Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[benhur]

I think this lack of understanding of the nature and meaning of the Eucharist is a reflection of a deficient understanding of Passover. Unfortunately it is very common among most Christians who have little background in Judaism.

So does the Passover have a foreshadow of the Eucharist and transubstantiation of the “tokens” ?

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews". John 4:22–23

Yes , I love that verse. Salvation came from the likes of a nation divided, split, and half disappeared and from a religion just as split between Sadducees and Pharisees etc. She perfectly delivered just as the Church will be perfectly delivered, despite our problems and divisions. They had different notions but were unified in whom they worshipped as we are also today.

20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Luke 22:20–21
To which cup are you referring?

I prefer, “In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” After this Matthew has the Lord calling what is in the chalice as “fruit of the vine”.

Yes, we certainly inculcate Christ by “eating” His Word,

Thank you.

but the ancients also did not miss that Jesus was speaking literally of His own Body and Blood that He shed on the cross for us.

yes he was referring to the Cross, but the literal eating is disputed

This is why the Church believed nothing else until the Reformation 1500 years after the Apostles.

The church from the beginning had 3-4 views (funny, as we do today). Transubstantiation developed from sevral of the views.

At that point, people returned to the early heresies that were defeated by the Church, that the Eucharist was not “really” His Body and Blood.

If you are speaking about Ignatius, wrong context. The early church did not formalize, make mandatory, your transubstantiation view. Don’t recall the heresy of symbolic, spiritual, consubstantiated elements in the early church (but certainly later on all the way up to Trent)

How do you set aside the witness of the Church from the first century to 1500?

The Witness of Remembrance and Thanksgiving by Christians from then to now, all around the world, is not dependent on transubstantiation.

.Why didnt Jesus correct them, if they got it wrong?

Who got it wrong during His earthly ministry ? Or are we assuming that apparent silence means they all took it as literal transubstantiation ?

 

[benhur]

]Are you aware of the vast evidence we have that the earliest Church referred to the Mass as a “sacrifice”?

Yes a few fathers call it a sacrifice of praise. It is thanksgiving for the sacrifice of Calvary. It is a remembrance of The Sacrifice. That is why you did not need Priest like OT but presbyters(elders) even presidents for a remembrance service at the very beginning.(Bishop = presbyter in Pauline letters) .

Read Malachi closely. It is a prediction of the future, since at the time he wrote it God’s name was not “great among the gentiles.” It tells of a “pure sacrifice” being offered round-the-clock. How many “pure sacrifices” have there been through all of history? One.

Yes, This is not overlooked . You must combine it with scriptures that also speak of a one time sacrifice being finished. We then give thanks for it. Calvary sacrifice is the remembrance and thanksgiving, and praise making our "sacrifice’’ (we are living sacrifices). The idea that God gave, offered His only Son to die for us, and it was pleasing to Him as evidenced by the Resurrection is contrary then for us to re-offer Him back to the Father and pray that it be “acceptable”, ala old testament. We know it is acceptable and therefore give thanks. The Father gave to us, and we do not “give it back”, except in remembrance and thankfullness.

 

[benhur]

This is not the case, benhur. The ordinances were followed exactly. No one ever claimed it was the “same lamb” that was eaten!

Good.That is my case so how is it not the case ?

The point is that the ordinances for the selection and preparation of the lamb are the same, and the ritual consumption of the Lamb, with the telling of the story that is meant to be remembered. Where are you getting this “physically connected to the original”? Is this the angle you are using to deny that the communion elements physically connect us to Christ?

Because it has been said we do not understand the Passover, and we don’t understand the term "remembrance’’ and "making "present’’. So, I just don’t see how you get your transubstantiation out our correct understanding of the Passover.

Jesus, as our passover lamb IS the same Lamb, because He does not change.

Doesn’t fit. God does not change, but Jesus was both God and man, and the man definitely changed. He was born, grew, even died, resurrected, and was glorified. Those are some changes. …Yes, Jesus is the Lamb a once offered sacrifice and we keep the feast of remembrance with holiness as signified by the unleavened bread.

Yes, I have seen many non-catholic services, and I realize there is a physical participation, but it does not reflect what happened in the Upper Room because the whole sense of sacrifice is lost. The meaning of Jesus using the elements to indicate that His Body and Blood were being given to pay for our sins has been disconnected.

The sense of His sacrifice is not lost to other views of Remembrance. The elements are totally connected by the remembrance and repeating of His consecrating words. I think you mean the sense of you offering up a “sacrifice ( Calvary His shed blood and body))” to God is lost. In that you are right, for we do not re-offer what God has already offered and accepted for us. Instead, we only give thanks for that where you do both, which I find contradictory.

 

[benhur]

Honestly, without an understanding of pre-Christian Judaism, Christianity doesn’t really make much sense. That’s actually the main reason why the Church decided to keep the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the canon in the first place. The apostles, especially Paul and John, referred constantly to the Old Testament writings to prove the messiahship of Jesus. Matthew considered the Torah to be so important that part of his depiction of Jesus (to the Jewish people) was as the giver of the “new law” - he has Jesus give five long discourses, one for each book of the Torah.

As I stated before, Passover, of course, was (and is) the Jewish feast of remembering their escape from slavery in Egypt. The bread is to be unleavened, as the Jews did not have time to let the bread leaven, as they were in flight. It also is reminisent of the manna given by God while the Jews wandered in the desert. When Jesus proclaimed the bread to be His Body (thus making it so), and the wine His Blood (thus also making it so), He was declaring a new meaning to Passover - that instead celebrating the escape from slavery to other people, it would celebrate escaping slavery to sin.

As the blood of the unblemished lamb was painted on the doorposts and lintels of the Jews to escape divine punishment, the blood of Jesus, the true unblemished sacrifice, could be painted on the doorposts and lintels of our hearts to escape eternal punishment through baptism. But the lamb also had to be eaten. In fact, every sacrifice (except holocausts) had to be partially eaten by the priests offering up the sacrifice, and also by the person offering the sacrifice to the priest. As such, Jesus had to give us a way to partake in the sacrifice He was offering - to be able to eat Him. As such, instead of merely giving bread to sustain us physically while in a harsh environment, God would actually become edible under the accidents of bread and wine to sustain us spiritually in a world that does not accept Him.

It is sung in the Exultet of Easter Vigil that Jesus rose from the dead on the exact anniversary of the crossing of the Red Sea, which in turn occured on the anniversary of the Fall.

Thanks for info but don’t think differing remembrance views have to with poor knowledge of OT or Passover etc. Fact is it makes sense to many that the original Passover had more than several tokens-lamb, bread, wine, herbs etc… Jesus only kept the two literally, the bread and wine representing the third- the lamb, for the lamb is to be only once offered (unlike the continual literal slaying *and eating *of a passover lamb of the old testament) and also avoids the idea of eating “flesh” and drinking “blood” which are contrary to Jewish custom/law .

 

[guanophore]

I know I would seem to be stubborn in splitting hairs , but still feel it is proper and right to do so, for as a man thinketh in his heart,and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. So it is very important what a man says about his conversion, apart from his works of righteousness. Agree, a testimony is not perfect or "definitive’’ but you at least have to have it as one of the starting points when discussing the Pilgrim’s path.

. So when you listen to a man’s conversion, new birth testimony and take him at his word you are judging ? Again , I am only asking what has come out of his mouth concerning himself. That is not judging.

Of course it is, Benhur. You are applying your criteria of what you believe about the authenticity of the conversion experience. You listen to what he says, then you decide what is in his heart based upon what he speaks.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes a few fathers call it a sacrifice of praise.

Are you familiar with the Didache, which I referenced? And its significance? Some Fathers thought it should be part of the canon. As an aside, and not to derail this thread, you should consider why you DON’T consider this canonical.

It is thanksgiving for the sacrifice of Calvary. It is a remembrance of The Sacrifice. That is why you did not need Priest like OT but presbyters(elders) even presidents for a remembrance service at the very beginning.(Bishop = presbyter in Pauline letters) .

Presbyters in the NT are indeed sacerdotal.

Yes, This is not overlooked . You must combine it with scriptures that also speak of a one time sacrifice being finished.

Which scriptures, exactly, say this?

BTW, you might be interested in this Jewish teaching:
Some of you may know this already, but there is an ancient Rabbinic tradition regarding sacrifice in the Messianic Age. Although I’ve read it dozens of times, I’m still stunned every time I see it.

According to Leviticus Rabbah 9:7 and Pesiqta Rabbati 12, several ancient Rabbis taught the following:

In the Age to Come all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering will never cease; all songs will cease, but the songs of thanksgiving will never cease." (Cited in Hartmut Gese, Essays in Biblical Theology 133).

In Hebrew, the word for “thank offering” is todah; in Greek, it is eucharistia. The thank offering was a special sacrifice that consisted of both a bloody offering (of a lamb or goat) and an unbloody offering (of bread or wafers) (see Leviticus 7). According to the prophet Jeremiah, the saved will celebrate with thank-offerings at the coming of the Messiah and the ingathering of the exiles (Jeremiah 33).

The Father gave to us, and we do not “give it back”, except in remembrance and thankfullness.

Everything we have is from the Father; everything we give, although “ours”, came from Him.

 

[benhur]

Of course it is, Benhur. You are applying your criteria of what you believe about the authenticity of the conversion experience. You listen to what he says, then you decide what is in his heart based upon what he speaks.

Well we are not even at first base (till we hear) and perhaps judging takes place a thome plate(after works are examined and prayer for discernment). Judging is ok as long as it is “righteous”. That is, we both have"criteria " for what salvation in the gospel means. We have criteria on how or what is being born again. We have criteria for righteous words, writing actions and attitude, else how could the church ever proclaim sainthood or excommunicating, reproof, correction etc… The judge not lest ye be judged and judge righteously can be in harmony. I believe it was you who said in another post that the Christian can live victoriously, obstain from sin, keep the Law (judge righteously)…But, as stated before, there is something to be said for what comes out of a man’s mouth and the abundance thereof can reveal the heart. There is also a fine line between discernment and judging, and the Spirit discerns all things, “but the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.” 1Cor.2:15. …But thank you and I take your words as an admonishment not to judge unrighteously.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well we are not even at first base (till we hear) and perhaps judging takes place a thome plate(after works are examined and prayer for discernment). Judging is ok as long as it is “righteous”. That is, we both have"criteria " for what salvation in the gospel means. We have criteria on how or what is being born again. We have criteria for righteous words, writing actions and attitude, else how could the church ever proclaim sainthood or excommunicating, reproof, correction etc… The judge not lest ye be judged and judge righteously can be in harmony. I believe it was you who said in another post that the Christian can live victoriously, obstain from sin, keep the Law (judge righteously)…But, as stated before, there is something to be said for what comes out of a man’s mouth and the abundance thereof can reveal the heart. There is also a fine line between discernment and judging, and the Spirit discerns all things, “but the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.” 1Cor.2:15. …But thank you and I take your words as an admonishment not to judge unrighteously.

Why don’t you stop talking about the ifs and watch his testimony for yourself, read about him, then come back and share actual reasons you have to say “he was never a believer”

youtu.be/XyFuaXlYo8Q

 

[benhur]

Are you familiar with the Didache, which I referenced? And its significance?

You are assuming the Didache is talking of a sacrifice of representing Calvary, and not a sacrifice of praise in remembrance.

Presbyters in the NT are indeed sacerdotal.

Don’t think so .They are not "heirus which is sacerdotal /. The Greek is presbyteros. Unfortunately the english “priests”’ can signify both “heirus” and “presbyteros’”. A more pure translation is when you see heirus, it is same word for OT, Levitcal, sacerdotal priest. When you see presbyteros, it is for elder in OT and NT,not necessarily having to do with sacrifices. The NT does not refer to any church offices as “heirus”.

BTW, you might be interested in this Jewish teaching:
Some of you may know this already, but there is an ancient Rabbinic tradition regarding sacrifice in the Messianic Age. Although I’ve read it dozens of times, I’m still stunned every time I see it.
According to Leviticus Rabbah 9:7 and Pesiqta Rabbati 12, several ancient Rabbis taught the following:
In the Age to Come all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering will never cease; all songs will cease, but the songs of thanksgiving will never cease." (Cited in Hartmut Gese, Essays in Biblical Theology 133).

In Hebrew, the word for “thank offering” is todah; in Greek, it is eucharistia. The thank offering was a special sacrifice that consisted of both a bloody offering (of a lamb or goat) and an unbloody offering (of bread or wafers) (see Leviticus 7). According to the prophet Jeremiah, the saved will celebrate with thank-offerings at the coming of the Messiah and the ingathering of the exiles (Jeremiah 33).

Thank you .That is beautiful. Sacrifices will cease, and indeed they have. Perhaps the thanksgiving sacrifice in OT has animal sacrifice, but I see the NT as a remembrance of the sacrifice, represented by the communion elements. So we have a sacrifice of praise with reference to the Sacrifice (Calvary). Perfect . So it meets the criteria of sacrifice ceasing yet remembered in a sacrifice of thanksgiving, forever. Cool

Everything we have is from the Father; everything we give, although “ours”, came from Him

.So if I give you a Christmas present that cost me everything and you give it back ? What do I need it for ?

 

[benhur]

Why don’t you stop talking about the ifs and watch his testimony for yourself, read about him, then come back and share actual reasons you have to say “he was never a believer”

youtu.be/XyFuaXlYo8Q

Perhaps, Lord willing and time constraints . It was an hour plus video that I skimmed for about ten minutes. But wait,wait wait. Never said he was not a believer. He seems to be from the little I gathered but have not heard his own words of conversion, except of why he switched churches (which may or may not be conversion). Have you viewed the 75 minute video ? Does he share baptism or regeneration as a protestant and and what minute marker is it in the video ?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You are assuming the Didache is talking of a sacrifice of representing Calvary, and not a sacrifice of praise in remembrance.

What is “a sacrifice of praise in remembrance”? What is being sacrificed?

Don’t think so .They are not "heirus which is sacerdotal /. The Greek is presbyteros.

Yes. "presbyteros which is sacerdotal /.

Unfortunately the english “priests”’ can signify both “heirus” and “presbyteros’”. A more pure translation is when you see heirus, it is same word for OT, Levitcal, sacerdotal priest. When you see presbyteros, it is for elder in OT and NT,not necessarily having to do with sacrifices.

Ummm, why do you say “not necessarily having to do with sacrifices”?

The NT does not refer to any church offices as “heirus”.

True.

So?

Thank you .That is beautiful. Sacrifices will cease, and indeed they have. Perhaps the thanksgiving sacrifice in OT has animal sacrifice, but I see the NT as a remembrance of the sacrifice, represented by the communion elements.

You could “see it” that way, but only by squinting so that so much of the scriptures and the wisdom of the ancient Jews is blocked out or at least distorted.

So we have a sacrifice of praise with reference to the Sacrifice (Calvary). Perfect . So it meets the criteria of sacrifice ceasing yet remembered in a sacrifice of thanksgiving, forever. Cool

You’re changing the words. It doesn’t say “sacrifice ceasing yet remembered”.
That’s what I mean by having to distort so much of what God has taught us.

So if I give you a Christmas present that cost me everything and you give it back ? What do I need it for ?

It’s more like your son gets an allowance, and asks you for an advance. You know that your birthday is coming up, and you know what it’s for.

You see, Catholicism recognizes and respects the fatherly/filial relationship that we have with God.

 

[jmcrae]

. So when you listen to a man’s conversion, new birth testimony and take him at his word you are judging ? Again , I am only asking what has come out of his mouth concerning himself. That is not judging.

Perhaps, perhaps not, just have not heard it.

Well, hear it before deciding that he was uneducated in his faith, or lukewarm, or didn’t feel it in his heart.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps, Lord willing and time constraints . It was an hour plus video that I skimmed for about ten minutes. But wait,wait wait. Never said he was not a believer. He seems to be from the little I gathered but have not heard his own words of conversion, except of why he switched churches (which may or may not be conversion). Have you viewed the 75 minute video ? Does he share baptism or regeneration as a protestant and and what minute marker is it in the video ?

If Scott Hahn when he was Protestant was unsaved and only deceiving himself, then no Protestant on earth can ever have the assurance of salvation. He was as “on fire” as a person can get, without actually being consumed in the heat.

 

[benhur]

Well, hear it before deciding that he was uneducated in his faith, or lukewarm, or didn’t feel it in his heart.

Absolutely.Have stated i have not decided,for i have not heard.

 

[benhur]

If Scott Hahn when he was Protestant was unsaved and only deceiving himself, then no Protestant on earth can ever have the assurance of salvation. He was as “on fire” as a person can get, without actually being consumed in the heat.

Maybe…Paul was on fire also when he was saul.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Maybe…Paul was on fire also when he was saul.

Careful, here. You’re equating the anti-Christianity of Saul with the Protestantism of Scott.

I don’t think this is the comparison you wish to make!

We Catholics would agree:
Saul went from an anti-Christian to a Christian
Scott went from an anti-Catholic to a Catholic.

 

[benhur]

Careful, here. You’re equating the anti-Christianity of Saul with the Protestantism of Scott.

I don’t think this is the comparison you wish to make!

We Catholics would agree:
Saul went from an anti-Christian to a Christian
Scott went from an anti-Catholic to a Catholic.

Sure if you see it that way. I see it as zeal may or may not reveal being in the right relationship with the Father.

 

[benhur]

What is “a sacrifice of praise in remembrance”? What is being sacrificed?

Whatever Paul meant when he said we are living sacrifices or when early fathers called for the sacrifice of praise.

Yes. "presbyteros which is sacerdotal /.

not as sacerdotal as heirus.

Ummm, why do you say “not necessarily having to do with sacrifices”?

an elder does not typify a sacrificial priest.

True. So?

So there is no sacrificial officer in nt.

You’re changing the words. It doesn’t say “sacrifice ceasing yet remembered”.
That’s what I mean by having to distort so much of what God has taught us.

Really ? It say s sacrifice will cease but thanksgiving and praise , a sacrifice of thanksgiving will continue . Eucharist is Thanksgiving, an unbloody thing because emphasis is on us, a living sacrifice of praise.

It’s more like your son gets an allowance, and asks you for an advance. You know that your birthday is coming up, and you know what it’s for.

yes the Holy Spirit is our downpayment on future wedding but not sure how you equate that to the Mass and offering to God His Son. You are giving back the gift when He is not in need of it. All that is proper is saying, “thank you” as often as you participate. Hence Eucharist

 

[Jon_S_1]

So you say it means x

We say it means y

Theory x was created and formulated more than 1500 years after Christ.

Theory x was written about from the time of the first century.

Theory x was the theory of all Christians for 1500 yrs.

Theory x is still practiced by ALL churches with Apostolic roots.

Why should we accept theory y again??

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe…Paul was on fire also when he was saul.

Yes - and it was his zeal for the Truth that ultimately led him to Christ.

Scott Hahn’s story is very similar.