Literal or Symbolic?...

[lyrikal]

Howdy boast in Jesus .Just read that you wrote similar thing as I was led to, about salvation (justification) and sanctification. Looks like their can be a invisible, universal/catholic , "thread " uniting us. As Augustine said , “He teaches us” and scripture says, “every neighbor will teach his neighbor” Anyways, welcome aboard and blessings in your testifying, and iron will sharpen iron here at CA.

Yes, except many Protestants would disagree with your view. They would say that Justification can be lost through sin(s). Who taught them that? The same Jesus? If so, did He contradict Himself? Who should I believe? Your Jesus or theirs?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8433568:

Like who? Where did any of them say it is ONLY a thanksgiving/remembrance?

Hi lyrikal I am not Luther and will not put in “only”(well that is close to “alone”). My statement did not say, " only thanksgiving/remembrance".To say that they would have had to dealt with trans., and I said they did not deal with it.They dealt with thanksgiving/remembrance…Lyrikal -pretty good rap.Just for fun ,how well do you know early fathers on abortion ? I got a good one to share, but wondering if you have read the earliest father mentioning abortion .I was struck by it .

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;8433581:

Hi lyrikal I am not Luther and will not put in “only”(well that is close to “alone”). My statement did not say, " only thanksgiving/remembrance".To say that they would have had to dealt with trans., and I said they did not deal with it.They dealt with thanksgiving/remembrance…

Some (like St. Ambrose) explicitly believed in Transubstantiation and some others believed in RBP of Christ. The remembrance and thanksgiving is also there (as it should be) but it follows with RBP and/or Trans. You won’t find one who believed it was nothing but a symbol/figurative.

Lyrikal -pretty good rap.

Thank you! Much appreciated, David!

Just for fun ,how well do you know early fathers on abortion ? I got a good one to share, but wondering if you have read the earliest father mentioning abortion .I was struck by it .

The Didache

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter

“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix

“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

 

[lyrikal]

Council of Ancyra

“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great

“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

“He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees” (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom

“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . *f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Source: catholic.com/tracts/abortion

Remember, Catholics don’t believe that the Church Fathers were infallible. They indeed made mistakes. That’s why it’s important to have the authority of the Bishops in councils to settle matters and also the authority of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) to settle matters.*

 

[lyrikal]

By the way, here are good example of Early Church Fathers who believed in Trans:

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have **turned **wine into blood?” Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:4(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152

“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.” Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXIII:7(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose,On the Christian Faith,4,10:125(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,X:278

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391),in NPNF2,X:324-325

“He did not say,'This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” Theodore of Mopsuestia,Commentary on Matthew 26:26(ante A.D. 428),in JUR,II:81

 

[wmscott]

From the Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary (LINK)

Some interesting commentary on the Real Presence concerning Luke 22:19

Ver. 19. THIS IS MY BODY. See the annotations on the same words of consecration, Matthew xxvi. 26.; Mark xiv. 22. and 1 Corinthians xi. 24. — Do this for a commemoration of me. By these words he gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer. It is Christ that chiefly consecrates and changes the elements of bread and wine into his own body and blood; it is he that chiefly and principally forgiveth sins in the sacraments of baptism, penance, &c. It is what St. Augustine so often repeats against the Donatists, that it is Christ that baptizeth, though the instrumental minister be a sinner or a heretic; and this is what all Catholics confess and profess. — The holy sacrifice and sacrament is to be offered and received with a devout and grateful remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and especially of his sufferings and death for all mankind. But to teach that it is a bare, though devout memorial, or a remembrance only, so as to exclude the real presence of Christ, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, is inconsistent with the constant belief and consent of all Christian churches, both of the west and east, and contradicts the plain words of Christ. The learned bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, desires all Christians to take notice, that Christ does not command them to remember him, but to take his body and blood with a remembrance of him, and his benefits: this is the import of all the words, put together. This is my body: this is my blood: do this in, for, or with a remembrance of me. (Witham) — This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the Church to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. (Challoner) — Which is given, &c. He does not say, which shall be offered for you, but which is offered;[2] because it was already a true sacrifice, in which Christ was truly present which he offered in advance to his eternal Father, before that which he was going to offer the next day, in a different manner, on the cross. This sacrifice was the consummation of the figurative Pasch, and the promise or pledge of the bloody offering, which Christ would make on the cross. … It was not the mere figure of his body, which was crucified, but the true body and the true blood. In the same manner it is both the one and the other which are given, and really present, in the Eucharist. (Calmet) — To renew the memory of what I have this day done, in giving you my body; and what I shall do to-morrow, in delivering my blood and my life for the whole world, do you hereafter what you now see me do. Take bread, break it, sand say, This is my body; and it will become so really and truly, as it now is in my hands. (Calmet)

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8433598:

Some (like St. Ambrose) explicitly believed in Transubstantiation and some others believed in RBP of Christ. The remembrance and thanksgiving is also there (as it should be) but it follows with RBP and/or Trans. You won’t find one who believed it was nothing but a symbol/figurative.

Thank you! Much appreciated, David!

The Didache

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter

“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix

“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Wow, you got em all. I had the Barnabus one. It takes the pretty face of “choice”, and puts it on par with the ruthless Romans and pagans of 2000 years ago.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, except many Protestants would disagree with your view. They would say that Justification can be lost through sin(s). Who taught them that? The same Jesus? If so, did He contradict Himself? Who should I believe? Your Jesus or theirs?

First the term protetstant covers various branches,and to a point it is not fair to lump them all together. As an example , JW’S lump all christendom together, including Catholics, as “them” and lost, and that JW’s are the only unified, worldwide truth. A Muslim would look at Christiainity and have many choices of denominations that are uniform and worldwide.(of course you may rest on being apostolic and from the beginning-another debate)
Anyways, justification does not necessarily deal with OSAS. So I am not sure where a contradiction lies.The fact remains, the more you trust in His salvation/sanctification, glorification, the more secure and assured you are . The more you add conditions, the less secure and assured you are. That we have free choice till our last breath, and can reject His graces, is another issue . I believe that on that great day when you are at the gates of heaven and they ask why they should let you in, the only thing they will hear is the proclamations of His work on your behalf . As soon as you say," I did this (even in His name), or I did that" (could be baptism, confirmation, miracles), you have lifted yourself up and it will not be heard as justification . If it is a mixed bag, extolling Christ and yourself , the latter will be burned and the former rewarded.

 

[You]

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, …

‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[Radical]

With that said, I would still like you to answer (please) where I can find this part of your belief:…

I reckon that it will be the weekend before I get around to posting a response to your earlier 7 posts…but eventually I will get around to answering this question.

Cheers.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?

Definitely literal.

. . .Luke 22:19-20 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.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” we take that as instruction to do a symbolic act, pointing to His sacrifice on the cross and the blood ushering in the New Covenant.

boastinjesus,

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, and held this same symbolic-remembrance belief regarding the Lord’s Supper.

However, I eventually found this does not hold up when Scripture is considered as a whole.

While I agree that the Lord’s Supper/Holy Eucharist involves remembrance; John Chapter 6 states very clearly that the Body and Blood of Christ is His true Body and true Blood; and unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Consuming the Body and Blood of Christ is also linked to being raised up on the last day and eternal life. When we “feed” on His flesh and drink His blood, He abides in us, and we in him.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

He offered His body as a sacrifice “once for all” (Hebrews 9:25-26), so we don’t think He needs to be sacrificed repeatedly. . .

I don’t believe Christ is sacrificed repeatedly and neither do Catholics. This is a common misunderstanding of Catholicism and other faiths that believe in the “Real Presence.”

. . .We can be saved by faith in Christ alone, and still need to grow in our obedience to Him. That’s why we agree that we constantly repent, because we’re not perfected this side of life. That’s my two cents worth…

I agree that we must constantly repent; but Holy Scripture does not say we are saved by faith alone. Since faith alone is not the topic of this thread; I won’t elaborate on that issue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[boastinjesus]

Actually, I don’t think any knowledgeable Catholic has stated here that he “just” follows Jesus’ words literally.

.

I was replying to post 546 who said " I just Follow literally Jesus Christ words and so does the Church you abandoned…" in defense of his use of “This is My body”

I’m going to have to go look up the Catholic view of the Eucharist now…

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8432141:

Again, yes, if you are coming from a literal “box”. Since I believe the figurative view ,“is " is totally appropriate. When He says, “I am the good shepherd” he does not say ,“I ought to be the good shepherd”,or, " I ought to be light, Alpha and Omega, the vine…”. His body was shed, not should have been. Any Words that pertain to this new covenant, I eat by faith, as literally as you do.

Exactly! Thank you for proving your point is false. Listen to what you just said:

*“I am the good shepherd” he does not say ,“I ought to be the good shepherd”,or, " I ought to be light, Alpha and Omega, the vine…". *

So tell me where he says:

This ought to be my body or this symbolizes my body or this represents my body.

He says: This IS my body. No matter what you say or how you try to present it,your belief is false and will always be false.

 

[david_ruiz]

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, …

‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Indeed, fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge. May I say before I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt of His saving grace for me personally, I knew beyond any doubt that I was headed for eternal damnation. I also knew beyond any doubt it was not for sins of the flesh but for rejecting the gospel, preached by men, rejecting His personal call to trust Him and know Him.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8433532:

Exactly! Thank you for proving your point is false. Listen to what you just said:

*“I am the good shepherd” he does not say ,“I ought to be the good shepherd”,or, " I ought to be light, Alpha and Omega, the vine…". *

So tell me where he says:

This ought to be my body or this symbolizes my body or this represents my body.

He says: This IS my body. No matter what you say or how you try to present it,your belief is false and will always be false.No NIcea325 , you prove my point . Is he a literal shepherd and are we sheep ? Is he literally a Vine and we…Was Jesus literally “light” while here on earth ? Was he literally the Greek alphabet ? No, He was speaking metaphorically, figuratively, symbolically. Yet he said , “I am…”, not, " I am like… or, “I ought to be”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Definitely literal.

boastinjesus,

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, and held this same symbolic-remembrance belief regarding the Lord’s Supper.

However, I eventually found this does not hold up when Scripture is considered as a whole.

While I agree that the Lord’s Supper/Holy Eucharist involves remembrance; John Chapter 6 states very clearly that the Body and Blood of Christ is His true Body and true Blood; and unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Consuming the Body and Blood of Christ is also linked to being raised up on the last day and eternal life. When we “feed” on His flesh and drink His blood, He abides in us, and we in him.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

I don’t believe Christ is sacrificed repeatedly and neither do Catholics. This is a common misunderstanding of Catholicism and other faiths that believe in the “Real Presence.”

I agree that we must constantly repent; but Holy Scripture does not say we are saved by faith alone. Since faith alone is not the topic of this thread; I won’t elaborate on that issue.

Peace,
Anna

Howdy Anna Scott. It is John 6 that tells me he was speaking figurative, that is, when you understand who He said that to it makes sense .I do consider scripture as a whole , as do millions, and do not see transubstantiation. Also, while the Mass only re-presents the sacrifice, it is still an offering up of a sacrifice,His son as if we can give God anything, but thanksgiving and praise .He gave us His only son, and we feel pious because we offer Him back ? The words of the Mass are quite explicit in this subtle but important paradigm.

 

[You]

Indeed, fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge. May I say before I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt of His saving grace for me personally, I knew beyond any doubt that I was headed for eternal damnation. I also knew beyond any doubt it was not for sins of the flesh but for rejecting the gospel, preached by men, rejecting His personal call to trust Him and know Him.

Our short conversation here is based on what you said " As soon as you say," I did this…"; and on what I quoted about the sheep who did things and the goats who did not do things and for that reason they were sent to hell. The goats did not do anything.

 

[PRmerger]

I was replying to post 546 who said " I just Follow literally Jesus Christ words and so does the Church you abandoned…" in defense of his use of “This is My body”

Fair enough.

But where the “just” is put in a sentence is very important.

We don’t “just” interpret Jesus’ words’ literally, as you originally posted.

When a Catholic says, “I just follow literally Jesus Christ” that changes the meaning.

Take this example:

I just do my homework.
I do just my homework.

The first indicates someone is doing what he has to do.
The second indicates that all he does is ONLY his homework.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Howdy Anna Scott.

Howdy, yourself, david ruiz. As a Texan; I like you already.

It is John 6 that tells me he was speaking figurative, that is, when you understand who He said that to it makes sense .

How does John 6 tell us He is speaking figuratively?

And, if those to whom he spoke understood his words to be figurative; why did many of his disciples say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60)

John 6:52, the Jews disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This would be the perfect time for Christ to explain that He was speaking figuratively. Instead, Jesus said:

. . . ."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.** (John 6:54)
**
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (John 6:55)

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6:56)

As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (John 6:57)

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)

I do consider scripture as a whole , as do millions, and do not see transubstantiation.

I’m glad you consider Scripture as a whole.

Transubstantiation is an “Aristotelian” explanation of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ upon consecration–with the appearance of bread and wine remaining.

As an Anglican Catholic (not in communion with Rome); I believe the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ upon consecration, which changes the substance—but I do not feel the need to define the metaphysics involved. I yield to the mystery of the Eucharist, in a similar way the Eastern Orthodox do.

Also, while the Mass only re-presents the sacrifice, it is still an offering up of a sacrifice,His son as if we can give God anything, but thanksgiving and praise .He gave us His only son, and we feel pious because we offer Him back ? The words of the Mass are quite explicit in this subtle but important paradigm.

My view as an Anglican Catholic is that through the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is brought into the present and includes the Church’s offering. The Sacrifice of Christ is “ever present,” but never repeated.

Hebrews 10: 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Through the Eucharist, we are able to participate in and be united with His Sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 10: 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

We are called, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1)

1 Corinthians 5: 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Ephesians 5: 1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

You will find words from the above Scriptures in the Anglican Liturgy.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8435765:

No NIcea325 , you prove my point . Is he a literal shepherd and are we sheep ? Is he literally a Vine and we…Was Jesus literally “light” while here on earth ? Was he literally the Greek alphabet ? No, He was speaking metaphorically, figuratively, symbolically. Yet he said , “I am…”, not, " I am like… or, “I ought to be”.

Precisely David and thank you for proving my point more and more. And how many people left when he said He is the vine? The shephred? How many said it was a hard teaching to accept? Does anyone seriously believe he was a vine? Not according to the NT.

Your points are weak,which are used by symbolic believers. Did Jesus place his hands on the vine and bless it and say: This IS my Body? Nope!

So I’ll ask again:

Where does Jesus say: This OUGHT TO BE my body? This symbolized my body? This represents my body? Apparently you are not aware that Jesus easily could have used other words to mean symbolizes or presents in Aramaic,but guess what? He does not!

The word…IS…means exactly what means…IS! Your position is based on human pride and arrogance. God incarnated,but HE is not capable of giving Himself through two simple elements? Pretty arrogant belief David.