The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[jim1130]

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

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

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of St. John the Apostle and Bishop of the Church in Antioch wrote in his letter to the Church in Smyrna of those who abstain from the Eucharist:

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.

As a side note, Christ also healed on the Sabbath:

Mark 3.1-6
Luke 6: 6-11
Luke 13:10-15
Luke 14:1-6

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Maybe you should read The Fourth Cup by Scott Hahn. 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).

The Didache is NOT scripture, therefore questionable.

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,

 

[MariaG]

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

I do not believe CM took it out of context which is why I asked for clarification and explanation.

Would you listen ? Lets take the verse…

I have always been willing to listen.

1 Corinthians 11:17 - 23 (link placed by Maria due to length of post)

So in context we see not the catholic context but Pauls context these people were showing up DRUNK and some as causing factions

In verse 20 it says that when they do this, they are not really even celebrating the Lord’s supper.

Verse 21, scripture does not say they were showing up drunk. It says they were becoming drunk during the celebration of the Lord’s supper. (this being the reason why they were not celebrating it.)

This is the background of what is is happening.

Paul then goes on to tell them why these actions are wrong to do.

The Catholic position is that one eats judgement on oneself because it Really is the Real Presence of Christ.

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.

Respectfully, you do not present an argument against the Catholic interpretation, but simply mock the Catholic interpretation as if that will help me see the truth of your argument.

Why do you say no way. Explain what Paul means when he say they eat judgement upon themselves? Explain why people are getting ill according to your faith interpretation?

What are they guilty of if not the body and blood of the Lord?

If it is the body and blood of the Lord they are guilty of, what does that mean according to your interpretation?

And you forgot to speak on the other verses of Paul also.

1Cor 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

This here seems pretty straight forward. What is communion? The blood of Christ. What is the bread? The body of the Lord.

But again, if you have an interpretation of scripture you would care to present, I would be glad to hear it. But you need to actually present an interpretation and not just point to what you see as the incredulous nature of the Catholic one. After all, it is called faith.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

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. 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.

The Didache is NOT scripture, therefore questionable.

But it DOES show us what the early Church believed and taught.

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

Good tactic!!! Question the man, rather than the words he used to show what the early church taught!!! Whether he was anti-Jewish or not is between him and God, but what he taught regarding the Eucharist was typical of what the Church has taught for 2000 years!

 

[Church_Militant]

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

I didn’t. I used the relevent portion which is correct. You have done nothing more than attempt to cloud the issue by grasping the straw of (now) quoting a passage which has no relevence to the fact that St. Paul did not assert a symbolic Eucharist. This is just more dust thrown into the air and you know it.

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. You can say anything that you please but your modern post reformation interp doesn’t hold up against the plain sense of what St. Paul says there. The Catholic Church has not “read anything into” (tho you wish we would.) anything, nor have I as an apologist (of sorts).

Your position is based on anti-Catholic rhetoric and misinformation, that’s all. And every honest reader here can see that.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

BTW You might wanna look up what my name means.

 

[MariaG]

BTW You might wanna look up what my name means.

Your name is spot on too!

 

[Church_Militant]

Your name is spot on too!

That’s why I took it.
(Here at least, the CARMites knew me under a different name.)
[SIGN]Boycott CARM!![/SIGN]
Pax tecum,

 

[djrakowski]

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.

So long as it isn’t a Catholic source? Now, how utterly dishonest is that? You expect us to believe all the sources you use are at least historically accurate, if not infallible, but you won’t accept ours? How do you expect us to regard this as anything but naked, anti-intellectual prejudice?

 

[Nevim]

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.

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

 

[Nevim]

So long as it isn’t a Catholic source? Now, how utterly dishonest is that?

Aren’t you doing the very same thing ? As long as it’s a Catholic source it’s ok ? All the rest of us are liars ?

djrakowski:

You expect us to believe all the sources you use are at least historically accurate, if not infallible, but you won’t accept ours? How do you expect us to regard this as anything but naked, anti-intellectual prejudice?

Ditto

 

[Nevim]

That’s why I took it.
(Here at least, the CARMites knew me under a different name.)
[SIGN]Boycott CARM!![/SIGN]
Pax tecum,

Oh and what name might that be ?

 

[Nevim]

I didn’t. I used the relevent portion which is correct. You have done nothing more than attempt to cloud the issue by grasping the straw of (now) quoting a passage which has no relevence to the fact that St. Paul did not assert a symbolic Eucharist. This is just more dust thrown into the air and you know it. You can say anything that you please but your modern post reformation interp doesn’t hold up against the plain sense of what St. Paul says there. The Catholic Church has not “read anything into” (tho you wish we would.) anything, nor have I as an apologist (of sorts).

Your position is based on anti-Catholic rhetoric and misinformation, that’s all. And every honest reader here can see that.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

BTW You might wanna look up what my name means.

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.

 

[Nevim]

I didn’t. I used the relevent portion which is correct. You have done nothing more than attempt to cloud the issue by grasping the straw of (now) quoting a passage which has no relevence to the fact that St. Paul did not assert a symbolic Eucharist. This is just more dust thrown into the air and you know it. You can say anything that you please but your modern post reformation interp doesn’t hold up against the plain sense of what St. Paul says there. The Catholic Church has not “read anything into” (tho you wish we would.) anything, nor have I as an apologist (of sorts).

Your position is based on anti-Catholic rhetoric and misinformation, that’s all. And every honest reader here can see that.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

BTW You might wanna look up what my name means.

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

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

We use a metaphor when we say of a picture “This is my father” or “This is my mother.”

Would I be guilty of “profaning the body and blood” of your mother and father if I tore up their picture?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Nevim]

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.

NotWorthy:

But it DOES show us what the early Church believed and taught.

That’s what the Book of ACTS does!

NotWorthy:

Good tactic!!! Question the man, rather than the words he used to show what the early church taught!!! Whether he was anti-Jewish or not is between him and God, but what he taught regarding the Eucharist was typical of what the Church has taught for 2000 years!

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

 

[Nevim]

Would I be guilty of “profaning the body and blood” of your mother and father if I tore up their picture?

Well if I held up a picture of your mother and father or wife and children and tore it up would I be guilty of disrespect of you and them ? Or burn the American flag would I be guilty of disrespecting this country ? Hmm ?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well if I held up a picture of your mother and father or wife and children and tore it up would I be guilty of disrespect of you and them ? Or burn the American flag would I be guilty of disrespecting this country ? Hmm ?

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

 

[Nevim]

I do not believe CM took it out of context which is why I asked for clarification and explanation.

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.

 

[Nevim]

Nice side step. I didnt ask if it would it 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.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

No dought about that statement. To belief otherwise, is ignoring the teachings and life of Christ. If you can’t believe the words of Christ, to whom shall you go?