Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Agan Brkn1 you are using your flawed interpretation of John 6:63 to try and make scripture what YOU want it to say.

John 6:[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus says “the flesh”, Jesus did not say His flesh.

Where in John 6:63 does Jesus say that HIS Flesh avails nothing?

Are you honestly saying that Jesus, God the Son, became man and gave himself up on the cross for nothing?

Or was Jesus really trying to tell them that the time had come and that the numerous animal sacrifices that they depended on to save them was going to be replaced by His eternal sacrifice which gives life to all?

What did John the Baptist call Jesus?

“The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

To be a faithful and observant child of Israel what did one do to renew his covenent with God?

He ate the Passover Lamb.

To not eat the Lamb was to be cut of from the people of God.

What did Jesus say the bread was at the Last Supper? The wine?

Exod 25:[23] "And you shall make a table of acacia wood; two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height…

[30] And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.

What kind of “Presence” do you suppose the bread signified? Could it be the Presence of God?

A presence which prefigured the Real and actual Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist?

 

[brkn1]

[brkn1]

With the Eucharist,we don’t see him in the bodily form that he was in,but he is present under the species of bread and wine.

He also went to the Father spiritually. He ascended into heaven by the power of the Spirit.

It doesn’t lose meaning. The Eucharist is not the personal,human,bodily form of Jesus. It is Christ in person,under the form of bread and wine,but not his personal form.

The RCC defines that bread as the actual physical flesh and bone body of Christ in the form of bread.
We can see that bread, so it has to be the actual physical presence of Jesus in the form of bread which we can physically see, if the RCC is correct.

Jesus went to the Father both spiritually and physically. Jesus is now physically in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will not return physically until the appointed day of the Lord, which is the second coming of Jesus.
The RCC says that Jesus comes physically into the bread wafer, whenever a priest requires Him to do so.

 

[brkn1]

Agan Brkn1 you are using your flawed interpretation of John 6:63 to try and make scripture what YOU want it to say.

John 6:[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus says “the flesh”, Jesus did not say His flesh.

Where in John 6:63 does Jesus say that HIS Flesh avails nothing?

Are you honestly saying that Jesus, God the Son, became man and gave himself up on the cross for nothing?

Or was Jesus really trying to tell them that the time had come and that the numerous animal sacrifices that they depended on to save them was going to be replaced by His eternal sacrifice which gives life to all?

What did John the Baptist call Jesus?

“The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

To be a faithful and observant child of Israel what did one do to renew his covenent with God?

He ate the Passover Lamb.

To not eat the Lamb was to be cut of from the people of God.

What did Jesus say the bread was at the Last Supper? The wine?

Exod 25:[23] "And you shall make a table of acacia wood; two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height…

[30] And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.

What kind of “Presence” do you suppose the bread signified? Could it be the Presence of God?

A presence which prefigured the Real and actual Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist?

You twisted the “shewbread” into “the bread of the Presence”. My bible has no such interpretation. Does your bible really have a capitalized “Presence” in it too? I think someone was tampering with your version.

The Passover lamb was symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary, once for all. It was not Jesus that the Jews were eating in memory of the first Passover meal that began the Exodus from Egypt.

Jesus’ flesh availed salvation to all who first looked forward to and those of us that now look back in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s one sacrifice on Calvary to redeem all of those who believed God. This fulfilled the scripture about the Messiah.

A problem with the idea that we can now eat Jesus’ flesh is that Jesus no longer has the original mortal flesh and blood that He took on to become the God Man.
Jesus had to take on a mortal body to be sacrificed in the one and only perfect sacrifice on Calvary.
Jesus rose after that sacrifice to be the first to have a glorified body, which in no way is the same as a mortal body.
That mortal body of Jesus disappeared at the resurrection and no longer exists.
Paul described the difference in the mortal body and the glorified body in (2 Cor. 5:1). The mortal body is what Paul called our “earthly house of this tabernacle”. This mortal body gets replaced, at the resurrection, with “a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”.
Jesus can not be an “eternal Victim”. A mortal body is necessary for such a sacrifice. It does not make sense that Jesus can now be asked to become the bread as a physical body and blood, when He has a glorified body at this time.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You twisted the “shewbread” into “the bread of the Presence”. My bible has no such interpretation. Does your bible really have a capitalized “Presence” in it too? I think someone was tampering with your version.

Revised Standard Version
Look it up yourself. Here’s the link:
quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/simple.html

The Passover lamb was symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary, once for all. It was not Jesus that the Jews were eating in memory of the first Passover meal that began the Exodus from Egypt.

Again, the Passover Lamb was not a prefigurement of an act that Jesus did but of Jesus Himself.

I suppose you have a scripture verse that supports your view?

Jesus’ flesh availed salvation to all who first looked forward to and those of us that now look back in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s one sacrifice on Calvary to redeem all of those who believed God. This fulfilled the scripture about the Messiah.

Where in the bible does it say this?

A problem with the idea that we can now eat Jesus’ flesh is that Jesus no longer has the original mortal flesh and blood that He took on to become the God Man.
Jesus had to take on a mortal body to be sacrificed in the one and only perfect sacrifice on Calvary.
Jesus rose after that sacrifice to be the first to have a glorified body, which in no way is the same as a mortal body.
That mortal body of Jesus disappeared at the resurrection and no longer exists.

Jesus didn’t have to do anything. What Jesus did He did for our sake, not His.

For Jesus to take flesh like He did, and for John-who remember was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb- to call Jesus THE Lamb of God, had to mean something.

That meaning was revealed in John 6.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

[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] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Paul described the difference in the mortal body and the glorified body in (2 Cor. 5:1). The mortal body is what Paul called our “earthly house of this tabernacle”. This mortal body gets replaced, at the resurrection, with “a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”.
Jesus can not be an “eternal Victim”. A mortal body is necessary for such a sacrifice. It does not make sense that Jesus can now be asked to become the bread as a physical body and blood, when He has a glorified body at this time.

I know what Paul is talking about. But you seem to interpret that the glorified body of Christ is in no way related to His earthly body.

Scripture disagrees.

If Jesus cannot be an eternal victim, how do you explain John’s seeing Jesus-the Lamb-in heaven standing as if slain?
Rev 5:[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,(cf Rev 13:8)

Jesus-the Lamb-is in heaven “as if slain”. Remember Jesus’ glorified body still had the holes in His hands and feet and the spear wound in His side.(John 20:20 & 27).

As if dead, but alive. How can that be?

The same as the bread and the wine appear as just bread and wine but by the blessing-the words of institution that Christ gave us-their substance is changed. It is His glorified flesh and blood, that we consume.

The Word of God cannot be any clearer on this.

What is your objection to this based on? Is your objection based in the spiritual or the material?

 

[brkn1]

Revised Standard Version
Look it up yourself. Here’s the link:
quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/simple.html

Again, the Passover Lamb was not a prefigurement of an act that Jesus did but of Jesus Himself.

For Jesus to take flesh like He did, and for John-who remember was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb- to call Jesus THE Lamb of God, had to mean something.

That meaning was revealed in John 6.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

[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] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

I know what Paul is talking about. But you seem to interpret that the glorified body of Christ is in no way related to His earthly body.

If Jesus cannot be an eternal victim, how do you explain John’s seeing Jesus-the Lamb-in heaven standing as if slain?
Rev 5:[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,(cf Rev 13:8)

Jesus-the Lamb-is in heaven “as if slain”. Remember Jesus’ glorified body still had the holes in His hands and feet and the spear wound in His side.(John 20:20 & 27).

The same as the bread and the wine appear as just bread and wine but by the blessing-the words of institution that Christ gave us-their substance is changed. It is His glorified flesh and blood, that we consume.

I see that “the bread of the Presence” does exist in the REVISED Standard Version, which is the same as calling it a “tampered” Standard Version, which I did already. Is that the official RCC bible that they use to understand God’s Word?

The Passover lamb was not Jesus Himself, although it did prefigure Jesus. That is why He is called the Lamb of God.
Since your understanding of salvation now requires that we eat the actual physical body and blood of Jesus to be saved, there is the question of how the OT saints got saved? They did not eat Jesus’ physical body and blood, which differs from your “required” method. There are two methods of salvation by your standard.

Jesus will always bear the marks of His ONE sacrifice on Calvary to save all that would come and believe God. That is the most glorious part of His glorified body, which Jesus now has as the Firstborn of the resurrection.
Jesus cannot come, as the RCC and you say, to give us that glorified body to be physically eaten. A glorified body is incorruptible and being eaten is impossible for such a body. It has physical properties that are no longer subject to mortal body laws, but it would not be a glorified body, if it could be eaten.
The fact that even Jesus’ former mortal body was described as incorruptible makes it impossible for Him to be physically eaten, since eating requires a form of corruption of what is eaten to be digested. If something is not digested, it is not really physically eaten, but rather just “chewed on”. Eating of Jesus has to be describing a “spiritual eating” as we believe on Him.

Jesus cannot righly be described as an “eternal victim” either, since, today, people understand the word “victim” to mean an unwilling sacrifice as the OT animals could have been described.
Jesus willingly went once to die for all of our sins on Calvary.
Jesus died once as the Lamb of God and He is now physically sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The one sacrifice is finished and it is forever effectual to redeem all who come to God and spiritually “eat” of Jesus in true saving faith. We eat the bread in grateful and loving remembrance of what Jesus did to save us.

 

[ibkc]

I see that “the bread of the Presence” does exist in the REVISED Standard Version, which is the same as calling it a “tampered” Standard Version, which I did already.

If new and corrected translations should be called “tampered” then that most certainly applies to the KJV, doesn’t it? After all, it didn’t come along until around a thousand years after the Bible was first put into the book we know now, and a good 1400 years after the original books were written in their original languages.

Is that the official RCC bible that they use to understand God’s Word?

In the US, the Bible used for the mass is New American Bible, not the RSV. The RSV is used by all sorts of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, if I am not totally mistaken.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If new and corrected translations should be called “tampered” then that most certainly applies to the KJV, doesn’t it? After all, it didn’t come along until around a thousand years after the Bible was first put into the book we know now, and a good 1400 years after the original books were written in their original languages.

It’s common knowledge that all versions, including the Catholic and King James Versions have “modern” translations. It appears, brkin1 just wanted to take another ad hominem jab at the Catholics. It’s hard to debate with someone who continually claims your views are twisted, childish or of “man’s” interpretations when they have their own private interpretation. In my opinion, to use such adjectives as argument signifies the lack of any real response and shows a lack of respect.

In the US, the Bible used for the mass is New American Bible, not the RSV. The RSV is used by all sorts of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, if I am not totally mistaken.

You’re not mistaken, but you have made the mistake of applying logic to the situation.

Maybe you can get him to address the fact that the Bible did not exist as one completed book until a couple of centuries after the individual letters and books were written. The decision of what was inspired and what was not was made by our early Church fathers based on their interpretations as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Before the Bible was put together, everyone’s faith was based on the one true living Church.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Before the Bible was put together, everyone’s faith was based on the one true living Church.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

True saving faith must depend on our truly believing the one true simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

The bible does not base our salvation on any church. Once God saves a person, that person automatically becomes a member of Jesus’ one true living Church. Revelation describes seven different churches that represent different aspects of Jesus’ one Church. Jesus did not point to Rome as the exclusive and only church in Revelation either.

 

[wisdomseeker]

:bowdown: :knight2: :knight1:

Your statement about the wine being “both symbol of His blood and actually His blood” demonstrates the confusion that results from not understanding Jesus when He said," It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Go back to (John 6:56). “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
If you insist that “eateth” and “drinketh” are literally physical, then it should follow that you literally and physically have Jesus living inside you and you also literally and physically live inside Jesus.
We know that is literally impossible and what is meant has to do with spiritually dwelling in each other.
The eating and drinking are also meant to be spiritually understood, just as the dwelling is spiritually speaking.

The idea of the bread and wine being symbolic in a spiritual sense does not also require that “Jesus was merely symbolic”. That sort of logic is childish and you know it.

Much of what Jesus said had to do with spiritual matters and that is why many could not understand Him.
A good example of this was in Chapter 5 when Jesus spoke of John as a “burning and a shining light” v.35. This was spiritually speaking.
Jesus told His enemies that, "Ye have neither heard His (the Father’s) voice at any time, nor seen His shape."v.37
This also had to be spiritually speaking, since they probably heard the Father’s voice physically at Jesus’ baptism by John.
Because their ears were not spiritually openned by God to understand, they did not hear God spiritually and were unable to savingly believe in Jesus or the Father’s words.

It follows that the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ words were far more important than any physical understanding of them.
To remain in the physical understanding is to be where Nicodemus and the woman at the well were, when they could not understand Jesus’ words.

If you go back to early christianity time, you will see that those who believe what you believe were called heretics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

True saving faith must depend on our truly believing the one true simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

The bible does not base our salvation on any church. Once God saves a person, that person automatically becomes a member of Jesus’ one true living Church. Revelation describes seven different churches that represent different aspects of Jesus’ one Church. Jesus did not point to Rome as the exclusive and only church in Revelation either.

There are 7 Churchs named in Revelations, all were part of the same apostolic Church. Jesus taught one Church, one Shepard. All arguments today attempt to justify that all are connected in one church through Jesus. Still no one can explain why it’s ok for many churchs to all believe in Jesus with differences in those beliefs. This is a contradiction in itself and is against what the Lord taught.

There was only one true living Church until Luther broke away. When confronted by the Catholic Church, Luther said only his interpretation meant anything. Immediately, Luther realized he had opened a can of worms because his own followers dissented and left him based on their own private interpretations. This ripple continues today with thousands of denominations, all based on someone’s private interpretation.

Luther tried to stop the movements by claiming he was first to believe in private interpretation and ordered all others had to follow his doctrine, including threats of death to those who opposed him. In his own writings he stated all who didn’t believe the way he believed were wrong, including angels.

If you actually read Luther’s writings, you would see he felt it was impossible to avoid sin therefore everyone should avoid the doctrine that required everyone to try and avoid sin and just have faith in Jesus. Since it was impossible to avoid sin, he said just look at a pretty girl because it did not matter. He married a nun himself. But it was too late, everyone was busy starting new churchs based on their beliefs which kept what they felt Luther was right about and changed those things they felt he was wrong about. That process continues today, you are evidence of this as your interpretation is right to you over anyone else’s. I’ve said it before, this is confusion and confusion is not of God. Satan must be very happy with all this confusion, in my opinion.

One of Luther’s followers was concerned about his own adultery and spoke to Luther about it. Since Luther felt it couldn’t be avoided, he suggested the person take the second woman as his second wife.

Without looking at history over the years is wrong. To study the history is to become a Catholic. There was only one true living Church until the reformation, and that was the Catholic Church. It was the only Church until the 1500s.

You still haven’t told us your theory of how the Bible was put together. I have offered you the evidence of how it came about, from the Catholic Church. You can say it came from Luther, but Luther got it from the Catholic Church and wanted to get rid of books in the New Testament. He called James, Jimmy when he stated Old Jimmy would be good for the fire place. He wanted to disgard other books too, but the nobles who backed him for greed reasons were against it because no one would follow him and consider him, just another fanatical nutcase.

It you want to discuss the authority of the Bible, please respond to my post giving evidence of how it was put together or at the very least tell us how, in your belief, it came together. You have avoided this throughout this discussion.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

[brkn1]

The RCC defines that bread as the actual physical flesh and bone body of Christ in the form of bread.
We can see that bread, so it has to be the actual physical presence of Jesus in the form of bread which we can physically see, if the RCC is correct.

Yes,he said “This is my body”. He did not say,This is your belief.

Jesus went to the Father both spiritually and physically. Jesus is now physically in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will not return physically until the appointed day of the Lord, which is the second coming of Jesus.

When he comes again,he will come in his form,the form of the Son of Man.

The RCC says that Jesus comes physically into the bread wafer, whenever a priest requires Him to do so.

Christ established the Church and the priesthood upon Peter and the other apostles. He told them “Do this in memory of me”.

When the risen Christ appeared to two of the apostles on the road to Emmaus,he blessed and broke bread and gave it to them,and only then were thir eyes opened and they recognized him,as he vanished from their sight. This shows that Christ left them the Eucharist as his presence.

< They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor. >

 

[anthony022071]

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
< For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul Confirms This

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. >

 

[brkn1]

There are 7 Churchs named in Revelations, all were part of the same apostolic Church. Jesus taught one Church, one Shepard. All arguments today attempt to justify that all are connected in one church through Jesus. Still no one can explain why it’s ok for many churchs to all believe in Jesus with differences in those beliefs. This is a contradiction in itself and is against what the Lord taught.

There was only one true living Church until Luther broke away. When confronted by the Catholic Church, Luther said only his interpretation meant anything. Immediately, Luther realized he had opened a can of worms because his own followers dissented and left him based on their own private interpretations. This ripple continues today with thousands of denominations, all based on someone’s private interpretation.

Luther tried to stop the movements by claiming he was first to believe in private interpretation and ordered all others had to follow his doctrine, including threats of death to those who opposed him. In his own writings he stated all who didn’t believe the way he believed were wrong, including angels.

If you actually read Luther’s writings, you would see he felt it was impossible to avoid sin therefore everyone should avoid the doctrine that required everyone to try and avoid sin and just have faith in Jesus. Since it was impossible to avoid sin, he said just look at a pretty girl because it did not matter. He married a nun himself. But it was too late, everyone was busy starting new churchs based on their beliefs which kept what they felt Luther was right about and changed those things they felt he was wrong about. That process continues today, you are evidence of this as your interpretation is right to you over anyone else’s. I’ve said it before, this is confusion and confusion is not of God. Satan must be very happy with all this confusion, in my opinion.

One of Luther’s followers was concerned about his own adultery and spoke to Luther about it. Since Luther felt it couldn’t be avoided, he suggested the person take the second woman as his second wife.

Without looking at history over the years is wrong. To study the history is to become a Catholic. There was only one true living Church until the reformation, and that was the Catholic Church. It was the only Church until the 1500s.

You still haven’t told us your theory of how the Bible was put together. I have offered you the evidence of how it came about, from the Catholic Church. You can say it came from Luther, but Luther got it from the Catholic Church and wanted to get rid of books in the New Testament. He called James, Jimmy when he stated Old Jimmy would be good for the fire place. He wanted to disgard other books too, but the nobles who backed him for greed reasons were against it because no one would follow him and consider him, just another fanatical nutcase.

It you want to discuss the authority of the Bible, please respond to my post giving evidence of how it was put together or at the very least tell us how, in your belief, it came together. You have avoided this throughout this discussion.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

This thread is about a more specific subject that I’m more interested in at this time.
You say, “To study the history is to become a Catholic.”
I prefer to concentrate more on studying the actual bible, even though you feel that my bible is corrupted and incomplete.
The extra books do not seem to add enough to scripture for me to get all that excited about. I have read some of the books and they have more of a “history book” sense to them than to their being God’s word. I plan to study them more later and I will possibly get back to you then.

The Bible does not need a theory to be God’s Word. It speaks for itself and I find it an amazing and self-confirming book. There is no other book even close to its perfection and depth. Only God could author such a book.

I know some of the history of the bible, but not enough to discuss it right now. I prefer to study the actual word itself at this time.

 

[brkn1]

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. >

We participate in the body and blood of Christ, when we accept Jesus and His redeeming sacrifice in true faith. The Communion is a participation with other believers in Christ, as we celebrate and remember what Jesus did for us on Calvary by eating the symbolic elements Jesus prescribed to do so. We can do this unworthily when we do not appreciate what this Communion is truly about, as we participate. It becomes an insult to God to be flippant and careless in our approach to Him. Instead of the Communion being a blessing to us, it will be then become a curse if we are so disrespectful and insincere. This is especially so with Communion, because of what it represents in our approach to God, but it can apply to other things we also do. Ananias and Sapphira found this out when they lied to the Holy Spirit.
The Church in the beginning days was held to a much more serious earthly penalty for insincerity than now. There were still sign gifts by the Apostles and conditions of persecution that made it necessary for the Holy Spirit to severely chastize those who were insincere. If we were held by the same standards today, I think people might be dropping left and right at Communion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread is about a more specific subject that I’m more interested in at this time.
You say, “To study the history is to become a Catholic.”

The extra books do not seem to add enough to scripture for me to get all that excited about. I have read some of the books and they have more of a “history book” sense to them than to their being God’s word. I plan to study them more later and I will possibly get back to you then.

The Bible does not need a theory to be God’s Word. It speaks for itself and I find it an amazing and self-confirming book. There is no other book even close to its perfection and depth. Only God could author such a book.

I apologize for pressing the issue but I was only responding to your “willingness” to bring up the subject of the authority of the Bible. It’s starting to seem a matter of convenience for you to discuss it or not as which way best allows you to discount what we’re saying.

I know some of the history of the bible, but not enough to discuss it right now. I prefer to study the actual word itself at this time.

It’s ok to admit you do not know how the Bible came to be one complete book. It’s more than evident that you love the Bible. It just seems you would love to know all you can about it which includes knowing the history of the Bible. You do realize that there was no one complete Bible passed down from the apostles themselves, don’t you? If you were to look into it, you would see what we’re telling you.

I see that “the bread of the Presence” does exist in the REVISED Standard Version, which is the same as calling it a “tampered” Standard Version, which I did already. Is that the official RCC bible that they use to understand God’s Word?

I prefer to concentrate more on studying the actual bible, even though you feel that my bible is corrupted and incomplete.

Also, I’m not telling you, your’s is corrupt or incomplete. You are the one making innuendos and accusations of the Catholic Bible being tampered with or corrupt. Take the Douay-Rheims Bible, lay it beside your King James Version and point out the corruptions to me then. Catholics agree with you when you say the Bible was God breathed/inspired. If you look at revised versions of the King James Version, you’ll see changes there as well. All “modernized” versions have differences in them. There was only one Bible when Luther took liberties with it in the 1500s. The extra books in the Catholic Bible do not have anything to do with the discussion.

We were merely trying to offer evidence of the early Church fathers which you object to and reject since they are not in the scriptures. Those early Church fathers are the people who put the Bible together. They decided what was inspired and what wasn’t. Their decisions were based on the traditions that had been passed down to them as well as their interpretation of those scriptures. Traditions and interpretations of the body and blood Christ references several times. Those traditions and interpretations were passed to them by the apostles themselves or followers of the apostles. This very much applies to the discussion of this thread.

That is the history I was suggesting you look into.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

brkn1:

We participate in the body and blood of Christ, when we accept Jesus and His redeeming sacrifice in true faith.

Belief in his sacrifice is not participation in his sacrifice.

The Communion is a participation with other believers in Christ, as we celebrate and remember what Jesus did for us on Calvary by eating the symbolic elements Jesus prescribed to do so.

Communion is primarily vertical – the communion between God and man. The horizontal communion between men follows. It is God that establishes Christian brotherhood,through the gift of the Eucharist. Any other commmunion is man-made.

We can do this unworthily when we do not appreciate what this Communion is truly about, as we participate. It becomes an insult to God to be flippant and careless in our approach to Him. Instead of the Communion being a blessing to us, it will be then become a curse if we are so disrespectful and insincere.

If communion is merely a communal celebration done in remembrance of Christ,rather than a participation in the real presence of Christ,then the “blessing” is man-made – men blessing each other for their commonly held belief.

This is especially so with Communion, because of what it represents in our approach to God,

The protestant approach to God in Communion is to impute meaning to the bread and wine through faith. Justification of the bread and wine by faith alone.

See post 170.

 

[brkn1]

brkn1:

Belief in his sacrifice is not participation in his sacrifice.

Communion is primarily vertical – the communion between God and man. The horizontal communion between men follows. It is God that establishes Christian brotherhood,through the gift of the Eucharist. Any other commmunion is man-made.

If communion is merely a communal celebration done in remembrance of Christ,rather than a participation in the real presence of Christ,then the “blessing” is man-made – men blessing each other for their commonly held belief.

The protestant approach to God in Communion is to impute meaning to the bread and wine through faith. Justification of the bread and wine by faith alone.

See post 170.

I’m glad you brought up the sacrifice part of Communion again.

Does the RCC have an explanation of how Jesus, now having a resurrected glorified and immortal body, can be sacrificed as He was when He had a mortal body that could be sacrificed?

An immortal glorified body can not be sacrificed or it would not be a glorified immortal body. That presents quite a problem if Communion is a sacrifice.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m glad you brought up the sacrifice part of Communion again.

Does the RCC have an explanation of how Jesus, now having a resurrected glorified and immortal body, can be sacrificed as He was when He had a mortal body that could be sacrificed?

An immortal glorified body can not be sacrificed or it would not be a glorified immortal body. That presents quite a problem if Communion is a sacrifice.

I thought this had been explained to you. Catholics do not re-sacrifice Christ. We believe in His one sacrifice, for all. All represents all people for all time, forever. His sacrifice was made before His resurrection when He arose in His glorified body.

Christ told us to eat His body and drink His blood and to do this in remembrance of Him. This is what communion is. We receive the body and blood in remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. There was only one sacrifice for all.

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is of course, quite a different thing.”
----Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

brkn1, Respectfully, I ask that you please read this post in it’s entirety before objecting to or rejecting what it says. It should give you insight into the Catholic belief of Real Presence in the Eucharist.(It’s not that long.)

As I discussed the early Church fathers, I offer two excerpts of letters written by St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr referencing the Eucharist. It is very possible that St. Ignatius learned Church teachings and traditions from the Apostles themselves. These men were Christians of the early Church and demonstrate how people perceived and practiced Christianity during the first century after the death of Christ.

St. Justin Martyr learned from those who were taught by the apostles.

Both men wrote their letters with Church teachings and traditions well before any canonization of the New Testament.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, born around 50AD

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Justin Martyr, born around 100AD

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Until you research the history of the Bible and how it came together, you may fail to see the importance of these writings. Once you study how the first Christians practiced Christianity your appreciation and study of scriptures will excel. At the very least it should give you a better understanding of the Catholic faith as we see it.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

I thought this had been explained to you. Catholics do not re-sacrifice Christ. We believe in His one sacrifice, for all. All represents all people for all time, forever. His sacrifice was made before His resurrection when He arose in His glorified body.

Christ told us to eat His body and drink His blood and to do this in remembrance of Him. This is what communion is. We receive the body and blood in remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. There was only one sacrifice for all.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I have read both of your posts.
You say in this post that “There was only one sacrifice for all.”
I agree with that.

The RCC Mass is called the “Sacrifice of the Mass”.
That must mean that there is a present sacrifice when the Mass is performed.
I have read that the RCC priest calls Jesus from Heaven to become the bread and then Jesus is offered to the Father as a Sacrifice. The Mass participants also offer themselves along with Jesus. I have tried to be as clear as I can in explaining what my understanding is on this matter. Could someone clearly correct or confirm that understanding?
If Jesus is a present Sacrifice to the Father in the Mass, then how or in what manner is Jesus understood to be that Sacrifice?
Thank you.