The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Church_Militant]

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.

This is hooey…I’m every bit the disciple of Christ that you or any other believer is. My understanding is in line with what the Word of God says (and from the lips of Christ Himself no less!) so this is actually more a case of you being someone of little faith in that you refuse to accept the miraculous nature of the Eucharist.

Who are you to judge another man’s servant? (Matthew 7:1-2) "1 Judge not, that you may not be judged, 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. "

 

[Church_Militant]

Of course you still did not answer my question?

I’m a Christian, not a Jew…I don’t obey the dietary laws of Judaism. Do you?

 

[DCD]

IHS,

You are correct Christ’s words do have life but we also have to abide in him for his words to give us life. Jn.15:4 How do we abide in him? The Word tell us in Jn.6:56

Peace,
David

 

[MariaG]

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.

I too am sorry.

What I find interesting now is that even though we both have scripture. We both make arguments from Scripture. Both think the other is wrong.

Catholics believe those who walked away because they knew Christ was literal, you think they walked away because they did not understand.

But that is not what happened.

We both believe and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in our interpretation.

One of us must be wrong.

A look back at Christianity shows that Luther believed in the Real Presence. I guess he was wrong from your perspective on this issue but right about scripture alone?

Go back farther, Orthodox also profess the Real Presence, but they are wrong too?

ECF too profess the Real Presence, I guess Ignatious, a disciple of the apostle John was also wrong.

From CA Library The Real Presence
Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Or I suppose that was only symbolic words according to your modern interpretation also?

All I have to say is that scripture warns us that there will be those who come along teaching false doctrines. And the belief that communion is ONLY symbolic is a false doctrine that has come along. It is clear that all Christians taught about the Real Presence of Christ and any that denied it were denounced soundly by His followers.

May God bless you and keep you safe.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

All I’m saying is my Lord and Savior commanded me to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

For me, that means, “Case closed”.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

The words that Jesus spoke, when taken figuratively, would mean you must revile and hate Him.

How does that add up?

“He who reviles and loathes me will have eternal life”?

 

[Abiien]

I skipped reading half of these comments, but i was with you in the other discussion, Nevim.

Im going to quote what i wrote earlier, and add on…

I dont really want to get my self crazy involved in this because i hate arguing especially about conflicting beliefs.

But Nevim…

Leviticus chapter three

If i am not mistaken, this scripture has no conflict with eating of the Body and Blood that Christ Gave us.
I am pretty sure this has to do with the priestly sacrafice of animals, and im pretty sure while sacrificing, you are not to eat any of the sacrafice for it belongs to God, not you!

The reason we dont eat it is probably because it belongs to the lord, and i should be un blemished.

And yes, these were the ways of Peace offerings, and to my knowledge. Since Jesus gave him self up for us all, we do not need to sacrafice animals or anything for offerings anymore. Though it could still be done, but yeilds no outcome you do not already have…
This is not to say we are sinless… i am not much of a theologian but thats all i can say…

This is no interference, that i can see, with the Sacrafice of the Lord, for he gave his body and blood up for US … so that we may indulge in it…

Don’t get me wrong, im not trying to say that im 100% correct, im still in a period of learning (my whole life), and i hope this proves viable arguement, it just bugged me that no one pointed this out??
or amybe im totally wrong…

(side note: I do udnerstand we WILL be fully entered into heaven and our bodies will be a live as well, or atleast tahts what i believe… i am not saying we die for ever… or anything heretical… lol )
You were also saying it was metaphorical.
If that is the case, OF COURSE its partially metaphorical.
God uses this idiom, of course, literally! And we are to eat and drink this as it doesnt give us physical life everylasting, (not necessarily, considering we do die(or fall asleep as our God might refer to it as)) But it gives us spiritual life everlasting.
Us choosing to eat and drink this transubstantiated creation underthe works of our priests taking the position to do it, through God, its changed by Him and him alone, we do not see it, we do not taste it, but it changes us. It heals our spiritual side, and we who hunger (not literally, but metaphorically, or spiritually) for God will be filled by taking this sacrafice.

We accept this, whole heartedly, is again our saying Yes to the meaning of life, and to be healed.

This is not to say there is NO other way to be healed, and to say Yes to god, but this is one God gave to us openly. “Abide in me and i will abide in you”

Why cant you just accept waht he says, i mean he says its pretty literally.
“Just as the jews in the desert ate manna”
he says JUST AS.
not … “Unlike what the jews “ate” in the desert, im givin you this metahpor for you”

May god bless you.

Dont rag on me too much , believe me this took me a few years to come to this … i am very logical about everything, and if it doesnt have a logical answer i dont really believe it… :-\ but God gave me these answers… or so i believe

 

[Pax]

Nevim,

A scriptural analysis of the prohibition against eating blood does not support your view.

Please note what has already been said in prior posts concerning this point and the that fact that it is Jesus himself that gives us the command to eat his flesh and blood as true food and true drink.

A look at the OT reveals some interesting insights relative to the new covenant. In Leviticus 1:1-5 we read the following:

“THE LORD called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock. ‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.”

There are many similar references in the OT describing animal sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. This was done for the atonement of sin. When we compare this with the NT we see that “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:13]

The scriptures then go on to say “Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, **and not without taking blood **which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” [Hebrews 9:1-14]

There is clearly a foreshadowing in the Old Testament and an unveiling in the New Testament when it comes to blood, sacrifice, atonement, and eternal redemption. This foreshadowing includes the Eucharist which is prefigured by the manna and the bread of the presence as well as the sprinkling with blood. This whole theme in the OT is also continued in the Passover which requires the participants to consume the lamb. Jesus is the paschal lamb in the New Covenant.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

So why is blood so important and why the prohibition of consuming blood in the OT? Furthermore, why does the consumption of Jesus flesh and blood become mandated in the New Covenant? Scripture clues us in by telling us the significance of the flesh and blood. The blood is considered to be “the life” in the living creature. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the** blood**; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement,** by reason of the life.**” Once again, this is a prefiguring of Jesus eternal redemptive sacrifice where we have a better covenant.

Please note that the “life” of the animal is in the blood and that is why the blood was given to God in sacrifice and everyone was forbidden to consume it. In the New Covenant Jesus blood gives us life. Animal blood in sacrifice cannot give that to us and that is why the Jews were told not to consume it. Eternal life is given to us through the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. His flesh and blood are not like the flesh and blood of the animal sacrifices of the OT. Moreover, we do not consume the flesh and blood of Jesus in the same fashion as condemned in the OT. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity. In the Eucharist we receive this precious life giving gift sacramentaly rather than carnally. The prohibition in the Old Law simply does not trump Jesus’s command that we eat his flesh and drink his blood as true food and true drink.

The body and blood of Jesus are the “life” of Jesus. We are a priestly people and have a ministerial priesthood. Priests offer sacrifice. Hebrews 9:7 indicates that sacrifices are not offered without blood. Our sacrifice is the re-presentation of Jesus sacrifice of his body and blood offered to the Father. Jesus has told us to “do this in remembrance” of him. Jesus is the paschal lamb and must be consumed. Jesus says, “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus says, ““Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have **no life **in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Eternal life is in the blood of Jesus and it is his blood that we are to consume.

 

[Abiien]

lol thanks Pax for explaining better what i tried to say… even if you didnt meant it.

God bless you

 

[Church_Militant]

All I’m saying is my Lord and Savior commanded me to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

For me, that means, “Case closed”.

and

And Pax, [SIGN]You Rock![/SIGN]

 

[IHS]

Who are you to judge another man’s servant? (Matthew 7:1-2) "1 Judge not, that you may not be judged, 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. "

Isn,t this what you are doing with me.

 

[IHS]

and

And Pax, [SIGN]You Rock![/SIGN]

Just like the appostles,they didn,t understand it,but they continued to follow Christ anyway because His Words brought everlasting life.

 

[Church_Militant]

Isn,t this what you are doing with me.

Nope…I don’t judge, but when you assert that my “understanding is flawed”, which (since I’m not some poor dumb Catholic who doesn’t know the non-Catholic terminology. Read my testimony here.) really is your implication that I lack the fullness of the Holy Spirit am therefore not a believer at all, I have sense enough to call you on it.

But then I’m not the one sitting there arguing against a belief that was held by the apostles, commanded by the Lord Himself, preached by St. Paul and taught by the Christian church for the last 2,000 years, except by a band of errant rebels who probably denied this doctrine mainly because they knew that having seperated themselves from the church they had no authority to ordain priests to consecrate the Eucharist and if people were smart enough to realize that this vital and biblical doctrine was no longer available to them they might well recognize the errors for what they were and by the grace of God return to our most holy faith. Once you commit to the main error of the reformation, then you have to construct a whole new theology based upon it in order to make it harder people to realize what you’ve done and return to Catholicism.

Sounds like pride to me, but then I wasn’t there. I can only gauge it by its fruit today.

I’m not trying to be offensive, but this is the only logical course that the “reformers” could have taken, probably because people tended to do violence to other people they considered heretics. Can’t say as I’d blame them for a sense of self preservation, but the wisest man is the one who repents when he realizes that he’s messed up.

To me, the Eucharistic real presence is one of the most obviously biblical doctrines in the whole Catholic faith and I confess that it baffles the daylights outta me how n-Cs and a-Cs can miss it or deny it.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Nevim]

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.

That makes your god arbitrary. G-d Himself states He never changes:
NAS Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; … . "

NAS Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.

NAS James 1:17"…the Father of lights, cwith whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow."

According therefore to your theology all bets are off and God does what He pleases, in other words He can destroy the world with a flood again–despite the fact He promised not to.

Now for Porky Pig…Pigs are omnivores, eating anything including their own feces, the feces of other animals, dead rats, mice etc. ala disgusting. Because Pigs are omnivorous their digestion process is rather short allowing any toxins they consume to enter into thier flesh at a fast rate, and allowing you to become, if you eat those yummie spare ribs what you eat.
However clean animals are Herbivores chew the cud and are healthy to eat. And btw unclean animals were never considered as “food.”
Not eating any blood or fat is a preputial commandment, actually for you benefit.

 

[Nevim]

Nope…I don’t judge,

(Edited for charity violation)
Church Militant:

but when you

assert that my “understanding is flawed”, which (since I’m not some poor dumb Catholic who doesn’t know the non-Catholic terminology.

It is, (Edited for charity violation)
Church Militant:

Read my testimony here.

) really is your implication that I lack the fullness of the Holy Spirit am therefore not a believer at all, I have sense enough to call you on it.

But then I’m not the one sitting there arguing against a belief that was held by the apostles, commanded by the Lord Himself, preached by St. Paul and taught by the Christian church for the last 2,000 years, except by a band of errant rebels who probably denied this doctrine mainly because they knew that having seperated themselves from the church they had no authority to ordain priests to consecrate the Eucharist and if people were smart enough to realize that this vital and biblical doctrine was no longer available to them they might well recognize the errors for what they were and by the grace of God return to our most holy faith.

A lot of rethoric with no substance. First off the orginal faith of the Apostles as witness to in the Book of Acts was Nazerene Judaism, not Roman Catholic.
Church Militant:

Sounds like pride to me, but then I wasn’t there. I can only gauge it by its fruit today.

I’m not trying to be offensive,

(Edited for charity violation)

 

[mikeledes]

That makes your god arbitrary. G-d Himself states He never changes:
NAS Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; … . "

NAS Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.

NAS James 1:17"…the Father of lights, cwith whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow."

According therefore to your theology all bets are off and God does what He pleases, in other words He can destroy the world with a flood again–despite the fact He promised not to.

Now for Porky Pig…Pigs are omnivores, eating anything including their own feces, the feces of other animals, dead rats, mice etc. ala disgusting. Because Pigs are omnivorous their digestion process is rather short allowing any toxins they consume to enter into thier flesh at a fast rate, and allowing you to become, if you eat those yummie spare ribs what you eat.
However clean animals are Herbivores chew the cud and are healthy to eat. And btw unclean animals were never considered as “food.”
Not eating any blood or fat is a preputial commandment, actually for you benefit.

God does not change, but His ordinances can. If not, then we should still practice circumcision, animal sacrifices, follow all the kosher and dietary laws, celebrate all of the Jewish feasts established by God, etc. And yet, this would contradict the Christian Gospel, especially as taught by Paul in Romans and Galatians (i.e. “works of the law”).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[MariaG]

Hi Nevim,

I see you are back and currently online as I post this.

Since this got pretty much buried, I wanted to repost this.

And possibly Pax’s post?

You keep making assertions about the blood but have yet to respond specifically to scripture that we say contradicts your understanding.

If you could give your interpretation, that would at least help me possibly understand your view.

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

Nevim,

A scriptural analysis of the prohibition against eating blood does not support your view.

cont. on next post

cont. from prior post

So why is blood so important and why the prohibition of consuming blood in the OT?

 

[MariaG]

Hi Nevim,

I see you are back and currently online as I post this.

Darn it, I was wrong

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It is, and btw how long were you on drugs ?

Classy comment Nevim. Way to show that your faith is Holy Spirit guided.

Hey CM if you leave his comment out till sunrise will the troll turn to stone?