The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well if you hold them in that low esteem I have to wonder.

My question still stands.

 

[Nevim]

Maybe you should read The Fourth Cup by Scott Hahn.

Why does he have a corner on the truth or just like to write books ? I read Scripture I suggest him and you do the same.
Church Militant:

If you will not then I point out that you lack teh courage of your convictions, since we read or have read or are well familiar with the a-C sites that you expect us to read (and which we routinely refute).No one asserts that it is, so this is a non-defense. However, it is known to have been written during the NT era and you yourself quote it every time you pray the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, so if it’s all that questionable then perhaps you’d better begin using the version that we Catholics use.
Look at this!

Pax tecum,

The “Lord’s Prayer” is not a prayer it is a outline on how to pray…

 

[Nevim]

My question still stands.

So does mine.

 

[jim1130]

jim1130:

We are participating in the body and blood of Christ. The Apostles took him literally and so did the Early Christians.

Matthew 26: 26-28. “This is…”
Mark 14: 22-24. “This is…”
Luke 22: 19-20. “This is…”
1 Corinthians 11:23-26. “This is…”

But it is certainly helpful in our understanding. Your basis is on sola scriptura.

Nevim:

No, my basis is on the rules of Grammar.

Metaphor; or Representation
A declaration that one Thing is (or represents ) another; or comparison by Representation.

We use a metaphor when we say of a picture “This is my father” or “This is my mother.”
While a simile says “All flesh is AS grass” (1 Pet I,24) the Metaphor carries the figure across at once and says All flesh IS grass.
The whole figure, in a metaphor, lies, in the verb substantive “IS” and not in either of the two nouns ; and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns ( as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders , the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when the pronoun, which ought, by the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun which by Metaphor, represents it.
Here for example, the pronoun “this” (touto), is and is made to agree with “body” (soma),which is neuter and not with bread (artos) which is masculine.
This is ALWAYS the case with Metaphors.”
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Bullinger Baker

Only in this case Jesus says “This is my body…This is my blood…” not “My body is like this piece of bread” or “My body is like this wine.” There is no mistaking it is NOT to be assigned figurative status.

And if you were at Capernaum when Christ said to eat and gnaw him, what would have been the figurative interpretation at that time? For OT Jews, what did eating flesh and drinking blood mean?

 

[MariaG]

1Cor 10:16-17 "16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless,

The orginal text states no such thing as “the chalice of benediction” it states the cup of blessing–a clear indiction they where holding a Passover seder the “Cup of Blessing” is the third cup what is consumed in a Seder. Futhermore and still unanswered by anyone here is the FACT that it is against Scripture to eat Blood–bottom line. Futhermore if Christ taught this it would be against the Torah Deut 13:1 -5 did you read it ? I doubt it.

Chalice means cup. Benediction means blessing. The Catholic Church in fact agrees that this Chalice of Benediction or Cup of Blessing is the cup in the Seder meal. Scott Hahn has written a very good book about the “fourth cup” in The Lambs Supper.

I do not understand why you are arguing something that the Catholic Church in fact already teaches. We fully accept and teach that the first Mass, the Last Supper, was in fact a passover celebration. (edit: I see that someone has already suggested this book. Note, my suggestion was to try to show you that you are arguing against nothing since the Catholic church already teaches about this issue and an easy to read source is from Scott Hahn. I also posted the definition for chalice and benediction since maybe this was part of the confusion and you did not understand that chalice and benediction actually mean cup and blessing.)

Respectfully, are you going to give your interpretation of the scripture 1cor 10:16-17 as well as 1cor11?

I will be glad to address the point you have about the blood, but that would be probably best in a thread all its own? But CM did present his scriptural evidence for the Eucharist and the Real Presence.

I have yet to hear your interpretation of that Scripture and am sincerely interested in your interpretation of it.

God Bless,
Maria

from dictionary.com

Chalice

–noun 1.Ecclesiastical.
a.a cup for the wine of the Eucharist or Mass.
b.the wine contained in it.
2.a drinking cup or goblet

benediction
–noun 1.an utterance of good wishes.
2.the form of blessing pronounced by an officiating minister, as at the close of divine service.

 

[jim1130]

The orginal text states no such thing as “the chalice of benediction” it states the cup of blessing–a clear indiction they where holding a Passover seder the “Cup of Blessing” is the third cup what is consumed in a Seder. Futhermore and still unanswered by anyone here is the FACT that it is against Scripture to eat Blood–bottom line. Futhermore if Christ taught this it would be against the Torah Deut 13:1 -5 did you read it ? I doubt it.

I answered it in # 157, but here it is again:

Please recall that Jesus declared ALL food cleans (Mark 7:17-19), which was reinforced by Paul (1 Corinthians 8:7-9).

And do not forget that Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath (see # 157 also). According to you, that is a no-no, too.

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh and what name might that be ?

Irrelevent.

You stand refuted and cannot stand it, you took the verse out of context, anyone reading with an open heart and mind can see that. You built a strawman and it got burnt to the ground.

So says you, but you have offered only rhetorical interps that do not respond to the plain text of the Word of God. So deal with it…

I am aware of what your name means, and my definition still remains the same.

And I’d care why?

You seem to think that you have presented a good case when in fact not only is it filled with rhetoric and errors, but the arrogant assertion that you are somehow a believer when the ECF were not. (Despite all historical evidence to the contrary.)

So far the only thing that you have convinced me of is that you are bigotted with regard to Catholics and that you seem to create your own little religious world that has little relation to the facts of history, Christianity, or what the Word of God actually says. (But hey, that’s on you.)
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

The “Lord’s Prayer” is not a prayer it is a outline on how to pray…So say you in your infallible interp.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Why does he have a corner on the truth or just like to write books ? I read Scripture I suggest him and you do the same.

The “Lord’s Prayer” is not a prayer it is a outline on how to pray…

You seriously need to heed your own advice. Read the bible!

 

[MariaG]

Nice side step. I didnt ask if it would be disrespectful, I asked if I would be guilty of profaning their blood and body.

Well if you hold them in that low esteem I have to wonder.

This is really the central question to the interpretation of the scripture I have asked about.

As I said, maybe if you could give your interpretation of it, we could more clearly see your position?

 

[Church_Militant]

The “church” never taught any such thing until the Roman Empire became Catholic and brought thier pagan concepts into their newly invented religion.

That’s historically bunkum. Here’s a direct quote that dates from long before the 4th century.

This is from the very early 2nd century and only about 7 years after the death of St. John the Evangelist. "CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) 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.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." St. Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of that church.

Moreover, if you’ll open a thread on your assertion that the Catholic Church began at the time you allege, I will very happily join my brothers and sisters in refuting it with historically verifiable facts. Rhetoric and misinformation do not make a good case for anything Nevim. It is my opinion that you have believed many lies and that tho you may be sincere, you are sincerely wrong. If you really believe that stuff open the thread, or do you lack the courage of your convictions?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[NotWorthy]

So long as it isn’t a Catholic source?

Does that mean we can’t use the Bible, either???

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy;1698578:

The Third Cup at the Jewish Passover is the one that Jesus introduced “This is the Cup of my Blood”. Jesus did not drink the 4th cup until He was on the Cross. The “Cup of Blessing” has been fulfilled with the Wine turned to Blood.

That’s what the Book of ACTS does!

The “church” never taught any such thing until the Roman Empire became Catholic and brought thier pagan concepts into their newly invented religion. You better check the dates on
A) the Didache, Ignatius, and Ireneaus among others, and

B) Constantine’s legalization of Christianity.

You might be off by a couple of hundred years, my friend!!!

 

[MariaG]

Moreover, if you’ll open a thread on your assertion that the Catholic Church began at the time you allege, I will very happily join my brothers and sisters in refuting it with historically verifiable facts. Rhetoric and misinformation do not make a good case for anything Nevim. It is my opinion that you have believed many lies and that tho you may be sincere, you are sincerely wrong. If you really believe that stuff open the thread, or do you lack the courage of your convictions?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Yes, I would enjoy that thread. I have wanted to ask for more information on Nevim’s view of the Pagan roots but did not want this thread to get off track and closed as I helped another one to get closed by getting it off track asking for the quotes of the ECF that showed Anti-semitism (I was unable to reply as the thread got closed before I could do so ). I would still be interested in dicussing the both of these issues in another thread, but do not have the time to open either one and be “responsible” for them

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s what the Book of ACTS does!

Exactly!!! That what Paul does in the story where the boy falls out the window. They are in the middle of the Mass, specifically during the Liturgy of the Word . Evidently, Paul was the first person guilty of having too long a homily )) and put the dear boy to sleep, allowing him to fall out the window.

Paul, revived the boy, then continued with the Liturgy of the Eucharist!

 

[IHS]

Jesus would never contradict his Word.It was forbidden to drink blood and eat human flesh. Jesus Words spoken is what brings life.There is power in His Word. It raised up those who were dead.

 

[djrakowski]

Does that mean we can’t use the Bible, either???

Heh… thanks, NotWorthy. That’s exactly what I was thinking!

 

[MariaG]

Jesus would never contradict his Word.It was forbidden to drink blood and eat human flesh. Jesus Words spoken is what brings life.There is power in His Word. It raised up those who were dead.

And the vision Paul was given showing that there was no unclean food means what?

That must mean you still have yourself under the Levitical law and eat Kosher?

 

[CherokeeBrave]

What bunkum! Another unsubstantiated assertion without a shred of proof. You won’t deal with the issues, you’d rather make little remarks that have no substance than try to deal with the scriptures that you say are the final authority. Yet when the very scriptures whose authority you preach so adamantly about refutes your teachings you fall back on rhetorical assertions that are rife with logical and theological fallacies.

May the Holy Spirit open your heart and eyes and overwhelm all the errors and lies of the enemy.
Pax tecum,
[SIGN]Boycott CARM![/SIGN]

No shame in that. Did you edit my post?
You know some three-dollar words. What value is a word like ‘bunkum’? Mind if I use it?

 

[CherokeeBrave]

I just don;t see how you have proved anything.This is but a few examples that the Eucharist IS Scriptural.If you don’t accept it thats between you and the Lord,You can;t force feed a person that is not hungry,or willing to eat.

But I guess with all the folks out there with the “real” interpretations of Scripture,one can shop around until they find what suits them.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

eisegesis?