The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Nevim]

John 6, maybe? “Truly, Truly, I say to you, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood…”

Eating drinking to gain knowledge was a common Hebraic Idiom.

NotWorthy:

All three of the Synoptic Gospels accounts of the Last Supper, perhaps? “This is my body… This is my blood…”

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

NotWorthy:

Or maybe even 1st Corinthians chapter 11? “For whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon themself…”

How about reading that verse in its proper context.

 

[Nevim]

By the Way, Welcome Nevim!!! :clapping:

Did you get tired of CARM or are you just visiting?

I’m still on CARM as well.

 

[Nevim]

Perhaps I shouldn’t play “moderator” here, but you’re being incredibly rude. Claiming we eat Christ in a “biscuit” is one step away from talking about the “death cookie” or somesuch nonsense. If you wish to last in these forums for long, you should start learning some manners.

Anyway, you claim that the “early church fathers” believed that the Eucharist is symbolic. There’s another thread going on taking passages from St. Augustine clearly saying that Jesus gave us His flesh in the Eucharist. This wikipedia article is also very informative. At any rate, it is nontopical, because this thread has to do with Scriptural support for the Eucharist.

To get back on track, St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians writes: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” It’s pretty clear to me that these aren’t just symbols. If I burned a picture of President Bush, I wouldn’t be guilty of assassination!

And so you believe that burning the American flag is not disrespectful towards this nation ? And if someone burnt a picture of your mother or father or child what would you think ? I suggest you think before you respond. And futhermore go back to why Paul is saying what he is say it’s context, context ,context, not lifting a verse of Scripture to suit your own purposes.

 

[Nevim]

It was literal for 1500 years and then suddenly it becomes a metaphor around 1517?

And your source of information for that estimate.

jim1130:

So, for 1500 years people got it wrong and now YOU have it right? Amazing! It is YOUR choice to see it as a metaphor.

MY choice according to whom you ? Thanks for your opinion however the rule of grammar for a metaphor has been in existance before 1500 years ago.
jim113:

The Early Christians would be a good resource for you: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

And the Bible would be a good resource for you…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

By the Way, Welcome Nevim!!! :clapping:

Did you get tired of CARM or are you just visiting?

Hey NW you visit carm?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And your source of information for that estimate.

Their sources back our stand as much as theres… I can quote a bunch, if you guys want… many early writers don’t hang their salvation on the sanctificational effects of the Catholic eucharist as much as you guys would like to think.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Anyway, you claim that the “early church fathers” believed that the Eucharist is symbolic. There’s another thread going on taking passages from St. Augustine clearly saying that Jesus gave us His flesh in the Eucharist. !

Heres Auggie on the eucharist;Augustine
Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation. For example:

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)

Augustine compares the eucharist to a holiday in that it has some similarities to what it symbolizes, but it isn’t the same thing.

He says elsewhere:

“But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Elsewhere, Augustine denies that there is any bodily presence of Christ in the church today:

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

More Early church writers; Irenaeus…
Irenaeus
Irenaeus denied transubstantiation. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example:

“For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)

“For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: ‘Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, ‘He who hath renewed the face of the earth.’ He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that’s from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ’s future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26).

 

[myfavoritmartin]

My man Eusebius
In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, Eusebius also seems to have rejected the concept of a physical presence. He writes:

“And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek’s. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

The phrase “only with wine and bread” suggests that there’s no physical transformation or physical addition to the elements. Eusebius repeatedly uses words like “memorial”, “figure”, and “symbol” when describing the eucharistic elements:

“The words, ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,’ again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine,’ seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, ‘Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.’ And, ‘His teeth are white as milk,’ shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, ‘And his teeth are white as milk.’ This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, ‘Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.’” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)

While it’s true that Catholics could refer to symbols, figures, etc. within the eucharist, how likely is it that a Roman Catholic would use such terminology so frequently, without any qualifications?
Just after the first passage I cited above, after referring to the eucharist and its figurative nature, Eusebius writes:

“This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says: ‘And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.’” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

When Eusebius says that Melchizedek offered “figures” of Calvary, does he mean that Melchizedek offered something that was both figurative and a transubstantiation? No, what Eusebius is saying is that Melchizedek offered something that was only figurative.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

Perhaps I shouldn’t play “moderator” here, but you’re being incredibly rude. Claiming we eat Christ in a “biscuit” is one step away from talking about the “death cookie” or somesuch nonsense. If you wish to last in these forums for long, you should start learning some manners.

What manners do you practice ascribing to biblical those things that are not? But I do appreciate the threat.

As I have said, you have no scriptural support for the eucharist. It is of pagan origin as you have seen in the link provided.

It cannot be other than symbolic, since we are forbidden to partake of blood and fermented wine.

BTW, those who practice truth are subject to death, just ask Jesus and many who died for HIM. They never last long.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

Their sources back our stand as much as theres… I can quote a bunch, if you guys want… many early writers don’t hang their salvation on the sanctificational effects of the Catholic eucharist as much as you guys would like to think.

We are in tune with where the Bible stands on what we call communion and foot washing. We are also in tune with where the eucharist originates and it does not originate in the Bible.

Since the pope has the power to change scripture at will, it is not surprising that the pagan eucharist becomes the catholic equivalent.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m still on CARM as well.

Yeah? Well this ain’t CARM… [SIGN]Worst Forum ever award![/SIGN] [SIGN]Boycott CARM!!![/SIGN]
You guys with all these selective purported quotes from various ECF as well as the rest of this bunkum still ignore the most damaging source of all. St. Paul.

Go back and look at Post 20 and refute what St. Paul plainly says in the Word of God. You guys tell us that you accept the bible as the only authority? Fine! It’s right there in black and white.

You can’t refute that, you can only throw lots of dust up in the air just as the Jews did whenever St. Paul said anything that they didn’t like.

You can assert any blessed thing that you want, but the fact is that every single person that you all have quoted are 1) Not authoritative…(even to you!) and 2) Still participated in the Eucharist knowing full well that this was what we believe. They didn’t leave…they didn’t oppose it. They discussed it and then bowed to the authority of those who knew better than they did. (Something you n-Cs/a-Cs could learn a lesson from!)

Personally, I agree with St. Ignatius of Antioch when he says,“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.”

The truth is that you can’t embrace the truth of the scriptures on this issue because if you did then you would have to also accept that you have no ordained priests to consecrate it for you and that will put your whole religion right down the tubes, along with the careers of most all of your clergy. It’s as much an economic (and carnal) rejection as it is theological, but in my opinion, it’s still carnally motivated.

Now you can all pipe in and :crying: that I have offended you, but that’s the way this really breaks down, and deep down you know that it’s true if you have thought it through.

Right here in my town there is a wonderful old man who used to be the Presbyterian pastor for many years. They have to have his nurse roll his wheel chair up to the altar when he comes to Mass, but when last I talked to him I asked him what had led him to convert. He looked me right in the eyes and said, “Michael, I had to have the body and blood of Christ.” I almost cried as all I could do was nod and say “Amen!”.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

We are in tune with where the Bible stands on what we call communion and foot washing. We are also in tune with where the eucharist originates and it does not originate in the Bible.

]Since the pope has the power to change scripture at will,

it is not surprising that the pagan eucharist becomes the catholic equivalent.Hey Cherokee,
Try to stay on topic… That bolded crack is 1) Complete hogwash that you can’t substantiate. (If you wish to try to go right ahead…in another thread that you open!) and 2) Totally off topic here. If you have a look at the Forum Rules you’ll see that they specifically state that all posts must remain on topic, and (unlike CARM), the mods here do enforce that.

BTW, you have what you want to call communion…but it neither agrees with the Word of God, or with the early church, as I have shown you already. (If you bothered to read all the rest of this thread.)

Asserting that you are right in no way makes it so.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[CherokeeBrave]

The Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were also subjects of dispute among Christians and it took the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus - both several centuries after the apostolic age - in order to settle the issue. The New Testament canon was also a matter of dispute, particularly the Book of Revelation, and that was settled over 300 years after the apostolic age.

God bless,
Michael

You failed to touch on the origin of the eucharist, which is the subject, I believe?

 

[CherokeeBrave]

Yeah? Well this ain’t CARM… [SIGN]Worst Forum ever award![/SIGN] [SIGN]Boycott CARM!!![/SIGN]
You guys with all these selective purported quotes from various ECF as well as the rest of this bunkum still ignore the most damaging source of all. St. Paul.

Go back and look at Post 20 and refute what St. Paul plainly says in the Word of God. You guys tell us that you accept the bible as the only authority? Fine! It’s right there in black and white.

You can’t refute that, you can only throw lots of dust up in the air just as the Jews did whenever St. Paul said anything that they didn’t like.

You can assert any blessed thing that you want, but the fact is that every single person that you all have quoted are 1) Not authoritative…(even to you!) and 2) Still participated in the Eucharist knowing full well that this was what we believe. They didn’t leave…they didn’t oppose it. They discussed it and then bowed to the authority of those who knew better than they did. (Something you n-Cs/a-Cs could learn a lesson from!)

Personally, I agree with St. Ignatius of Antioch when he says,“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.”

The truth is that you can’t embrace the truth of the scriptures on this issue because if you did then you would have to also accept that you have no ordained priests to consecrate it for you and that will put your whole religion right down the tubes, along with the careers of most all of your clergy. It’s as much an economic (and carnal) rejection as it is theological, but in my opinion, it’s still carnally motivated.

Now you can all pipe in and :crying: that I have offended you, but that’s the way this really breaks down, and deep down you know that it’s true if you have thought it through.

Right here in my town there is a wonderful old man who used to be the Presbyterian pastor for many years. They have to have his nurse roll his wheel chair up to the altar when he comes to Mass, but when last I talked to him I asked him what had led him to convert. He looked me right in the eyes and said, “Michael, I had to have the body and blood of Christ.” I almost cried as all I could do was nod and say “Amen!”.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

Paul does NOT promote a pagan communion service. He knows the penalty for adding and taking away from God’s word and from HIS requirements. It is well to become familiar with those penalties, since they have not been commuted.

 

[Church_Militant]

As I have said, you have no scriptural support for the eucharist. It is of pagan origin as you have seen in the link provided.

It cannot be other than symbolic, since we are forbidden to partake of blood and fermented wine.

BTW, those who practice truth are subject to death, just ask Jesus and many who died for HIM. They never last long.

That link is bunk… pagan my achin’ foot. That guy cites all kinds of sources that I also found on a JW site…so do you agree with them in other matters as well? Bart Brewer misrepresents the Eucharist and (like a Jehovah’s Witness!) uses the very same fallacious reasoning they do. The fallacy that similar practices have a common source, which in this case…as in most every other aspect of our most holy faith is completely untrue.

Speaking of n-C pagan practices and the traditions of men…answer me this.
Do you and your wife wear a wedding ring?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

You failed to touch on the origin of the eucharist, which is the subject, I believe?

No… go back and read my OP . That is not the topic here. This ain’t CARM, so either post on topic or expect me to report you.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

No… go back and read my OP . That is not the topic here. This ain’t CARM, so either post on topic or expect me to report you.

You claim the eucharist is scriptural, I proved it is not. I don’t see how I am off-subject.
Please do report me.

 

[Church_Militant]

Paul does NOT promote a pagan communion service. He knows the penalty for adding and taking away from God’s word and from HIS requirements. It is well to become familiar with those penalties, since they have not been commuted.

A non answer. Explain the fact that St. Paul plainly says that anyone receiving unworthily becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Show me where St. Paul is wrong here, because there is **no way ** that one can become guilty of a person’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol. Post 20 shows the complete fallacy of that.

Deal with the scriptures Brave, or admit that you can’t answer the Word of God as it is plainly written. There is nothing figurative in any of the passages that I have cited. The only “symbolism” is within the carnal minds of those who chose to reject the plain truth of God’s Word.
Pax tecum,

 

[CherokeeBrave]

That link is bunk… pagan my achin’ foot. That guy cites all kinds of sources that I also found on a JW site…so do you agree with them in other matters as well? Bart Brewer misrepresents the Eucharist and (like a Jehovah’s Witness!) uses the very same fallacious reasoning they do. The fallacy that similar practices have a common source, which in this case…as in most every other aspect of our most holy faith is completely untrue.

Speaking of n-C pagan practices and the traditions of men…answer me this.
Do you and your wife wear a wedding ring?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

If you do not appreciate my source, find your own by googling pagan origin of eucharist or mass. I have no problem with that so long as it is not a catholic source.

I have no wife and I have never worn a wedding ring since that, too, is a pagan practice. Thank you for caring, tho.