lot of posts and you are engaged in more than I am.

sandusky:

Are you saying that you agree that there is absolutely no connection between those two sections of scripture—John 6 and the Last Supper accounts?

No. I simply have said nothing at all about the Last Supper. Once you brought it up I did say that your comment regarding “the fruit of the vine” was worth consideration, though.

sandusky:

Next, it seems that you have changed your mind, and that you agree with what I am saying in my post #400. In that post, I am concluding that Christ did mislead those who left, as well as those who stayed. Do you agree with that?

Not at all. It could only be considered as misleading them if they were NOT to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”. Since I interpret Him at his word, and believe in the real presence, he meant what he said and no one was mislead, and Christ isn’t guilty of misleading anyone. It all fits together. It is only if you assume a symbolic interpretation that He would be guilty of misleading them by his words.

sandusky:

Philthy, will you post all of Grudem’s thoughts beginning with paragraph 2 of page 612 and continuing 4 lines into page 613?

No, but I will reread it and see if there is any reason why the concept of Christ not misleading can’t be applied to the situation in John 6.

sandusky:

I’m going to need some time to digest what you are saying in your last 3 posts; I am unable to make much sense out of them right now.

As you wish.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Philthy,
Next, it seems that you have changed your mind, and that you agree with what I am saying in my post #400. In that post, I am concluding that Christ did mislead those who left, as well as those who stayed. Do you agree with that?

Im sorry. I now see why I caused you confusion. It was because of my careless response to something you said. When I said that you were agreeing with me regarding Christ misleading the Apostles, I was basing that comment on the supposition that IF he meant the bread of life discourse figuratively(the way you interpret it), THEN he would be guilty of misleading them. So IF you interpret the passage figuratively, THEN I agree with you that he would be guilty of misleading them. My fault.

Phil

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

I am going to say for argument that John 6 is figuartive. My next question is how or why would the early christians even make such a claim of understanding John 6 as literal. This doctrine should have never even been developed let alone survived 2,000 years.

The full blown doctrine of transubstantiation developed over time. But it is true that quickly after the Apostolic age Communion began to take on mystical ideas and forms. This is clearly seen in the writings of the early Christian writers, and that early on Christians began to celebrate Communion behind closed doors, shutting out those who had not been yet baptized. The closed doors really added and promoted mysticism to what in Apostolic times was really quite simple and straight forward.

Paul had to straighten out the Galatian church for taking accepting circumcision, warning them with the spiritual principle that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9). Historically, we can see this is what happened with the introduction of mysticism into Communion during post Apostolic times. The introduction of a little mysticism began to grow and eventually permeate the whole church. Although there were always pockets of believers that did not accept the doctrine.

That God allowed it to take its course only demonstrates His long suffering, his patience with men. But eventually He causes His light to shine on the darkness, and with the Reformation and men returned to the written Word, this time-developed doctrine was examined against what was actually revealed in Scripture, determined false for obvious, Biblical reasons, and dispelled by many (along with other doctrines and traditions that did not comply with His written Word).

Blessing,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Mercygate:

You seem to hold the view that Jesus’ Resurrection Body – the Body present in the Holy Eucharist – is limited to the kind of animal body we all walk around with on earth. Clearly, his Resurrection Body is demonstrably quite “other” than his pre-Resurrection body.

I hope by now you know I do hold to the view that Christ’s resurrected body is the SAME body in which He died, only now glorified but still subject to the same spacial limitations it had prior to its resurrection.

(1) Men do not have “animal bodies,” as you assert. Man was created separate, unique, apart and distinct from the animal kingdom: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds and another of fish” (1 Cor. 15:39; cf. Gen. 1).(2) God the Son was BORN into this world system just as we all are. He was not born of an ox, a whale or a majestic eagle. He was born of a woman, and through this miraculous birth became part of the human race. He became one of US. He took on human form and therefore a human BODY. He took on humanity in all its bodily form and with its bodily limitations - but His humanity did not take on Divinity. He grew as a man, walked as a man, talked as a man and lived and operated within all of the spacial limitations of a man with a body created from this material universe. But, (unlike the first “Adam”) He live out His entire life on this earth in complete obedience to and continual communion with the Father who sent Him and mightily worked through Him during His earthly ministry. He died as a man. He rose three days later, as a man, with the same body with which He died - now glorified. He being the “first fruits” of the future resurrection of all who belong to Him (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). But just as His humanity did not take on Divinity when He was born, it did not take on Divinity when it rose from the dead. His body remained fully human, still subject to the spacial limitations of this created, material universe of which it was created. Glorification is not deification. In human, bodily form He ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High, functioning, bodily, as the believer’s Advocate before the Father if and when he sins (1 Jn. 2:1), and intercedes for him as his High Priest (Heb. 7:25), until He returns to this earth - bodily. His body no more took on Divinity at His resurrection than the believer’s will when he/she is resurrected. A glorified body is (1) not a deified body and (2) by fact that it is still a material body it, by nature, has spacial limitations. It still can only be in one place at a time, it cannot be omnipresent, an attribute belonging only to God who is Spirit. Yes, He promises always to be with us, but not in bodily form. Where He says when two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst (Matt. 18:20), He does not mean in bodily form. Proof? Have you gathered together with others in His name? Did you see Him, bodily? Nor have I.

That fact that it will come again in personal form does not detract from his ability to be with us in the Blessed Sacrament as well.

The fact that He took on bodily form most certainly does.

According to his own words: “I am with you always.” The Eucharist is one of the ways in which he is with us.

This could only be true if you deny the Incarnation itself. He cannot be bodily in the Eucharist and in Heaven at the same time.

Bene, you have the advantage in discussions such as these because it is so much more ‘reasonable’ to dismiss hard sayings, while we, in our naivete, attempt to make sense of their apparent incomprehensibility.

Or maybe we have the advantage and your sense makes no sense because (1) the doctrine of transubstantiation actually militates against the doctrine of the Incarnation; (2) based on Biblical revelation it’s chocked full of contradictions and (3) based on what I stated above, it escapes all natural and Biblical (theological) reasoning. Although you try to solve number three in your own mind by employing the word, “mystery,” meaning it transcends all reason. But you cannot dismiss one and two so easily.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Kay Cee:

Of course a human body can miraculously, by the power of God, walk on water. That was my entire point. Jesus, being God, walked on water by His own power. And it is through Christ’s power that Peter also walked on water (Christ commands him to walk).

No, Jesus didn’t walk on the water BECAUSE He was God. He lived His entire life on earth AS A MAN, but in total submission (obedience) and communion with God His Father.

What I seem to be getting from you is that Jesus had power over natural law, except when it comes to the Eucharist. Jesus had power and authority to heal, walk on water, still a storm, turn water into wine, but not power and authority to turn bread and wine into His body and blood?

Jesus did not exercise those powers as God, He exercised those powers as a man doing the will of God, His Father. That’s why He said that He can do nothing on His own initiative, He doesn’t seek His own will but the will of Him who sent Him:

JOHN 5:19 “Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”

JOHN 5:30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

Jsus is 100% God and 100% human. Are you saying a person who is 100% God can’t supersede nature? Do you really want to say such a thing is impossible for God?

You utterly fail to understand the Incarnation. He voluntarily left His glory in Heaven to become a man. He doesn’t violate His humanity by giving it divine attributes. In order for His body to be fully in Heaven and AT THE SAME TIME fully on earth as the “Eucharist” it must take on the attribute of omnipresence. And if that be the case it is no longer a “human” body and He violates His own humanity.

Please think about this for a while. It’s not at all a question of Jesus being able to perform miracles, or a matter of Jesus performing miracles on His own body. The doctrine of *transubstantiation * does not require a miracle by Christ, but a Divine attribute.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

I hope by now you know I do hold to the view that Christ’s resurrected body is the SAME body in which He died, only now glorified but still subject to the same spacial limitations it had prior to its resurrection.

Not in my Bible.

(1) Men do not have “animal bodies,” as you assert. Man was created separate, unique, apart and distinct from the animal kingdom: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds and another of fish” (1 Cor. 15:39; cf. Gen. 1).

All flesh may be unique but all the “flesh” you describe here has the characteristics proper to the animal kingdom. Men, though distinct from the other animals, are not exempt from the burden of animal physiology.

. . . . He took on humanity in all its bodily form and with its bodily limitations - but His humanity did not take on Divinity. . . . He grew as a man, walked as a man, talked as a man and lived and operated within all of the spacial limitations of a man with a body created from this material universe. . . . , (unlike the first “Adam”) He live out His entire life on this earth. . . But just as His humanity did not take on Divinity when He was born, it did not take on Divinity when it rose from the dead. His body remained fully human, still subject to the spacial limitations of this created, material universe of which it was created. Glorification is not deification. In human, bodily form He ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High, functioning, bodily, as the believer’s Advocate before the Father if and when he sins (1 Jn. 2:1), and intercedes for him as his High Priest (Heb. 7:25), until He returns to this earth - bodily. His body no more took on Divinity at His resurrection than the believer’s will when he/she is resurrected. A glorified body is (1) not a deified body and (2) by fact that it is still a material body it, by nature, has spacial limitations. It still can only be in one place at a time, it cannot be omnipresent, an attribute belonging only to God who is Spirit. Blessings,
Bene

Now I get it. You’re a Nestorian! A full-blown, all-out, card-carrying Nestorian.

But that is another thread.

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

No, Jesus didn’t walk on the water BECAUSE He was God. He lived His entire life on earth AS A MAN, but in total submission (obedience) and communion with God His Father.Jesus did not exercise those powers as God, He exercised those powers as a man doing the will of God, His Father. That’s why He said that He can do nothing on His own initiative, He doesn’t seek His own will but the will of Him who sent Him:

JOHN 5:19 “Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”

JOHN 5:30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

And what makes you think that Jesus turning bread and wine into His body and blood is not an example of a man doing the will of God, His Father? The Father created the universe, but He created it in conjunction with the Son: “All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.” (John 1:3) The members of the Trinity work together.

You utterly fail to understand the Incarnation. He voluntarily left His glory in Heaven to become a man. He doesn’t violate His humanity by giving it divine attributes. In order for His body to be fully in Heaven and AT THE SAME TIME fully on earth as the “Eucharist” it must take on the attribute of omnipresence. And if that be the case it is no longer a “human” body and He violates His own humanity.

Omnipresence means God is everywhere spiritually. We don’t mean by the Eucharist that God is everywhere physically.

Jesus does not violate His own humanity to extend it to another place and time. I’m glad you capitalized those three words above, because here again, you’re telling me God is not the Master of time. Besides, didn’t Jesus tell us He would be with us always, even to the end of time?

Please think about this for a while. It’s not at all a question of Jesus being able to perform miracles, or a matter of Jesus performing miracles on His own body. The doctrine of *transubstantiation *does not require a miracle by Christ, but a Divine attribute.

Blessings,
Bene

I have thought about it. Please do not assume that I haven’t. Of course the Eucharist requires a divine attribute. But what I seem to be hearing from you is that when Jesus walked on earth, He was a mere man, not God at all. Is that what you’re saying?

 

[bene7]

mercygate:

Not in my Bible.

So, if you went to Israel and found the tomb, you’re saying you’d find the body of Christ lying in it?

All flesh may be unique but all the “flesh” you describe here has the characteristics proper to the animal kingdom. Men, though distinct from the other animals, are not exempt from the burden of animal physiology.

Your use of terminonlgy is effected by Rome’s belief in theistic evolution. Yeah, this too is a topic for another thread but it only demonstrates how all theology is interconnected.

Now I get it. You’re a Nestorian! A full-blown, all-out, card-carrying Nestorian.

To understand that Jesus became fully man, took on full humanity, and that His human body does not possess the attribute of omnipresence, is “Nestorian?” You’re confused in this area, just like with your theistic evolution.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

So, if you went to Israel and found the tomb, you’re saying you’d find the body of Christ lying in it?Your use of terminonlgy is effected by Rome’s belief in theistic evolution. Yeah, this too is a topic for another thread but it only demonstrates how all theology is interconnected.To understand that Jesus became fully man, took on full humanity, and that His human body does not possess the attribute of omnipresence, is “Nestorian?” You’re confused in this area, just like with your theistic evolution.

Blessings,
Bene

Does your credal confession (if you have one) accept the Chalcedonian definition?

Your description of the Incarnation is absolutely, utterly and totally Nestorian. I am not confused.

Even without theistic evolution, even with a pure “creationist” view of the origin of man, human beings do share biology with the animal kingdom.

When you truly apprehend that, it is all the more marvelous that the infusion of an immortal soul has so set humanity apart from all other creatures.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

Although there were always pockets of believers that did not accept the doctrine.

Can you identify these “pockets”?

bene7:

That God allowed it to take its course only demonstrates His long suffering, his patience with men. But eventually He causes His light to shine on the darkness, and with the Reformation and men returned to the written Word, this time-developed doctrine was examined against what was actually revealed in Scripture, determined false for obvious, Biblical reasons, and dispelled by many (along with other doctrines and traditions that did not comply with His written Word).

You still have not addressed the comments of St Ignatius of Antioch regarding the Eucharist (and please don’t say that he misunderstood St John).

Scripture does not support your interpretation.
Church history does not support your interpretation.
Sacred Tradition does not support your interpreation.
Not even Martin Luther supports your interpreatation.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. God allowed the vast majority of Christianity to incorrectly understand the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist for about 1600 years because of His patience with mankind. But alas, along comes the anabaptists, Zwingli, baptists, and others—who re-interpret the Scriptures to deny the “Real Presence”. Unbelievable!

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

So, if you went to Israel and found the tomb, you’re saying you’d find the body of Christ lying in it?

No. Catholics believe in the ascension. You have completely sidestepped any understanding of the Christian understanding of the Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension. Really. A good Baptist would choke at your view.