The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Nevim]

11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 11:3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’ 11:10 This happened three times, and then everything was pulled up to heaven again. 11:11 At that very moment, three men sent to me from Caesarea approached the house where we were staying. 11:12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 11:13 He informed us how he had seen an angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 11:14 who will speak a message to you by which you and your entire household will be saved.’ 11:15 Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 11:17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” 11:18 When they heard this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.”
The interpretation of the vision was relating to people, NOT food. This was clearly understood by Peter, as he told Cornelius and then the other believers. He also refers to this again when the council meets to decide the issue of Gentile’s obedience to Torah for salvation: Acts 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Source Reuniting the Covenant Rav. David Pollina Tushiyah Press.

Used by permission of the Author…

 

[Church_Militant]

exegete scripture with you. But that cannot be done successfully with someone not likeminded. You and I are not likeminded. The Bible admonishes that we should be. I will not accept your scriptural ‘proof’ of eucharist, and you will not accept my secular proof that it is not biblical.

The Word of God says, “But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1st Thessalonians 5:21)

The shed blood of Christ covers our sins, but it does not do so literally.

The shed blood of Christ is not literally in the communion service, or you would see it, smell it, taste it. You cannot Biblically say that. You have a problem with miracles and spiritual realities.

I’ll try to organize it all in the order it was intended to be read without your agenda driven effort to imply a confusion that is not really there.

Which is it?

“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 347, #1377.]

He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion. In the deposit of faith the Presence and the ]Permanence of Presence are so closely allied, that in the mind of the Church both continue on as an undivided whole. And rightly so; for just as Christ promised His Flesh and blood as meat and drink, i.e., as something permanent (cf John 6:50 sqq). . . . " [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

The most that may be said is, that from the Eucharistic Body proceeds a miraculous sustaining power, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

The Permanence of Presence, however, is limited to an interval of time of which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration and the end by the corruption of the Eucharistic Species. If the Host becomes moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His presence therein. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist] So you can’t differentiate between clarifications of different aspects of the Eucharistic question. Can you provide a link to the website that you are plagerizing this rhetoric from, or is that beyond the capacity of anti-Catholics? The correct answer is all of the above.

But of course you are unaware of the miracles where that corruption did not occur.

Imagine, Jesus becomes moldy.

You could try harder not to be offensive in your remarks. If you intend to continue posting here with us for any length of time that is.

 

[NotWorthy]

“Jesus is a false prophet?!?” For He taught that you must “Drink my blood”…[/Qutoe]
.

But that’s not what He taught. Obiviously you did not read Duet. 13:1-5.

When you have address my points I’ll be glad to address yours. OK, I’ve read it for the third time since you’ve asked. Yes, we are not following other Gods. We are following the Church that Jesus left with us. That Church is teaching what She was taught by Jesus and then the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, of course. And since the Apostolic days, that Church has taught that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist.

Now, about that “Trago” thing…

 

[Church_Militant]

No, I just felt I would leave you a Red Herring, Nevim.

The reason I left CARM is that I felt absolutely no Christian Charity from people there. Not so much by you. You were just passionate in your responses, kind of like here. I remember you used the word “Sheesh” too often, when you didn’t like the level of my responses, but that’s OK. I’ve never claimed to be an expert, just someone who absolutely loves Christ and the Church He left.

But people like Robert H-something, St. Hilarious, and several others over there just felt that CARM was a great site to tell me how fast I’m going to hell, simply because I’m an idol worshipping biscuit eater. The mods over there actually jump in and pile on.

I’ve looked through the Bible and I never saw Jesus trying to convert others with this tactic, so I didn’t think they were trying to be very Christ-like.

I may go back there in the future, but posting 280 times in about one week (while working full time) convinced me that I need to back off on a couple of my addictions. End of story.

Yep! Describes my own experience as well. I figure our own Mods are monitoring this and other posts by CB, Nevim, and the other CARMites to insure that they post in compliance with the Forum Rules.
[SIGN]Boycott CARM!!![/SIGN]

 

[NotWorthy]

Nowhere can we find on of the 12 Apostles supporting the abolishment of a single command of the Torah. That is powerful testimony to the way they understood, first hand, the teaching of Y’shua.

… Except maybe in their habits? Peter was the one caught with his mouth full of grain on the Sabbath.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yep! Describes my own experience as well. I figure our own Mods are monitoring this and other posts by CB, Nevim, and the other CARMites to insure that they post in compliance with the Forum Rules.
[sign]Boycott CARM!!![/sign]

Don’t get me wrong. There are some Christians on that site, even though we disagreed on nearly every issue. I felt that people like Free Grace at least respected and understood my beliefs, even if they didn’t agree with them. I would have enjoyed my experience over there if more of them were like that, but oh well…

 

[Church_Militant]

Don’t get me wrong. There are some Christians on that site, even though we disagreed on nearly every issue. I felt that people like Free Grace

at least respected and understood my beliefs, even if they didn’t agree with them. ** I would have enjoyed my experience over there if more of them were like that, but oh well…**Oh hey…I fully agree with you and especially on Free Grace. You sum it up totally in line with my thinking. The charitable people over there are sadly the exception and not the rule. I will, however, continue to …[SIGN]Boycott CARM![/SIGN]
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Pax]

I agree with your sentiments concerning CARM. I post over there under the name STJ and have read the same stuff you have. It is unfortunate.

 

[Pax]

Nevim,

Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I found nothing in your lengthy rebuttal to be of any consequence in refuting my point.

 

[Church_Militant]

Nevim,

Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I found nothing in your lengthy rebuttal to be of any consequence in refuting my point.

[SIGN]Same here. Rhetoric don’t count. Prove your case![/SIGN]

 

[MariaG]

Nevim,

You complained that no one will answer your charges about not eating blood.

Several people have brought up the NT vision of Peter showing that there is no unclean food.

Instead of addressing this, you again bring up the OT prohibition.

Since you apparently do not wish to give me your interpretaion of :bible1:1cor10:16-17 nor 1cor11 although I would still love to hear it , maybe you could give your interpretation of Acts 10:9-30 since this is directed at the issue of blood which you seem to wish to talk about?

We certainly understand your postition. God commanded one not eat blood in the OT. But then we see in the NT, Peter was given a vision about what was previously unclean foods. God said three times in this vision, that which God has cleansed, do not call common.

We believe this to mean that God changed the Levitical laws and there was no longer such a thing as unclean food nor common people since all had been cleansed, which means your objections to the Eucharist from Scriptural grounds are no longer there because God Himself changed the law.

How do you interpret these verses?

:bible1:Acts 10:9 The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11] and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”
16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

…

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-66 clearly defends the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When Jesus speaks figuratively, either He or the Evangelist clearly explain what He meant (John 2:19 - 21, 3:3-5, 4:32-34, 6:70-71, 7:37-39, 8:31-34, 10:1-14, 11:11-14, 12:32-33, 13:10-11, 21:18-19, 22-23). These verses are just a few examples. If Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, then we would expect, based on clear patterns in the Bible, that He would explain what He meant. Instead, when the Jews asked how He could give His flesh to eat, he REAFFIRMED their literal interpretation. In addition, he allowed many of His disciples to leave because of this teaching.

You might say that verse 63 explains what He meant. Actually, it doesn’t. In verse 63, Jesus is merely affirming the origin and objective of His words. What he said comes from God (i.e. “spirit”) and they are life-giving (i.e. “life”).

In addition, the flesh referred to in verse 63 is not talking about the flesh of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says that it is is adhering to the Gnostic and Docetist heresies. To say that the flesh of Jesus does not avail is to deny the incarnation and the crucfixion. The flesh here is referring to the “sinful nature” (John 3:6, 8:15, Galatians 5:16-26). Those who are in the flesh cannot accept the things of God. Those led by the Spirit submit to God’s will, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, or odd God’s command may appear to the human intellect.

God Bless,
Michael

CherokeeBrave and all his allies, please address this.

 

[mikeledes]

The origin of the Eucharist is Jesus Christ Himself as stated in the Bible. It is not of pagan origin. However, if we are going to bring up Pagansim in relation to Christianity, then I will have to make certain points.

First of all, there are serious historians that claim that our notion of a Savior, the resurrection of the dead, Heaven and Hell, and judgement day all originate from Zoroastrianism, a pagan religion. I’ve studied Zoroastrianism and there are stunning similarities. Historians claim that the Jews were first exposed to these ideas after the Babylonian captivity and incorporated them into their religion. Notice that there is no direct reference to these ideas before Daniel.

Secondly, JWs claim that the doctrine of the Trinity also comes from paganism and they cite a number of sources to prove it.

Thirdly, the belief in the Real Presence is also strongly upheld by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, churches that first formally broke communion with Rome in 1054! So obviously any susequent Catholic council or Papal statement would not have affected their teachings. Where did they get it from?

Finally, Martin Luther himself believed in the Real Presence, though not in transubstatiation. He believed that Jesus was truly in the Eucharist. If he was so wrong on this issue, how are you so sure he was right on every other issue, especially sola scriptura and sola fide?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[IHS]

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?

Are you saying that eating human flesh and drinking human blood was done away with in the New Testament,that it is ok?

 

[mikeledes]

Regarding the prohibition against eating or drinking blood, I have the following to say. God also prohibited eating pork and a whole host of animals at one point. And yet, those laws no longer apply in the New Covenant. God is not bound by his own ordinances. So if Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and blood, then that subersedes any supposed prohibitions.

Also, I have never understood the ridiculous notion of unfermented wine. If it is not fermented, IT IS GRAPE JUICE. Wine, by nature, is fermented.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[IHS]

Regarding the prohibition against eating or drinking blood, I have the following to say. God also prohibited eating pork and a whole host of animals at one point. And yet, those laws no longer apply in the New Covenant. God is not bound by his own ordinances. So if Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and blood, then that subersedes any supposed prohibitions.

Also, I have never understood the ridiculous notion of unfermented wine. If it is not fermented, IT IS GRAPE JUICE. Wine, by nature, is fermented.

God Bless,
Michael

What does eating pork have to do with eating human flesh?

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you saying that eating human flesh and drinking human blood was done away with in the New Testament,that it is ok?:

Let me ask you this…if Our Lord plainly tells you to eat His flesh and drink his blood, then just exactly what are you going to do? It’s about the same as Our Lord telling Peter to come to Him walking on the water. It makes no sense and defies all reason, but it most definately what Jesus told him to do.

I have to wonder if the people who argue from this perspective also maintain all the other dietary laws that the Jews are under, and I also wonder if you all insist that your meat all be well done. If not, it seems hypocritical because then they cherry pick which laws apply to us yet do not live by them themselves.

The Passover lamb was eaten was it not? In the end it really comes down to obedience. It seems to me that people who make that whole argument are just like the guys that flipped out in John 6. Jesus in no way ever implies that he is not speaking in a literal sense. I’ve read and re-read that passage and it’s just not there.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

Regarding the prohibition against eating or drinking blood, I have the following to say. God also prohibited eating pork and a whole host of animals at one point. And yet, those laws no longer apply in the New Covenant. God is not bound by his own ordinances. So if Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and blood, then that subersedes any supposed prohibitions.

Also, I have never understood the ridiculous notion of unfermented wine. If it is not fermented, IT IS GRAPE JUICE. Wine, by nature, is fermented.

:yup: :ehh:

 

[IHS]

Let me ask you this…if Our Lord plainly tells you to eat His flesh and drink his blood, then just exactly what are you going to do? It’s about the same as Our Lord telling Peter to come to Him walking on the water. It makes no sense and defies all reason, but it most definately what Jesus told him to do.

The Passover lamb was eaten was it not? In the end it really comes down to obedience. It seems to me that people who make that whole argument are just like the guys that flipped out in John 6. Jesus in no way ever implies that he is not speaking in a literal sense. I’ve read and re-read that passage and it’s just not there.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

The Words Jesus spoke had life and were in the supernatural realm,not an earthly realm. Sorry but just like the disciples your understanding is flawed.

 

[IHS]

Let me ask you this…if Our Lord plainly tells you to eat His flesh and drink his blood, then just exactly what are you going to do? It’s about the same as Our Lord telling Peter to come to Him walking on the water. It makes no sense and defies all reason, but it most definately what Jesus told him to do.

I have to wonder if the people who argue from this perspective also maintain all the other dietary laws that the Jews are under, and I also wonder if you all insist that your meat all be well done. If not, it seems hypocritical because then they cherry pick which laws apply to us yet do not live by them themselves.

The Passover lamb was eaten was it not? In the end it really comes down to obedience. It seems to me that people who make that whole argument are just like the guys that flipped out in John 6. Jesus in no way ever implies that he is not speaking in a literal sense. I’ve read and re-read that passage and it’s just not there.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Of course you still did not answer my question?