The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

Exactly! Likewise,at the Passover meals,did Jews eat an actual tangent lamb or a “symbolic” cut-out of a lamb?

Actually you bring up a good point .Why didn’t Jesus institute meat eating(that part of the Passover) for his eating .The passover also had unleavened bread .It was real bread but figurative /symbolic .Jesus did the same(lamb ,drink ,bread),but only instituted bread and drink, except the symbolism is now crystal clear .Why didn’t he say this is my flesh when they ate the passover lamb ? I may have the ceremony wrong ,but that is what I recall (lamb drink, bread ).

 

[lyrikal]

Actually you bring up a good point .Why didn’t Jesus institute meat eating(that part of the Passover) for his eating .The passover also had unleavened bread .It was real bread but figurative /symbolic .Jesus did the same(lamb ,drink ,bread),but only instituted bread and drink, except the symbolism is now crystal clear .Why didn’t he say this is my flesh when they ate the passover lamb ? I may have the ceremony wrong ,but that is what I recall (lamb drink, bread ).

If Jesus was to use a real lamb to give us His REAL Bodily Presence, then what would He have used for drinking His blood? The blood of the lamb?

Also the idea of bread and wine is not foreign in the Old Testament:

Exodus 25:

[23]

"And you shall make a table of acacia wood; two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height.

[24] You shall overlay it with pure gold, and make a molding of gold around it.
[25] And you shall make around it a frame a handbreadth wide, and a molding of gold around the frame.
[26] And you shall make for it four rings of gold, and fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs.
[27] Close to the frame the rings shall lie, as holders for the poles to carry the table.
[28] You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, and the table shall be carried with these.
[29] And you shall make its plates and dishes for incense, and its flagons and bowls with which to pour libations; of pure gold you shall make them.
[30] **And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always. **

They didn’t use grape juice or orange juice or water or anything else for the libation except for wine.

What about this?:

Genesis 14:

[18] And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

The idea of Bread and Wine is not foreign to the OT.

Consider this: Jesus did not make the lamb a focal point and a focus of the Passover meal at the Last Supper because HE IS THE LAMB. He did not want them to focus on the lamb in front of them on the table but on the LAMB that is in front of them talking to them (Jesus).

Jesus could have used grape juice and chips ahoy for His Body and Blood but He didn’t, He used bread and wine. If you don’t think the eating of the lamb at the passover has any foreshadowing of the Eucharist, then I can show you otherwise. There are many similarities between the two.

God bless.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I am sorry that you find this confusing…here’s how you can tell the difference:

Your sarcasm aside I am not confused at all. I’m for simplifying the issue instead of muddying the waters as you seem inclined to do.

Radical:

If it looks like a human body, has weight like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc. …then it is real flesh and blood.

If it looks like bread, has the weight of a loaf of bread, is made of baked flour and other ingredients (you know like eggs, milk, salt), covered with a crust etc. …then it is bread and could only be symbolic of human flesh.

I realize that I could have supplied a much more detailed list of features to allow you to distinguish between flesh and bread, but this isn’t rocket science. The above should be sufficient to enable you to sort through your confusion. Good luck…I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.

So basically this is a lot of sarcasm & platitudes disguised as a dodge.

So, again, did Jesus offer His literal or symbolic flesh on the cross? Literal or symbolic? Which was it?

 

[lyrikal]

Also, The words “Bread of the Presence” in Hebrew are “Lehem ha pannim” which has a double meaning. It means “Bread of the Presence” and it ALSO means “Bread of the Face.” Who’s face? The “Face” of God.

 

[Trebor135]

cause the benefit was(never hungering)

God’s grace is so abundant that–when received by partaking worthily in communion–it causes a spiritual change in the present.

And I’ve read about saints surviving on the Eucharist and water alone for extended periods of time. Does anyone else know about this?

IWould have to read full article .Of course i would have to deny that Luthers idea of justification was brand new .

Of course.

He denied it was new .

That wouldn’t exactly be a great marketing ploy, methinks.

In any case, whether he denied or admitted it proves nothing. For me to say I’m a millionaire doesn’t automatically make me one, unfortunately.

It was "new "in the sense that it had not been taught for centuries.

Asserting something isn’t proving it.

I shall use a favorite Catholic term -develop.

Misuse, I’d say.

Luther had to re-develop this notion of salvation by grace .

Stop right there. Catholics don’t deny salvation by grace alone. They deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Huge difference.

BUT, the seeds were always there .Indeed Augustine had a similar “salvation” to Luther ,as did St Francis, ,and probably many other mystics .

I can’t help but smile at your naïveté. Luther was the first Protestant, no matter how much you wish this weren’t so.

Bottom line ,as long as it didn’t rock the boat ,you know ,put em in a monastery ,make an "order’ out of them ,make them “mystical” but still Catholic, that was ok .But for the everyday layman ,to have a "mystical experience with Christ himself …

Wow. No wonder you abandoned Catholicism. Can you substantiate any of your near-slanderous insinuations? This is ridiculous.

Again nothing to do with my point .We all have bishops/presbyters .

No you don’t. Evangelicals are all laymen and laywomen. Any ceremonies of ordination in their ecclesial communities are invalid. And evangelicals don’t even believe it’s a sacrament (i.e., conveys grace) to begin with!

Why do you suggest we don’t ?

Because your pastors aren’t viewed as Catholic and Orthodox bishops are. Their advice–ultimately that’s what it amounts to–isn’t binding on anyone in the congregation. If what they say doesn’t suit a churchgoer, they can go join another down the street or start their own–without being regarded as putting their soul at risk or doing anything that a good sola scriptura Protestant shouldn’t be allowed to do.

We All aspire to unity , like Paul and Ignatius.

I don’t see how.

Igantius also said to be under the guidance of whom ? The bishop (nope-but obey him), the pope -nope- Ignatius doesn’t even acknowledge the office ,but names 16 other bishops ,but not even a hint of leadership or guidance from any roman bishop of bishops.So who are we ALL under the guidance of -who could be this Vicar ? Ignatius ,in Ephesians CH 20 - "ye being under the guidance of the “Comforter”…or ,“Yield him reverence (the bishop), submit to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of us all”.

Your and Ignatius’ conceptions of “obeying” bishops are completely different. You’re reading low-church evangelical thinking back into history.

Just scripture .Confess your faults one to another .

This doesn’t prove that confession of serious sins was optional. Go outside of the Bible and give me something concrete to back up your allegation that confession in the early days was just about accountability.

It has been suggetsed that some things carry over from the OT,this is one of them Actually the is strong writings talking of Christians confessing before the entire congregation. It would be centuries before it was “delegated” to strictly a priest behind a confessional.

Even if confession to a priest without the presence of the congregation wasn’t permitted back then–and I can’t confirm this–the way things were done in the earliest days doesn’t resemble the evangelical approach now at all. As I understand it, a declaration by the priest was required back then for the forgiveness of sins to take place–he wasn’t just there for show.

 

[david_ruiz]

So, what do you think St. Augustine was in today’s terms?

Don’t know ,I suppose like the rest of us ,a bit of good ,bad ,and ugly .Only God is just good.

Indeed. Some have argued that Christ was both divine and human; others have argued that he was only divine; and still others have argued that he was only human. Appealing to subjectivity isn’t going to settle this

So if one is wrong it is because they are being subjective.I hear that a lot ,not sure if that is the whole picture of being right or wrong.

But the “both/and” approach represents the Judeo-Christian view, while the “either/or” constitutes the Protestant, and worldly, view.

Some also say the “both” approach has some subjectivity and either /or has more absoluteness.

As I’ve read, Passover–when the Eucharist was instituted–was not simply a commemoration of a past event, but in fact a bringing forward of a long-ago episode into the present. Christ’s statement about coming to fulfill and not to abolish the law is apropos here.

I understand both sides garnish OT for support .Again ,why don’t we eat lamb , to be the real Lamb,thru transubstantiation ?

For people who wish to continue denying something difficult to understand. Yahweh appeared in a burning bush to Moses, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at Jesus’ baptism. Why not use bread and wine for a similar end?

Well others have shown that indeed the bread and wine symbolize the Spirit and the Word.

Interpreting John 6 literally isn’t complicating things unnecessarily. It’s taking the text at face value. Nowhere does the Bible emphasize crying or calling out to the Lord like Christ does the essential character of eating his body and drinking his blood.

Again ,the only ones who took it face value were the unbelievers.I believe there are more scriptures about calling out to the Lord than there are eating Him

How do you know this?

We know from scripture that Jesus spoke in parables ,and he tells us why he spoke in parables .Again , why did He wait for three days to see a sick Lazarus ? (oh the sisters murmured to His face) Why did he say you must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees ? Today’s paraphrase -“Unless your works do not exceed that of Mother Theresa or Billy Graham, you shall not be saved”.(oh this was a hard saying) . Why did he say if you are rich it is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle , than to be saved ?( Oh the rich man left sadly). Alas you must be perfect to be saved ! Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass you by. You must eat him .Oh they murmured and left him.Do you see a pattern ? …Yet ,with God all things are possible even if you are rich and retain wealth , even if your are a lay person with small works, even if you still battle sin (the law), even if you only eat Him spiritually- you are righteous because of what He did ,hence we are unified in thanking Him for Calvary and resurrection and Ascension .

Peter and the other apostles didn’t know what Jesus meant; no matter how much they struggled with his bizarre statements, they knew he was the Messiah, so couldn’t abandon the Son of God in good conscience.

Thank-you for stating that .I have said it myself at times ,and heard Catholics say that .I do have one reservation though .They may have had a better understanding of it than we give them credit for ,that of a symbolic understanding.Their words and actions lean more that way than RP,but i won’t belabor that possibility.

And are you trying to argue that those disciples who left Christ at that point were never really saved to begin with? Where do you get that from the text?

John 6; 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not”- those that were following him for worldly bread(me).

 

[Trebor135]

Actually, we almost could have been “one” .For a brief moment in history ,there was a slight chance that many of the lutherans spiritual demands could have been “incorporated”’ and a different church would have emerged .Not totally Lutheran ,but not totally Catholic.That was sometime in the mid 1500’s during a decades old council .Me personally ,I don’t think it was ever possible back then

Me neither. Why Catholics should have accepted the just-invented doctrines of one fallible man who lacked any divine seal of approval is beyond me.

but…Again ,that the tendencies of Rome made the development of “protestantism” inevitable .

Human sin brings out all kinds of folly in us, and leads us to want to do it our way, other considerations be damned.

Enough of this insinuation. What “tendencies” are you talking about?

No proof ,

Of course not. That’d be too much to ask for.

just history and Christ’s promise to be with us always ,through the good bad and ugly of our history .

As we all know, the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Martin Luther’s baptism and informed the world who he really was: God’s newest prophet, sent to bring us the saving knowledge of sola fide and sola scriptura.

Again ,some things carry over from OT. This is one of them ,that upon studying our history ,it is indeed by the grace of God the Church exists (just read about the twelve sons of Abraham- they were barely “holy-”-that is, set apart for Him).

Sure. How this is related to our debate, I can’t quite tell. But since you threw out an OT reference, I’ll do likewise: Numbers chapter 16.

Sure ,I advise reading everything we can , but …it will only magnify what is already in the heart .Where you sit is where you stand .

Bias is difficult to overcome, but it can be done–just look at Scott Hahn.

It all starts with scriptures .

Even though Scripture never tells us that.

You can be like the Bereans and search it out ,and trusting like earliest ECF"s that Christ is the teacher /interpreter .OR you can be like Ignatius of Loyola ,the Jesuit, who take an oath that says if something white is declared black by the pope , then it is black…If we differ on John 6 ,we will differ on The Didache ,or Augustine.

Your continued attempt to read your ecclesiology back into history remains doomed. Name me one well-educated, devout Catholic–someone who really knew their faith, not just went through the motions every Sunday–that converted to evangelical Protestantism because they realized that was the one true faith.

Uniformity at the expense of freedom will eventually lead to freedom at the expense of uniformity (hence protestantism).

Give us a Scripture passage extolling the virtues of freedom over uniformity. Why do you view freedom of opinion as the greatest good, rather than uniformity in truth?

As an example ,one of the first "developments ’ of Romes authority over the other Patriarchs was a forcing to observe the celebration of Easter on precisely the same day .Not because it was apostolic ,on the contrary , it did away with apostolic tradition for one segment of the church.(and gave seeds to Orthodoxy division).Does it really matter ? or does it matter that Rome must rule, covering her stern,lording-over face with the makeup of “Unity” ?

I’m currently reading Luke Rivington’s “The Primitive Church and the See of Peter” (see post #2 of this papacy-related thread for more works on the subject). The author devotes a chapter to the scuffle over the date of Easter, and I highly recommend you look at this PDF ebook by Rivington.

See, we stay true to form. If Christ is indeed alive and well on planet earth ,would it not be wise to find Him ,for He shall lead you into green pastures. Indeed He calls us to Himself , and then places us in His body .I do not attach to His body in hopes of meeting the Head. Find Him and you are in the Church . Find the Church , and maybe you will find Him (even in a baptist church).

I was referring to those who had already “found” Christ, wherever that may have been. To find who has all the truth–if such is possible–is one of the next logical steps.

Will the real gospel step forward please ?

Well, it sure isn’t Protestantism, given that sola fide originated only five hundred years ago.

 

[lyrikal]

Don’t know ,I suppose like the rest of us ,a bit of good ,bad ,and ugly .Only God is just good.

So if one is wrong it is because they are being subjective.I hear that a lot ,not sure if that is the whole picture of being right or wrong.

Some also say the “both” approach has some subjectivity and either /or has more absoluteness. I understand both sides garnish OT for support .Again ,why don’t we eat lamb , to be the real Lamb,thru transubstantiation ?

Well others have shown that indeed the bread and wine symbolize the Spirit and the Word.

Again ,the only ones who took it face value were the unbelievers.I believe there are more scriptures about calling out to the Lord than there are eating Him

We know from scripture that Jesus spoke in parables ,and he tells us why he spoke in parables .Again , why did He wait for three days to see a sick Lazarus ? (oh the sisters murmured to His face) Why did he say you must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees ? Today’s paraphrase -“Unless your works do not exceed that of Mother Theresa or Billy Graham, you shall not be saved”.(oh this was a hard saying) . Why did he say if you are rich it is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle , than to be saved ?( Oh the rich man left sadly). Alas you must be perfect to be saved ! Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass you by. You must eat him .Oh they murmured and left him.Do you see a pattern ? …Yet ,with God all things are possible even if you are rich and retain wealth , even if your are a lay person with small works, even if you still battle sin (the law), even if you only eat Him spiritually- you are righteous because of what He did ,hence we are unified in thanking Him for Calvary and resurrection and Ascension .

Thank-you for stating that .I have said it myself at times ,and heard Catholics say that .I do have one reservation though .They may have had a better understanding of it than we give them credit for ,that of a symbolic understanding.Their words and actions lean more that way than RP,but i won’t belabor that possibility.
John 6; 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not”- those that were following him for worldly bread(me).

I wrote a blog a few days ago dealing with John 6 and what Jesus meant and how they understood Him. I highly recommend you check it out. It is very long but I think it will help you understand why we believe Jesus was talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

Check it out and let me know where I went wrong on it, please.

Thank you!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

david ruiz:

Actually the is strong writings talking of Christians confessing before the entire congregation. It would be centuries before it was “delegated” to strictly a priest behind a confessional.

Lev 5:[5] When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, [6] and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Israelites had to confess their sins to the priest. The priest would then tell them what animal that they had to return with to sacrifice that would be in accord with the law.

So individual auricular confession is not alien to early Christians.
david ruiz:

Uniformity at the expense of freedom will eventually lead to freedom at the expense of uniformity (hence protestantism). As an example ,one of the first "developments ’ of Romes authority over the other Patriarchs was a forcing to observe the celebration of Easter on precisely the same day .Not because it was apostolic ,on the contrary , it did away with apostolic tradition for one segment of the church.(and gave seeds to Orthodoxy division).Does it really matter ? or does it matter that Rome must rule, covering her stern,lording-over face with the makeup of “Unity”?

This is totally dishonest and disengenuous. The issue was settled by Bishop Polycarp and Pope Victor, which really was a matter of emphasis & a non-issue. The Pope agreed to allow the Eastern churches to retain their practice of having Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, which the Eastern rite churches still do today.

One Pope, zealous for unity of practice in Rome, issued a decree that Easter in Rome is to be celebrated according to the Western church’s reckoning of Easter(the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox-which is in fact when I’m sure YOU celebrate Easter as well; again you unknowingly assent to the Catholic Church’s Universal tradition and authority). Then later he tried to extend it for the whole Church throughout the empire. If he had no real authority then he had no real mandate to even issue such a proclaimation. Yet he was advised by Irenaeus to back off on this, to follow the example of Victor and Polycarp, and he did.

Where the heck do you get your “history” from?

 

[david_ruiz]

]Even if Huss, Wycliffe, and their comrades, a century or two earlier, advocated the same doctrines as the leaders of the “Reformation”, this is still nowhere near the earliest centuries of Christianity. If evangelical Protestantism restores the faith to its pristine form, how can it be that the ostensible forerunners of Zwingli lived in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, not the second or third?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Trebor135;8311491:

Is there something written in the wind as to when it shall come and when it shall go ? Apostolic is as apostolic does .Quantity (centuries) over quality(truth) ? Ok I will agree that the closer to the apostles the more hopeful of certainty of truth.But it is not sure fire .There were errors during their lifetime ,that did come into the church .Revelations gives indication that some error did survive. Furthermore it cuts both ways. .Like a cancer, the older the error is , the worse it is.

Again you still assume your modern protestant notions into your reading. The Nicolatians were NOT Christians. Heretics abandon Christ ever before they are excommunicated, by the very fact of their rebellion.

So you are, again, wrong. The Church, under the grace of the Holy Spirit “pruned the vine”, cut off those heretics who taught heresy. You have a great burden to prove that heretical errors remained in the Church and were taught by the Church as truth. All of the major Christological heresies were defeated by the fifth century.
david ruiz:

Most of those were not in the original 93 though ,but he was pushed Just read you said he threw out seven books of the bible. If you mean old testament books, Jerome also thought they did not belong initially, and these are not in the Hebrew bible.

Yet Jerome included them in his final list.

What is still amazing is that all of you Protetsants refer to a Jewish decree based on an elitist group of Palestinian scribes and priests after the end of the first century to substantiate your insistence on what the Bible canon is who were prejudicial against the first century Church because so many converts to Christianity were diaspora Jews who spoke Greek & used the Greek Septuagint(maybe because that is what Paul himself used to proclaim Christ?).
david ruiz:

If you mean New Testament , he has them all in the German bible . He had similar views to Jerome and Erasmus as to cannonocity .Having seen this in your list, I suppose many more need a grain of salt…Why don’t we list all the things that remained, the doctrines that stood and remained ? I believe you will find them quite fundamental ,quite Christian ,quite universal . It is these things that really what separates us from say Islam or Buddhism etc .

IOW, “lets find that ‘lowest common denominator’ and just agree to disagree”. I really can’t stand relativists…

 

[david_ruiz]

And for Luther to claim to have Scripture on his side, even though history was against him, is pretty bad reasoning

Why did the orthodox Christians give the early heretics no options other than to (1) believe in the trinity, or (2) be thrown out of the fold forever? I mean, why “have uniformity at the loss of freedom”? Did those trinitarians really have to be so intolerant?

To equate the trinity debate to reformation is not accurate .I thought a great deal of scriptural debate ,and scriptural foundation was the basis for the proper trinity doctrine, for the most part .The opposite was true for indulgences debate. Tradition /Papal decrees and councils were the primary foundation or rebuttal to Luther.

and monk who should have realized that opposing the historical faith was just a bad idea, but he didn’t care.

Now that is an subjective statement “he didn’t care”

And, of course, we can thank Luther for laying the groundwork for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

That is right .Why don’t we really get objective and go straight to the source ,it is all Eve’s fault ,well even Lucifer .The whole thing is his fault. Again, everything has repercussions. The reformation would not have had to happen if bad doctrine had not crept in the Catholic Church

But the Church didn’t officially endorse the sale of indulgences

. What do you mean ,just cause he didn’t speak ex-cathedra or something .It was fully endorsed by the pope. Follow the money, follow Tetzel and his authority leads straight to Peter’s Chair.

Corruption in the Church doesn’t mean the whole thing should be thrown overboard.

Correct,but remember they did not want to throw anything out to appease Luther .Not one drop .

And Luther didn’t get himself in trouble for merely opposing the sale of indulgences anyway.

Correct , but that is how it began, and could have finished.

No, but Christ wasn’t a pacifist. He accepted the Old Testament as divinely inspired–even though it called for the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes.

Yes in civil matters,or laws against ten commandments .He never expected both Kingdoms to be so intertwined ,his kingdom is NOT of this world.To be killed because of your faith ,your convictions -no way…(like pharises killing saducees).

And at the time of the “Reformation”, society had not succumbed to moral relativism as most have in the West today.

Yes, one evil replaced with another

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

To equate the trinity debate to reformation is not accurate .I thought a great deal of scriptural debate ,and scriptural foundation was the basis for the proper trinity doctrine, for the most part .The opposite was true for indulgences debate. Tradition /Papal decrees and councils were the primary foundation or rebuttal to Luther.

The link where I got those statements of Luther had a lot more damning material. This was an (ostensibly) well-educated priest.

We all can agree that the Church didn’t handle the indulgence thing correctly. But Luther’s response was overblown and he had no intent at any true reform. He wanted revolution and to make himself known.

Mere knowledge never guarantees truth. Luther was a boorish and overbearing blow-hard who believed that he himself knew better than all of Christendom. He had no intention of working within the Church for reform.

I have serious problems when one so “well-educated” decides for himslef to add and subtract words from his translation of the BIble as well as remove entire books because they don’t fit his theology.
david ruiz:

The reformation would not have had to happen if bad doctrine had not crept in the Catholic Church.

Indulgences are not doctrines, they are a practice. What “bad doctrine” are you referring to. What is your basis for calling it “bad doctrine”?
david ruiz:

Corect,but remeber they did not want to throw anything out to appeas Luther .Not one drop .

Your kids come to you saying, “Dad, we don’t like going to Church on Sunday, we don’t like family dinner, we don’t like mom at all. We just want to do whatever we want, OK?”

And, what, you just “appease” them? You let them have whatever they want right? Because they’re “well-educated” kids who have every right to decide on their own how to live their lives, right?

Because we don’t want to be “intolerant” to their sensibilities now, do we?

** No! You stand your ground! You tell your kids, “this is what our family is! We go to Church on Sundays, we have family dinners together as a family, and your mother is your mother and her word is as good as mine!”

Parents do for the good of the child no matter how much that child thinks he/she knows. The child submits to the parent, not the other way around!

It would be the height of absurdity for the Church to bend appease that child Luther’s rediculous claims, interpretations, and temper tantrums.**

 

[Trebor135]

Don’t know ,I suppose like the rest of us ,a bit of good ,bad ,and ugly .Only God is just good.

You conveniently fail to answer the question: what church or ecclesial community would St. Augustine join if he returned from the dead today?

So if one is wrong it is because they are being subjective.I hear that a lot ,not sure if that is the whole picture of being right or wrong.

Being right or wrong or somewhere in between is absolutist. Pointing to disagreement as evidence that no truth can be found is relativistic.

Some also say the “both” approach has some subjectivity and either /or has more absoluteness.

I see what you mean. But Catholics and Orthodox believe that an ultimate truth exists and it can be known, not that people should be left to fend for themselves and celebrate “freedom” over “uniformity” in matters of faith and morals.

I understand both sides garnish OT for support .Again ,why don’t we eat lamb , to be the real Lamb,thru transubstantiation ?

Must God implement his will exactly as you think he should so you can believe in the faith-stretching things he opts to do without a struggle?

Well others have shown that indeed the bread and wine symbolize the Spirit and the Word.

The appearance of the third person of the trinity at Christ’s baptism wasn’t symbolic; according to Luke 3:22, “the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove”.

Again ,the only ones who took it face value were the unbelievers.

Those with weak faith, perhaps, but not impostors.

I believe there are more scriptures about calling out to the Lord than there are eating Him

This doesn’t prove that Christ doesn’t want us to eat him. We read about original sin only once in the New Testament, and that’s a pretty important concept–not to mention a truth kept in reserve for the New Covenant people to learn. This doesn’t mean original sin is a false notion.

We know from scripture that Jesus spoke in parables ,and he tells us why he spoke in parables .Again , why did He wait for three days to see a sick Lazarus ? (oh the sisters murmured to His face) Why did he say you must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees ? Today’s paraphrase -“Unless your works do not exceed that of Mother Theresa or Billy Graham, you shall not be saved”.(oh this was a hard saying) . Why did he say if you are rich it is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle , than to be saved ?( Oh the rich man left sadly). Alas you must be perfect to be saved ! Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass you by. You must eat him .Oh they murmured and left him.Do you see a pattern ?

Christ wanted to test people and force them to look into things more deeply than they would otherwise. And he knew some would refuse to have their hearts melted and give his message a chance.

Thank-you for stating that .I have said it myself at times ,and heard Catholics say that .I do have one reservation though .They may have had a better understanding of it than we give them credit for ,that of a symbolic understanding.Their words and actions lean more that way than RP,but i won’t belabor that possibility.

We really can’t know, since the text isn’t clear on what the disciples thought Christ meant.

John 6; 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not”- those that were following him for worldly bread(me).

Christ elsewhere in the gospels makes it clear that one can be a true believer and fall away from the faith–e.g., John 15:1-6 (the vine and the branches) and Luke 8:4-15 (the sower and the seed).

About this passage, however, it’s difficult to say, since it’s ambiguous. Jesus was divine, so he knew future events and the thoughts and emotions of others before and while they became reality. What the passage was supposed to mean has to be investigated by reference to the original Koine Greek–the two possibilities I see are:

a) He knew they had never believed in the first place and were walking with him really for no good reason.

b) Though he knew they would believe up to the point of the discourse, he also understood that they were going to stop then because of its unusual content.

 

[david_ruiz]

You asked for a 100-AD teaching from a ECF expecting one not to exist, then when its supplied, you propose a laughable response?

 

[david_ruiz]

Actually the unbelievers left because they knew it was literal and they were disgusted. Did Christ stop them to explain?

If you read John 6 - Christ re-iterates the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood about 5 times to make sure that the listeners get it alright.

At the first mention there was already murmuring among His disciples. But instead of softening His language He hardens it. He makes it even more unpalatable. Here’s the chance to say “I mean this symbolically” but instead, 4 times He hammers it, with the words becoming more graphic.

Mind you these are His disciples not just on-lookers These are people who would have seen him perform miracles, heard him speak so they know when He was being symbolic and when He was being literal. So they knew He meant exactly what they thought He meant. So they left.

Did He stop them? No. Did He explain that it was symbolic? No. All He had to do was explain that He was speaking figuratively and He didn’t.

The apostles felt exactly the same as those who left. And notice, He did not even explain it to the apostles even. All He said is “Will you leave too?”. Fr Barron refers to that as the most plaintive verse in the Gospel. Here is God asking His disciples would they leave too because of what He has said.

The apostles did not know what to say and even Peter’s answer was more an affirmation of faith in Him rather than a comprehension of how this is to happen.

Those who remained with the apostles are the ones who continued the practice of the Eucharist. Those who separated from the apostles (1500 years later) are the ones who like the other disciples, walked away because they didn’t understand it and could not accept Jesus words in faith.

So yes, you are the one who walked away from Jesus at the point when He was promising the greatest gift He will give His followers.

But you know what, I don’t think you will even bother to read that thoroughly to absorb it, becuase at the end of the day, you are not really interested in the truth.

Thank-you for admitting the apostles did not fully understand ,leaving the possibility for both RP AND symbolism .Peter’s “where shall we go” is very weak , but "You have the words of eternal life " may be a key to figurative acceptance ,Words =eating Him , for both somehow give/lead to eternal life.

 

[Trebor135]

Is there something written in the wind as to when it shall come and when it shall go ?

Where in the Bible do we find prophecies of a figure like Martin Luther arising fifteen centuries after Christ to start things over from scratch, introducing new doctrines–such as sola fide–that no one had ever heard of before?

I mean, if you’re going to believe in sola scriptura and Protestant proclamations to having God on the side of the “Reformers”, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find me such prophecies. Chapter and verse.

Apostolic is as apostolic does .Quantity (centuries) over quality(truth) ? Ok I will agree that the closer to the apostles the more hopeful of certainty of truth.But it is not sure fire .There were errors during their lifetime ,that did come into the church .Revelations gives indication that some error did survive.

But not that it became incorporated into the teaching of the official, visible, authoritative church. How do you know that Revelation belongs in the New Testament? It’s a pretty strange book, after all, and Martin Luther wasn’t a fan.

Furthermore it cuts both ways. .Like a cancer, the older the error is , the worse it is.

You assume that sola fide is apostolic. The only way to prove this is to cite early Christian writers teaching this doctrine–which you of course can’t do.

Most of those were not in the original 93 though ,but he was pushed

I’d like you to prove that Luther was motivated by the issue of indulgences to proclaim as gospel truth the fifty significant alterations to the faith I cited earlier in the thread.

Just read you said he threw out seven books of the bible. If you mean old testament books, Jerome also thought they did not belong initially, and these are not in the Hebrew bible. If you mean New Testament , he has them all in the German bible . He had similar views to Jerome and Erasmus as to cannonocity .

The opinions of St. Jerome or Erasmus prove nothing. Those two weren’t going to run off and start a new church if their opinions were shot down.

Having seen this in your list, I suppose many more need a grain of salt…Why don’t we list all the things that remained, the doctrines that stood and remained ? I believe you will find them quite fundamental ,quite Christian ,quite universal . It is these things that really what separates us from say Islam or Buddhism etc .

1a) Why settle for some of the truth when you can have all of it?
1b) Where does the Bible advocate this way of thinking?

2a) Why claim the trinity and the deity of Christ as “fundamental” doctrines, but relegate baptismal regeneration and infant baptism to secondary status?
2b) Where is the list in the Bible of those doctrines which are “fundamental” and those which are secondary?

 

[david_ruiz]

How do you know that “uniformity” on doctrine isn’t “worth it” or “part of God’s desire”?

 

[david_ruiz]

Where in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence of the United States do we find anything about Green Cards, taking classes for citizenship and swearing allegiance to the United States in order to become a citizen?

Don’t know ,but for sure our communion practices and baptismal practicess are based on DIRECT scriptural foundation .It is not like our constitution which has NO mention of green card.

 

[david_ruiz]

To david ruiz, or Radical, or anyone else who disbelieves:

Did Jesus give us His real flesh or symbolic flesh on the cross for the life of the world?

As there was real flesh with the lamb at passover ,(and bread and drink),Christ came in the flesh and hung on the cross. He gave us bread and drink (not flesh) to commemorate.