The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajk19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, it took 860 posts, but I think we’ve essentially proven that no matter how clear the scripture is, no matter how many years of historic belief there is, that what Jesus said 2000 years ago:

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (John 6:44, weird, the ‘new KJV’ didn’t quite word it as clearly as the classic KJV…)

is perfectly true today. Even the people who saw in person Jesus raise the dead, cure the lepers, regenerate limbs, walk on water, calm storms, cast out demons on command, and change water into wine DIDNT BELIEVE HIM. Amazing how much we take for granted the grace God gives us isn’t it?

Pax Christi,

-revelations
 
Before the thread closes I want to add my :twocents:

Why do we still have the Old Testament? What is its purpose?

Saint Augustine said that the Old is revealed in the New and the New is concealed in the Old.

What does that mean? Well if it’s in the New that means it is somewhere in the Old.
Testament that is.

We look at John 6 Jesus says that He is the bread that fell from heaven. He compares Himself with the Manna that fell from Heaven.

We see that in Exodus 16 that Manna fell from heaven. What did the people do with that bread? They ate it.

In John 19 we read…

14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

Jesus is about to be crucifed while preparation for the Passover is taking place. What do they do at a Passover meal?

** They eat it**.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the** Lamb of God,** who takes away the sin of the world!

Funny how John calls Jesus a lamb?! What do you do with a lamb? You eat it.

When was the first Passover meal?
In Exodus 12.
What did they have to do?

Old ----------------------------------> New

1.Take unblemished male lamb.----------------------------------------> Jesus

2.The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it.--------------------> Crucify Him

3.Take the blood and put it on the two doorposts---------------------------> The cross

4.They shall eat the flesh--------------------------------------------->Eucharist

Eucharist is Greek it means “Thanksgiving”

What do we do at Thanksgiving?

We eat it.
 
Sometimes we forget what the cross was made of.
Wood.
From a tree.
At the begining of Genesis we remember another tree.

Genesis 3:17
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the** tree** about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

Adam disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the tree. The first sin. We call Original Sin.This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam.

**Romans 5:12 **
Therefore as through **one man **sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned.

The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

**Wisdom 2:24 **
But, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world.

**Genesis 3:19 **
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Because of Adam’s sin heaven’s doors were closed to us.God the Father promised us someone who would redeem us.

**Genesis 3:15 **
I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait his heel.

Jesus the Christ bore all the sins of the world and sacrificed His life for us. He redeemed us.And God opened the doors to heaven for us.

1 Peter 2:24
24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Galatians 3:13
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A** TREE**”–

**1 Corinthians 15:3 **
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

It had been written in the Old Testament that …

Deuteronomy 21:22
22"If a man has committed a **sin worthy of death **and he is put to death, and **you hang him on a tree, **

Well Jesus was carrying all our sins on His body.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Acts 10:39

39"We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem They also put Him to death by** hanging Him on a cross.**

Through a tree came death, Adam’s sin. And through a tree came life, Jesus’ crucifixion

What grows on a tree?

Fruit.

What do you do with fruit?

You eat it
 
Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.

It is Hebrew it means “house of bread”

Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?

In a manger.

What does manger mean?

“To Chew”

What do we put in a manger?

Something to eat.

What did Jesus say in John 6?

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He will live forever?

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has** eternal life, **and I will raise him up on the last day.

How do we abide in Jesus?

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.
 
Don’t you find this absolutely shocking that your church claims to be the only one with authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet it has done only 7?
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
Your question is excellent. Here is the answer.

The poster mentioned seven verses as having been infallibly interpreted. That doesn’t mean those are the only verses which the Catholic Church has defined. Most Catholic teaching does not come in the form of infallible declarations, yet it remains authoritative. Every verse of Scripture has been taught about extensively by the Church over the past two millenia — the Church doesn’t make an infallible declaration every time it opens its mouth. So no, Catholics are not left to their “private interpretation” of all but seven verses. Catholics are required to adhere to Church teachings even when those teachings are not given in the form of infallible declarations.
 
Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.

It is Hebrew it means “house of bread”

Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?

In a manger.

What does manger mean?

“To Chew”

What do we put in a manger?

Something to eat.

What did Jesus say in John 6?

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He will live forever?

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has** eternal life, **and I will raise him up on the last day.

How do we abide in Jesus?

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.
Beautiful and simply put. Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was in the beginnig…The WORD gives us eternal life…live as “ONE” in the WORD. Are weapon and defense is the WORD do not fight with swords but by the very word of God.
 
Don’t you find this absolutely shocking that your church claims to be the only one with authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet it has done only 7?
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
You are easily shocked and thin skinned. Not you nor any other protestant will ever change the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope - 263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.

The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. No heretic, blasphemer or protestant will ever, ever change that. Not only that!..the day in which the Perpetual Sacrifce is abolished ( Eucharist, for all you protestant minded) - you and your protestant friends better run for the hills or better yet to the nearest remnant of catholics that still has a good priest among them.

So type away…it just won’t matter and it won’t change the truth. All your quick ,quirky come backs will not change the facts. You’ll die a “martyr and a heroe in your own mind” unless you come to the sacrament of Penance and to the Eucharist.

If I ever hear from this thread again…it’ll be too soon.
 
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.
Hi, justasking!
Why do you now consider the eucharist as an important doctrine? If protestants are in a better position to interpret the scripture, then please, may I know how protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29?
 
fellowChristian that is an amazing post! Someone was inspired by the Holy Spirit :p!

If this thread werent 55 pages i would print it out to keep, so much useful information
 
Wrong. If we examined the blood of Jesus under a microscope and could not see God then your theory goes bye-bye…teachccd 🙂
If we examined the blood of Christ under a microscope we should expect to see human blood. Correct?

Secondly, if the people who had the miracles of healing performed on them, we should expect to see some phyical change in their bodies. Correct?

Now if a change truly has occurred in the bread and wine we should expect to see a change in its phyical properties.
If we don’t, then your theory goes bye-bye.😉
 
Wrong. In Semitic cultures, the phrases to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are metaphorical meanings to inflict great bodily injury on someone. This was true then (Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2) and even today, among the Arabs. While “eat” by itself allows a metaphorical meaning of “believe” (and there is such usage in the Old Testament), to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are not. Even today, no culture equates believing one’s words with the eating of one’s flesh. On the contrary, the closest English analogue, to “eat alive” means that one is viciously attacked verbally, which is much milder than the ancient Jewish meaning.

This is even made more evident starting at verse 54 (which PatienceAndLove had already indicated, but in your great tradition, you deliberately ignore) when Jesus switches from the Greek verb phago to trogo, which means the gnaw or chew, and when combined with sarx (flesh) makes for a very graphic picture. To trogo one’s flesh is no metaphor for “belief”.

Combine this verb with his insistence that his flesh is “real” (alethes) food and his blood “real” drink, and there is no room of anything metaphorical.

In other words, if you insist on a metaphorical interpretation, Jesus is essentially saying, “Unless you viciously assault me, you have no life in you.”

That simply renders Jesus’ words utter nonsense, and that’s not acceptable. That’s why his disciples left him because they CORRECTLY understood him. And because they CORRECTLY understood him, Jesus never called them back.
If i understand you correctly then in John 6 Jesus is advocating canabalism. This is what follows from what you are saying.
 
If i understand you correctly then in John 6 Jesus is advocating canabalism. This is what follows from what you are saying.
In a manner of speaking, yes. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. For the Jews to fully participate in the Passover, they must eat the flesh of the Lamb. That covenant continues in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Also, one of the charges against the early Christians was that they were cannibals, precisely because they believed so strongly in the real, physical presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharistic Feast.
 
JMJ_coder;3106968]Hello,
Have you seen enough replies - care to respond now.
I find it amazing that catholics believe that something has happened to the bread and wine even though there is no evidence for it. I suspect most would not accept such reasons in other areas of life. However the catholic church as an institution is a powerful influence in many catholics life and to question it (even if you disagree) is to question God Himself.
Like I said, I don’t know. There is a lot that the Apostles did not know until after the Resurrection and Pentecost.
We can see them, at a minimum, starting to understand this in the account of the Meeting on the Road to Emmaus.
THE BREAD AND WINE CEASE TO EXIST!!! Jesus does NOT have a bread nature or a wine nature!!! The bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas if you are interested in the Church’s understanding of this (i.e., the use of Aristotelian philosophy and terminology).
This is where the church has accepted unbiblical concepts into its theology by grounding its beliefs on Aristotelian philosophy.
 
In a manner of speaking, yes. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. For the Jews to fully participate in the Passover, they must eat the flesh of the Lamb. That covenant continues in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Also, one of the charges against the early Christians was that they were cannibals, precisely because they believed so strongly in the real, physical presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharistic Feast.
And why was this cahrge against the church false? Was it based on a literal understanding or a figuative?
 
BECAUSE the Eucharist is the greatest mystery of all time!

You can’t hack God down to your level of understanding to be able to believe in it. Yes it does taste LIKE bread, yes it does look LIKE bread, but it ISNT bread. I don’t get how hard this is to understand. Perhaps reflect on why it is called a host…

Are they cherry blasters you get out of the vending machine actual cherries? NO! But they look like cherries? They taste like cherries? But they’re not cherries.

The church is charged with trying to explain this mystery. For 2000 years the best they could do is by saying that the substance of the bread much be changed somehow. Protestants just did away with the whole thing. The JW’s say that Jesus isn’t even God! When you stray away from the Magisterium and start interpreting scripture yourself things start to get crazy.

The Eucharist itself is biblical, perhaps the philosphy is not. But the theology of it is solid.
 
I find it amazing that catholics believe that something has happened to the bread and wine even though there is no evidence for it…
But there IS evidence–Christ himself in the Bread of Life discourse and the Last Supper accounts indicates that this is what happens. You choose to interpret this biblical evidence differently. Fine. But I’ll put my stock in the unbroken teaching tradition of the Catholic Church and the words of Christ himself.

This thread is making me sleepy and the OP has, I am sure, made up his mind on the issue. Let’s start a new thread where we can go around in circles rehearsing the same well-worn arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top