The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Church_Militant]

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

You haven’t proved beans! You have offered out of context twisted interps that coincide with the errors of the reformers. Deal with post 20. You can’t. Simply because every answer you will attempt to offer is wishful thing and twisted interpretations and it becomes obvious to the honest readers as soon as they begin to read it.

I know what you believe…I used to be wrong too, but the Bible and the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and no amount of theological gymnastics is going to alter the truth.

BTW… for all you who have offered that stuff about the law against “drinking blood” better back up and punt. Lessee…Our Lord knew it was the Sabbath when he healed the lady bent double…He knew it was the sabbath when His disciples picked grain to eat, and He knew that the law forbids claiming to be the Son of God, yet He did all those things and then some. So lessee…if He tells me to eat his flesh and drink His blood…regardless what a pack of Judaizers says about the law, who do you think I’m going to obey?
Pax Domioni sit semper vobiscum.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

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,

That selfsame blood washes me whiter than snow. Literal or symbolic?

 

[franksv]

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

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.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.Why would I want to google up more lies and errors?

As for your rejection of Catholic sources. That is probably why you are so misled. You go to a garbage man for information on rocket science. You have got information, but would anyone really trust their life (or in this case, their soul) to use it to launch into space?

Good for you on the ring…
Paxt tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

That selfsame blood washes me whiter than snow. Literal or symbolic?

Nice dodge…(More dust in the air!) deal with the passages in question.

Does St. Paul say, or even imply, that he is speaking of a symbol? No he does not.

 

[franksv]

Why would I want to google up more lies and errors?

As for your rejection of Catholic sources. That is probably why you are so misled. You go to a garbage man for information on rocket science. You have got information, but would anyone really trust their life (or in this case, their soul) to use it to launch into space?

Good for you on the ring…
Paxt tecum,

I find it funny when n-C’s want to talk on the platform of no Catholic sources,or when they say on the terms of Scripture being the sole authority.Which really means to go by the interpretation they where taught by thier flavor of belief.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

You haven’t proved beans! You have offered out of context twisted interps that coincide with the errors of the reformers. Deal with post 20. You can’t. Simply because every answer you will attempt to offer is wishful thing and twisted interpretations and it becomes obvious to the honest readers as soon as they begin to read it.

I know what you believe…I used to be wrong too, but the Bible and the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and no amount of theological gymnastics is going to alter the truth.

BTW… for all you who have offered that stuff about the law against “drinking blood” better back up and punt. Lessee…Our Lord knew it was the Sabbath when he healed the lady bent double…He knew it was the sabbath when His disciples picked grain to eat, and He knew that the law forbids claiming to be the Son of God, yet He did all those things and then some. So lessee…if He tells me to eat his flesh and drink His blood…regardless what a pack of Judaizers says about the law, who do you think I’m going to obey?
Pax Domioni sit semper vobiscum.
(Edited. Topic not changed as asserted.)

Our Lord told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, was a reprimand to the Jews who made it a heavy burden.
Just as you make communion a burden in context of an unholy practice regardless of your eisegesis.
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Amen!

I wish you a good night and all God’s blessings to you.
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Penguins/penguin-006.gif

 

[franksv]

(Edited. Topic not changed as asserted.) Our Lord told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, was a reprimand to the Jews who made it a heavy burden.
Just as you make communion a burden in context of an unholy practice regardless of your eisegesis.
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Amen!

I wish you a good night and all God’s blessings to you.
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Penguins/penguin-006.gif

Peace be with you.Really.

 

[Church_Militant]

(Edited. Topic not changed as asserted.)

Our Lord told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, was a reprimand to the Jews who made it a heavy burden.
Just as you make communion a burden in context of an unholy practice regardless of your eisegesis.
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Amen!

I wish you a good night and all God’s blessings to you.
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Penguins/penguin-006.gif
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]

 

[The_Augustinian]

I find it hard to understand people who refuse to do this or that thing because the pagans did it–I’m sure the pagan Romans wore shoes and clothes too! And Latin was definitely used in pagan rituals in old Rome, I guess all those classicists are going to Hell in a handbasket.

Anyway, for good reference, here is a detailed article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the many proofs of the Eucharist from Scripture and Tradition.

I’ll have to say, the people who raise objections raise an interesting point about the Eucharist appearing to contradict the dictum of Scripture against eating blood. Even if we grant that the ordinance of the apostles doesn’t apply to us today and we can eat our blood sausage and medium-rare hamburgers without guilt, it was in force during the apostles’ time so it would appear to contradict belief in the Real Presence.

However, this is from an overly fleshly understanding of the Eucharist, as if every time we communicate we’re sawing off a piece of human flesh. We do not receive an arm or a leg, but the whole Christ, truly alive. Cannibals and blood-eaters want to exploit lesser beings in order to achieve in an arcane power. When we recieve Christ, Christ receives us, because He is truly alive. In other words, we are the guests of our eucharistic Host, and like a good host, Jesus gives generously and without reservation. Thank God for such a Host!

 

[jim1130]

And your source of information for that estimate.

Hmmm…could it be the Bible and the Early Church Fathers? Not until the Reformers such as Calvin, whom I assume you follow, it all become symbolic.
"Nevim:

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.

The Bible and Early Church Fathers. Also, based on the Bible, what are the figurative meanings of eating flesh and drinking blood?

Since the Holy Spirit does not lead in error and there are two conflicting opinions here then I will turn to the authority: the Church.

And the Bible would be a good resource for you…

I used both. If you are going to use SS on me then answer these quesiotn of which I am sure you have answered before:

Show me what book, chapter, and verse within the Bible provide the table of contents for the Bible. If that cannot be done then please explain how and when the Holy Spirit personally guided you to know that those books in the Bible actually belong in the Bible.

Show me which book, chapter, and verse states that the Sacred Scripture is the final and lone authority for determining beliefs.

Show me either that the Apostles transmitted the teaching of sola scriptura to the Early Church Fathers or why the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

HmmmEarly Church Fathers?.

I used both.
Didn’t you read post 124/125

 

[jim1130]

I used both.

Didn’t you read post 124/125 Yes.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16-17

THE DIDACHE - “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’” and “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH - “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR - “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

From “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373:

"The Reformers were not uniform in the agreement (of the Real Presence):

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

Even non-Catholics cannot make up their minds. Hmmmm…I’ll stick with the authority of the Church established by Christ.

 

[Nevim]

Didn’t you read post 124/125

Yes.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16-17

The “cup of Blessing” is from the Passover seder, it’s the 3rd of the 4 cups of wine that are consumed, this Scripture does not support Catholic communion to the contrary it denies it.

jim1130:

THE DIDACHE - “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’” and “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

The Didache is NOT scripture, therefore questionable.

jim1130:

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH - “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

If this blood is love that cannot be destroyed then how come this man was against anything Jewish !?

 

[MariaG]

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,

That selfsame blood washes me whiter than snow. Literal or symbolic?

Nice dodge…(More dust in the air!) deal with the passages in question.

Does St. Paul say, or even imply, that he is speaking of a symbol? No he does not.

So CherokeeBrave,

Any reason why you still have not addressed the Scripture of St. Paul that Church Militant has referred to?

I would pray that if you think Catholics are wrong, you would at least attempt to spread the word of Christ and tell us why the Catholic interpretation is wrong, or even at this point, what your interpretation of that scripture is.

Truly the Eucharist is central to Catholic beliefs. Knock it down and you knock down Catholicism. I would think that if you are motivated by Christian Charity to spread the gospel, you would do more to help Catholics understand why their interpretation of scripture is wrong.

Why not start with the Scripture of Paul that Church Militant is referring to since this thread is about the scriptural nature of the Eucharist?

God bless and keep you safe,
Maria

 

[Nevim]

Hmmm…could it be the Bible and the Early Church Fathers? Not until the Reformers such as Calvin, whom I assume you follow, it all become symbolic.

No , it couldn’t be the Bible, the Bible is against eating blood. The ECF all non-jewish Hellenists were anti-semitic, who never wrote a lick of Scripture, and disagree with each other ?

jim1130:

The Bible and Early Church Fathers. Also, based on the Bible, what are the figurative meanings of eating flesh and drinking blood?

Idiom: id·i·om \ˈi-dē-əm\ (noun) 1. the language peculiar to a person or group. Just like we have idiom so does the Hebrew, eating and drinking are both idioms for gaining knowledge.

jim1130:

Since the Holy Spirit does not lead in error and there are two conflicting opinions here then I will turn to the authority: the Church.

The “church” whatever that means to you, is NOT the authority they did not inspire the Scriptures the Holy Spirit did. SO it is the Scripture that is the authority not the “Church” whatever that means to you. The Scripture clearly states in more then one place not to eat either fat and all humans have some fat on thier bodies this included Y’shua’s human body as well and the Scripture is against eating blood, and it states that both in the Older testament and the Newer one…(Acts 15) therefore catholic commuion is not Biblical.

jim1130:

I used both. If you are going to use SS on me then answer these quesiotn of which I am sure you have answered before:

Show me what book, chapter, and verse within the Bible provide the table of contents for the Bible.

I have seen this (Edited for charity) resondence more then once you people must copy from the same source of heretical information. No the table of contents is not the part of SS so what. It’s the content not the table of contents changed by the way by Luther and the RCC. It’s no arguement.

jim1130:

If that cannot be done then please explain how and when the Holy Spirit personally guided you to know that those books in the Bible actually belong in the Bible.

And suppose you tell us where your traditions were given by the HS to the Catholic church. (Edited for charity)

jim1130:

Show me which book, chapter, and verse states that the Sacred Scripture is the final and lone authority for determining beliefs.

Since the RCC already declares that Scripture is the Word of God show me where the Scripture states their "sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. Btw these are old arguements that have fail the test of time.

jim1130:

Show me either that the Apostles transmitted the teaching of sola scriptura to the Early Church Fathers or why the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura.

Show me where the ECF where even born again believers !

 

[Nevim]

So CherokeeBrave,

Any reason why you still have not addressed the Scripture of St. Paul that Church Militant has referred to?

Please explain why mr Militiant took this passage out of context ?

MariaG:

I would pray that if you think Catholics are wrong, you would at least attempt to spread the word of Christ and tell us why the Catholic interpretation is wrong, or even at this point, what your interpretation of that scripture is.

Would you listen ? Lets take the verse quoted by mr. Militant in it’s context…

NET 1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident. 20 Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. 21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,

So in context we see not the catholic context but Pauls context these people were showing up DRUNK and some as causing factions futhermore because NOW you call the wafer the body of Chist since when did it mean that THEN ? In other words Catholic apologist have read something into those verses that are NOT there. Futhermore and what they don’t tell you is that the oldest Greek Manuscripts do not have the words “of the Lord.” They simple say “of the Lord” But even if we take the later edition “body of the Lord” --to what is Paul referring ? Those who do not believe in Transubstantiation are guilty of not discerning " the body ( transubstantiated) of the Lord ? "Those who do this therefore, eat and drink condemmnation on themselves ! I say no way.

 

[Mickey]

you people must copy from the same source of heretical information.

:nope:

 

[jim1130]

jim1130:

Yes.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16-17

Nevim:

The “cup of Blessing” is from the Passover seder, it’s the 3rd of the 4 cups of wine that are consumed, this Scripture does not support Catholic communion to the contrary it denies it.

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…”

jim1130:

THE DIDACHE - “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’” and “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

Nevim:

The Didache is NOT scripture, therefore questionable.

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

jim1130:

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH - “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

nevim:

If this blood is love that cannot be destroyed then how come this man was against anything Jewish !?

Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle and martyred for his faith so I would say he is very credible.

The Jews were well versed in figurative speech and similes so had Jesus meant to be speaking metaphorically then the Jews would have understood it as such.

 

[Nevim]

From the first Sunday of Pentecost the Church has been reverencing the Eucharist as the Risen Body of Christ.

Penecost, Hebrew “Shavout” is not something new and certainly not a Catholic invention. The word means 50, 50 days from Passover not 50 days from the pagan festival is “Easter” nor did those in the upper room hold a Catholic Mass, which was yet to be invented.

FCEGM:

It is a command of the Lord: “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.” And, “Take and eat. . .Take and drink” Salvation is not just a matter of hearing the Word, but of consuming the Word Who strengthens us to do His will and to be transformed by grace into He Whom we consume.

Eating a human being or eating blood is against the commandments of God therefore Y’shua was using idioms to get His point across.