The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

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?

Does it have to be prophesied ? Chapter and verse please ?

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.

“It is good for one who has been instructed in the ways of the Lord , AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, to do them” -Barnabus i think .Augustine talks of the “surpassing authority” of Holy Writ.

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.

Show me how many of your fifty are in his 93.

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.

Yes ,sad ,they caved in, but they were well respected and famous.

1

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

Where does it say you must believe in all things Catholic ,if not you are not Christian ? Are you denying there is a core to our faith ? Did not Paul tell us not to vainly dispute .“Thou shalt not make a schism ,but thou shall PACIFY them that contend”, Didache 4:3 . Well maybe Luther was a bad boy, but he was certainly not pacified, on the contrary (thankfully so).

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?

i am tired ,and that is another topic.

 

[lyrikal]

“It is good for one who has been instructed in the ways of the Lord , AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, to do them” -Barnabus i think .Augustine talks of the “surpassing authority” of Holy Writ.

Hi David,

That is the third time you bring up Augustine and Barnabus when trying to argue that the Early Church believed in Sola Scriptura. I have already given you a reply to those claims in Post #456 and Post #457. Since this is off topic and it is something that we have been warned about by the mods earlier, I would suggest you start a new topic and give an answer to the replies if you want. If you’d like, I can start those threads and we can talk about it in more detail. Let me know if you’re interested and I’ll go ahead and start it.

Thank you, brother.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ok ,how did Eusubius make 50 bible s for Constantine BEFORE any cannonozing council ?

David, if this was true, and truly what God had wished, there would be one Catholic
Bible and 33,000 other versions of Protestant Bibles. In essence, you are advocating for massive confusion. There is confusion already out there with the protestant denominations, and their different beliefs…and now, you will include confusion about the canon of the Bible…

No, i am saying it is quite a miracle that we have the bible,.maybe only two ,yours and mine ,there are not 30000 ,at least not yet .

[/QUOTE]

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

That is the third time you bring up Augustine and Barnabus when trying to argue that the Early Church believed in Sola Scriptura. I have already given you a reply to those claims in Post #456 and Post #457. Since this is off topic and it is something that we have been warned about by the mods earlier, I would suggest you start a new topic and give an answer to the replies if you want. If you’d like, I can start those threads and we can talk about it in more detail. Let me know if you’re interested and I’ll go ahead and start it.

Thank you, brother.

Thanks ,but not at this point.(Ive just spent hours on here).

 

[lyrikal]

Thanks ,but not at this point.(Ive just spent hours on here).

Completely understandable. I would kindly ask you to not use St. Augustine and Barnabus as two Early Church Fathers who believed in Sola Scriptura. You seem to be someone who is sincere and a lover of truth. We don’t want to lead people into thinking in something as false as St. Augustine and Barnabus holding to a Sola Scriptura doctrine. Until you have proved this, I kindly ask you to leave that claim alone please.

I believe I have proved otherwise and I did this by showing numerous quotes from St. Augustine showing that he clearly believed in the Authority of the Catholic Church and in the Authority of Tradition as well as the Authority of the Holy Scriptures. All three not just one.

Peace.

 

[david_ruiz]

Completely understandable. I would kindly ask you to not use St. Augustine and Barnabus as two Early Church Fathers who believed in Sola Scriptura. You seem to be someone who is sincere and a lover of truth. We don’t want to lead people into thinking in something as false as St. Augustine and Barnabus holding to a Sola Scriptura doctrine. Until you have proved this, I kindly ask you to leave that claim alone please.

I believe I have proved otherwise and I did this by showing numerous quotes from St. Augustine showing that he clearly believed in the Authority of the Catholic Church and in the Authority of Tradition as well as the Authority of the Holy Scriptures. All three not just one.

Peace.

ok. I do recaal your Augustine quotes .Don’t remeber what you said about Barnabus.

 

[lyrikal]

ok. I do recaal your Augustine quotes .Don’t remeber what you said about Barnabus.

The quote from Barnabus does not teach Sola Scriptura it only teaches that Scripture is authoritative. It doesn’t mean that it’s the only authoritative source. Barnabus does not say that the Scriptures are the only source that we’re to walk in.

God bless.

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical, With that mindset, then we would have to also admit that Jesus is not God.

no, not at all…how would relying on what our senses reveal to us require us to admit that Jesus isn’t God?

A Jew can use this argument against our belief of the Divinity of Christ. He/she could say:

God is spirit, He is eternal so He cannot be born, He doesn’t eat, drink, cry, have emotions the way we understand emotions, and does not have a human form.

what makes something bread, or human or divine is the qualities that the thing possesses. The two “arguments” are very different and could be summarized as:

a) one is an observation that, according to what we sense, bread (and not flesh) is present…this is how we normally determine things in our day to day experiences

b) the other is an argument that declares that a divine being can’t possess certain qualities (so as to deny the divinity of Christ) …the reality of what is sensed is not in question

You may reply with: Yes but the bread hasn’t done anything miraculous for me to believe that it is anything more than just bread. Jesus has done miracles and has risen from the dead which would tell me that He is more than just a human being.
And I would reply with the following: Yes, but when Christ was in the womb of Mary for 9 months, did He perform any miracles in there that we can examine? Let’s even take it further…When Christ in Mary’s womb the very first second and was microscopic, was there anything about Him that would have convinced you that He is God in the womb? If not, does that take away from the fact that He was actually God in the womb?

well, apart from the testimony from angels we wouldn’t have much at that time to counter the “Jesus isn’t divine argument”…it wouldn’t subtract from his divinity, but ours would be a position based on a blind leap of faith…and I guess that is why the Father validated Jesus’s words with miracle after miracle and why the Father just didn’t leave it at that…nor did God ever require that we disregard our senses wrt this issue. On the contrary, when Thomas expressed his doubts, Jesus invited Thomas to use his senses of sight and touch to verify the reality of the resurrected body. In contrast, when the modern day Thomas expresses doubts about the reality of the real bodily presence, he is invited to ignore his senses and rely on a particular (entirely unwarranted IMHO) interpretation of scripture and Greek philosophy.

We can take it further and say that Angels are pure spirit. If so, then how come we see Angels in the Bible taking on a human form? Wouldn’t that imply that an Angel became human for a time, as far as appearance goes?

again, it is two very different things. In one case it is something w/o a material form taking on a material form (all according to what we sense). In the other case, a thing with a material form is said to be present with the “wrong” material form present (in contradiction to what we sense).

If that is possible, then can’t God take on a form of bread and wine?

If God can take the form of a burning bush, he could take the form of bread…in the first case we would say that God is present in the form of a burning bush (not that the burning bush has ceased to be present and that God is bodily present under/behind the accidents of a burning bush).

To God, a piece of bread is just as infinitely less than Him as a human being is.

what unit of measurement are you using for “infinitely less”…if one used that unit of measurement, would it be fair to say that b/c man is made in the image of God, a human being is infinitely closer to God than a piece of bread?

There is nothing that is more equal to God than something else.

so the “image of God” bit does nothing?

So, we believe that the bread is His Body because He said “This is my body” just as we believe that He (God) took on a human form because He said that He is the “I AM” multiple times.

not the same thing at all and the difference is why most Protestants and a good percentage of Catholics deny a RBP, but accept the divinity of Christ. …one claim was supported by observable miracles from Christ himself…the other claim is supported by greek philosophy. One claim asks those who are present to disregard their senses and accept a claim that a miracle has happened…the other claim asked those present to use their senses to note the miracles and then decide what those miracles would establish.

I acknowledge that the Incarnation is a different idea from the RBP of Christ…

good, tell GreyPilgrim that…it seems that he might equate the two

This still doesn’t help your “examination of bread to be just bread” argument valid.

the argument …er rather observation doesn’t need a lot of help…I don’t begin my day trying to convince myself that my cereal bowl is actually my cereal bowl, or that the milk that I pour into my cereal bowl is actually milk…all these things are self evident. I mean really, if you are going to claim that the bread (a physical thing) has been transformed into Christ’s body (another physical thing), then the bread should (at least) not be physically present any longer (but it is) and the body should be physically present (which it isn’t). This isn’t something that is self evident based on questionable assumptions…this is something that is self evident based on how normal people think and act in order to function each and every minute of their conscious existence(s). The apostles followed Christ b/c of what the saw and heard (not despite what they saw and touched).

God bless

 

[CopticChristian]

no, not at all…how would relying on what our senses reveal to us require us to admit that Jesus isn’t God?
The apostles followed Christ b/c of what the saw and heard (not despite what they saw and touched).

God bless

So if we follow the thinking of Tertullian,

Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.

Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being dsitinct from the body. Tertullian makes a very clear distinction with the symbolic bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand.

…continuing with chapter 40:
An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …

Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.

…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively.

From On the Resurrection of the Flesh:
C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.

Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”

You would conclude, similar to Zwingli that the Eucharist is symbolic and you deny the real presence based on your reading of one ECF alone. Is that correct?

 

[david_ruiz]

The quote from Barnabus does not teach Sola Scriptura it only teaches that Scripture is authoritative. It doesn’t mean that it’s the only authoritative source. Barnabus does not say that the Scriptures are the only source that we’re to walk in.

God bless.

Yes ,I reread it.Read your Augustine quotes again .very powerful .Definitely not a strict Lutheran sola scriptura .I have also said I am not either .That is I believe in magisteium ,and teachers /elders/presbyters,and tradition,BUT they are subject to Holy Writ. The ideal is that they are all on par ,in harmony with scripture.Now how we get there is another topic.As one reads Augustine ,he just might agree with that assessment. That is ,I see in Augustine an underlying proclamation of the inerrancy and authority of scripture, with the assumption that the apostles and the church ,and tradition saw it that way too,and would do nothing "unscriptural ". After all ,the apostles wrote much of the Scripture. So of course if an apostle had a tradition ,or if the Church made a ruling ,it would be scriptural .I see Augustine fully believing that. There was also only a few traditions that were assumed apostolic , like commemorations and feast days , and the “Church” could be relied upon for correct punctuation and pronounciation of scripture. Also he only had one or two councils to refer to. So,while Augustine was not s strict SS, I do not think he would allow other "authorities "to stray too far from scripture ,if at all (I do believe he compromised on this with his going along with what was handed to him about Mary being sinless- he admitted it was not scriptural). I believe by the time we get to Luther, he had to hyper accentuate the authority of scriptures, that is downplay councils and tradition,and “Church”. You had many, many more decrees and traditions and some even contradicted one another. Certainly something Augustine did not have to contend with.I believe Luther only wanted what Augustine assumed to be true ,that all Christian authority was in true harmony with scripture.That is that the Church and it’s traditions,and decrees would be in harmony with Scripture.

 

[david_ruiz]

Brother David,

I am not sure if the issue with the Eucharist being the new Passover is something you should take up with Catholics. I think it is an issue that you should take up with Jesus. He is the one who instituted it that way and we follow. Follow my logic here:

A.) Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29)
A.) The Passover lamb in the OT was done for the forgiveness of sins.

B.) Jesus took bread and said “This is my Body” and took wine and said “This is my blood.”
B.) The Passover lamb in the OT was not done when the lamb was slaughtered. They had to literally eat it (not symbolically).

C.) Since Jesus is the Lamb of God for the world now and this same Lamb of God takes bread and says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” and then tells us to “take and eat” and “take and drink…” then it is safe to assume that what we are eating and drinking is the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Your statement that you made would have been valid if Jesus took the bread and said “This is my body but you don’t need to eat it…” You would then have a valid argument in saying that the bread and wine does not mean it is the new Passover meal. But since He told us to EAT it and DRINK it, then the bread and wine (Body and Blood) are CLEARLY the NEW Lamb of God that we are to eat after He has been “slaughtered” (crucified).

Now, let’s dig deeper into the Scriptures and see if the Bible calls the Eucharist a passover meal. Let’s go to 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
[8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

That sounds VERY Catholic and also sounds like he is arguing against your point. Look closely at what St. Paul is saying. He calls Jesus “our PASCHAL LAMB” and says that He “has been sacrificed.” What does that remind you of? The Passover where the lamb was sacrificed, right? What did they do after the lamb was sacrificed? Symbolically eat it? No, they literally ate it.

Now, verse 8 which makes my point very nicely. What do you think St. Paul meant when he said “Let us, therefore, CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL…” What Festival is he talking about? Is he talking about the old Passover? If so, does your church celebrate the old Passover still? It can’t be about the old Passover because Christians no longer celebrated the old Passover. So what is he talking about? He is talking about the NEW PASSOVER. The word festival means that there is something that is eaten during the celebration. What do you think they were eating? The new Passover festival is the eating of the new Lamb of God, the Paschal Lamb.

The Greek word festival that St. Paul uses is ἑορτάζω (heortazō) which has its roots from the Greek word ἑορτή (heortē). The latter word is used to describe the Passover meal. Notice the language of leavened and unleavened bread and compare it with the following verse:

Luke.22
[1] Now the **feast **(ἑορτή heortē) of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.

I challenge you to do a word search for ἑορτή to see how it is used in the New Testament. It is almost always used in reference to the Passover.

So my question to you is, what Passover is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8? Please do remember that a few chapters later in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Saint Paul starts talking about a meal. Guess what that meal is? The Eucharist.

God Bless you brother.

Understand .Still confusing cause they literally ate the lamb in the old testament ,and it was symbolic of Christ.Why can’t we literally eat the bread , being symbolic of Christ ? You have not answered my question as to why we don’t literally eat lamb like the OT? So the Lamb is symbolized in the bread ,which is really His flesh ? Do I have it right ? Was the lamb symbolized in the bread in the OT ?.. Would I be wrong that Jesus used bread to symbolize himself, to differentiate from the literal eating of flesh (lamb) in the OT ?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Understand .Still confusing cause they literally ate the lamb in the old testament ,and it was symbolic of Christ.Why can’t we literally eat the bread , being symbolic of Christ ? You have not answered my question as to why we don’t literally eat lamb like the OT? So the Lamb is symbolized in the bread ,which is really His flesh ? Do I have it right ? Was the lamb symbolized in the bread in the OT ?.. Would I be wrong that Jesus used bread to symbolize himself, to differentiate from the literal eating of flesh (lamb) in the OT ?

Christ Crucified has become your stumbling block. The OT lamb passover was a life and blood sacrificed, the blood placed upon the dwelling and the lamb consumed so that death would “passover” them. This pefigured (forshadowed) the fulfillment (revelation) of Jesus being the True lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. By being lifted up “crucified”, in order for eternal life to be given through this salvific act of God incarnate, the saved must "consume the lamb of God’s flesh and drink His blood “in order to have eternal life”. This commandment to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” does not come from man but from God.

The lamb of God is never symbolized in the bread, you have it wrong. The bread at the Words of God become the body of Christ. A symbolic lamb in bread can never bring salvation to humanity. The law required a life not a symbolic life to bring us salvation. This Christ crucified, made present before every age in the “do this in memory of me” until Christ returns for His bride the Catholic Church.

The scriptures and the Catholic Church have always “preached and lived Christ Crucified” in the True presence of His body, blood soul and divinity in His Eucharist.

Your interpretation of a “symbolic Christ Crucified” can never hold up to sacred scripture nor sacred Tradition from the apostles.

Your symbolic Christ Crucified does not and can never bring salvation to every age. only a True bodily, blood presence of Christ Crucified can bring salvation to every age until the end of time.

The law demands a real life (presence) for the forgiveness of sins, a symbolic (Jesus) life can never suffice the law demands of a life in order to bring humanity salvation.

Preaching Christ crucifed 2000 years ago only to recall this event from what is written without living it; does not suffice nor bring to the present and future generations that “When you see the son of man lifted up… then you will know that IAM”. A symbolic piece of bread cannot and will never be able to know that “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself” Jn 12:32 .

Do you think you can live the scriptures as handed down to us from Jesus and His apostles with a real piece of bread and not a True body and blood presence of Jesus Christ Crucified in His Eucharist?

Then I have a question for you? How can a piece of bread save you? Paul and the ECF’s speak that a “death” is placed on those who refuse the Eucharist and do not discern the true body and blood of Jesus in the cup of blessing and the true bread from heaven, which gives us “eternal life”, this is eating the “real” lamb of God who takes away the sin of world.

 

[lyrikal]

no, not at all…how would relying on what our senses reveal to us require us to admit that Jesus isn’t God?
what makes something bread, or human or divine is the qualities that the thing possesses. The two “arguments” are very different and could be summarized as:

a) one is an observation that, according to what we sense, bread (and not flesh) is present…this is how we normally determine things in our day to day experiences

b) the other is an argument that declares that a divine being can’t possess certain qualities (so as to deny the divinity of Christ) …the reality of what is sensed is not in question…

Hi Radical,

I’m sorry but your argument or observation is still not consistent. Your logic is as follows:

If it is bread, then it can’t be a body therefore it is nothing but bread.

Well my reply would be to apply that to Jesus as follows:

If He is a human being then He can’t be God because God is Spirit and does not have a form nor a body.

Therefore, to conclude that the bread is not a body based on senses alone would force me to conclude that Jesus is not God based on senses alone. God is not supposed to be touched as physical matter is and yet Jesus (who is God) had flesh and can be touched.

You mentioned the story of St. Thomas professing Jesus to be Lord and God when he saw Jesus resurrected. I can show you a similar story where two people’s eyes were opened in the breaking of the bread.

[13] That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma’us, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
[14] and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
[15] While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.
[16] But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
[17] And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.
[18] Then one of them, named Cle’opas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
[19] And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
[20] and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
[21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.
[22] Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
[23] and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
[24] Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.”
[25] And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
[28]So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,
[29] but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them.
[30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
[32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
[34] who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, **and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. **

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi David,

Understand .Still confusing cause they literally ate the lamb in the old testament ,and it was symbolic of Christ.Why can’t we literally eat the bread , being symbolic of Christ ?

Because the Bible doesn’t say that we symbolically eat Christ.

You have not answered my question as to why we don’t literally eat lamb like the OT?

Yes I have. I gave you a passage from St. Paul that told us that we must keep the Passover. The Passover requires a feast of eating. What are we eating? The Paschal Lamb Jesus. Is it an eating of lamb? No, it is bread and wine. Why? Because that’s how Jesus instituted it. You need to take it up with Jesus, not us. We just follow it. He said “This is my Body…This is my Blood” and told us to “eat it and drink of it” and since He is the Lamb of God then we understand that we are eating the Lamb of God in a way that He instituted it. I don’t see how your argument is valid since it is going against St. Paul and Jesus. I am just telling you what the Bible teaches. There is no verse in the Bible that says that we are symbolically eating the Lamb when we eat the Eucharistic meal.

So the Lamb is symbolized in the bread ,which is really His flesh ? Do I have it right ?

The word symbolized is never used in the Bible when discussing the Last Supper and what Jesus instituted. But, I know what you mean by your question and I will answer “yes the Lamb is symbolized in the bread” if we understand what we mean by symbolized. I don’t mean that it is merely a symbol. It is really His flesh because He said “This IS my body” not “This symbolizes my body.”

Was the lamb symbolized in the bread in the OT ?..

No, the lamb was not symbolized in the bread in the OT.

Would I be wrong that Jesus used bread to symbolize himself, to differentiate from the literal eating of flesh (lamb) in the OT ?

Yes you would be wrong. Here is why.

A.) Jesus is the Lamb of God
B.) The Lamb of God took bread and said “This is my Body.”
C.) The bread is now His Body.
D.) The OT Passover Lamb was not completed until it was eaten.
E.) Jesus says “Take and EAT…”
F.) When we eat the bread, we are eating the Body of Christ which is the Lamb of God.
G.) The only way the Passover can be completed is when the Lamb has been eaten not just sacrificed. It was literally eaten.
H.) We eat our Paschal Lamb Jesus to complete the New Passover.

I would suggest you read my whole blog because when I get to John 6, I deal with a lot of these things. I know the blog is very long but perhaps you can read it in a matter of a few days.

I hope I’ve helped in answering your questions.

God bless you, brother.

 

[lyrikal]

Yes ,I reread it.Read your Augustine quotes again .very powerful .Definitely not a strict Lutheran sola scriptura .I have also said I am not either .That is I believe in magisteium ,and teachers /elders/presbyters,and tradition,BUT they are subject to Holy Writ. The ideal is that they are all on par ,in harmony with scripture.Now how we get there is another topic.As one reads Augustine ,he just might agree with that assessment. That is ,I see in Augustine an underlying proclamation of the inerrancy and authority of scripture, with the assumption that the apostles and the church ,and tradition saw it that way too,and would do nothing "unscriptural ". After all ,the apostles wrote much of the Scripture. So of course if an apostle had a tradition ,or if the Church made a ruling ,it would be scriptural .I see Augustine fully believing that. There was also only a few traditions that were assumed apostolic , like commemorations and feast days , and the “Church” could be relied upon for correct punctuation and pronounciation of scripture. Also he only had one or two councils to refer to. So,while Augustine was not s strict SS, I do not think he would allow other "authorities "to stray too far from scripture ,if at all (I do believe he compromised on this with his going along with what was handed to him about Mary being sinless- he admitted it was not scriptural). I believe by the time we get to Luther, he had to hyper accentuate the authority of scriptures, that is downplay councils and tradition,and “Church”. You had many, many more decrees and traditions and some even contradicted one another. Certainly something Augustine did not have to contend with.I believe Luther only wanted what Augustine assumed to be true ,that all Christian authority was in true harmony with scripture.That is that the Church and it’s traditions,and decrees would be in harmony with Scripture.

Hi David,

There is more to Saint Augustine’s beliefs about Tradition and about the Authority of the Church than what you stated above. To Augustine, Tradition and Church Authority do NOT have to answer to the Bible. Tradition and the Scriptures are equal in authority. Tradition doesn’t answer to the Bible and the Bible doesn’t answer to Tradition. If Tradition is the Word of God, then why would it need to answer to the Bible? How can the Word of God answer to the Word of God? Do we expect 1 Corinthians to answer to 2 Peter? No. They are equal in authority. Tradition is the Word of God passed down orally and this is what St. Augustine believed. The Church is magesterium that has the Authority (guided by the Holy Spirit) to interpret the Scriptures and Tradition for us.

St. Augustine believed that the Tradition of the Church is a lot more than just customs. Without the Tradition, there would be no Bible since it was Tradition and the Church that put the Canon of the Bible together. They all work in harmony, not opposed from each other.

Your view of the Bible is not the same as what St. Augustine believed or as what the Catholic Church believes (although it is closer than some Protestants).

You said you believe in Tradition and Church Authority as long as those two are in par with the Scriptures and agree. I would disagree with this statement. I would agree that Tradition and Church Authority CANNOT contradict the Bible but I don’t agree that they HAVE TO AGREE with the Bible. Here is an example:

A.) The New Testament has a set of 27 books.
B.) There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us what books should be in the Bible.
C.) We know what books are to be in the Bible because of Tradition and Church Authority (as guided by the Holy Spirit).
D.) Therefore, Tradition has additional teachings that are not found in the Bible that do NOT contradict the Bible but are still additional.

I hope we can end this discussion about Sola Scriptura because it is off topic. I’d love to start a new thread and discuss it in more detail. I would really love to hear your thoughts about it. Would it be ok if I started a thread so you can have an opportunity to reply to what I stated above?

Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

no, not at all…how would relying on what our senses reveal to us require us to admit that Jesus isn’t God?

Because God is spirit and Jesus has a human flesh.

what makes something bread, or human or divine is the qualities that the thing possesses. The two “arguments” are very different and could be summarized as:

No they’re not.

a) one is an observation that, according to what we sense, bread (and not flesh) is present…this is how we normally determine things in our day to day experiences

Alright. Then I can say the same thing. According to what we sense, flesh of a human being (and not God) is present.

Day to day experiences? I do believe we are dealing with the Scriptures here. Things happen in the Scriptures that don’t normally happen in our day to day experiences. People are healed from the diseases, their blindness and defness, a man is raised from the dead after 3 days in a tomb, things are created by a simple utterance of a Word from God, etc. Let’s be serious here. We’re dealing with God who can do all things. We’re not dealing with day to day experiences of things. The way we deal with things in our day to day experiences would suggest that Jesus did not rise from the dead because we don’t normally experience these things on a day to day basis.

b) the other is an argument that declares that a divine being can’t possess certain qualities (so as to deny the divinity of Christ) …the reality of what is sensed is not in question

You won’t go as far as saying that a Divine Being can’t posses certain qualities and come to the conclusion that God can become man. Who are we to tell God His limits? Seriously? What are you saying here? That if God wanted to transform bread and wine into His Body and Blood and leave the accidents as bread and wine, that He couldn’t do it? Says who? You are putting God in a box and saying “Lord, you are unable to do this because I don’t see how it is possible so I can’t accept it.”

I do believe He can transform bread and wine into His Body and His Blood without changing the appearance of the bread and wine. As ridiculous as that may sound to you, a Muslim or a Jew can rightly claim your faith in the incarnation to be just as ridiculous. The God incarnate Doctrine isn’t really something that is easy to fathom or believe.

well, apart from the testimony from angels we wouldn’t have much at that time to counter the “Jesus isn’t divine argument”…it wouldn’t subtract from his divinity, but ours would be a position based on a blind leap of faith…and I guess that is why the Father validated Jesus’s words with miracle after miracle and why the Father just didn’t leave it at that…nor did God ever require that we disregard our senses wrt this issue. On the contrary, when Thomas expressed his doubts, Jesus invited Thomas to use his senses of sight and touch to verify the reality of the resurrected body. In contrast, when the modern day Thomas expresses doubts about the reality of the real bodily presence, he is invited to ignore his senses and rely on a particular (entirely unwarranted IMHO) interpretation of scripture and Greek philosophy.

You keep assuming that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist derived from Greek Philosophy. Are you aware that there are people who would tell you that your Christian beliefs and Christianity as a whole has its roots in Greek Philosophy? Here are some sites to name some:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=10&id=220
bibleanswerstand.org/philosophy.htm#_Pagan_deities_and
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/hellenisticculture.html
bahaifaith.net/world-religions/christianity/the-influence-of-the-greek-philosophy-and-religion-upon-christianity/
sguthrie.net/greekchristian.htm

"University of Cambridge professor Christopher Stead argues in his book Philosophy in Christian Antiquity that Christianity was indeed influenced by a panoply of Greek philosophy, including Plato. He begins with the observation that Plato’s “most distinctive doctrine was his theory of Forms or ‘Ideas’, by which he meant, not ‘thoughts,’ as we now understand the word, but eternal objective realities which make up an intelligible system or world.”

You can read these websites and conclude that it is all bogus and only take the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist as truly an influence of Greek Philosophy. Are you aware of Isis, Serapis, and Cybele? Some claim that the idea of the Trinity was influenced by such gods. You and I both know how ridiculous that is. Yet, you would agree with these same people in saying the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist had its influence from GP. You are really on their side of the argument when it agrees with what you believe and when they say something that disagrees with your beliefs then you disagree with them.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

again, it is two very different things. In one case it is something w/o a material form taking on a material form (all according to what we sense). In the other case, a thing with a material form is said to be present with the “wrong” material form present (in contradiction to what we sense).

It is not two very different things. This is about the senses. When I see a human being, I cannot sense that He is God, but only a human being. You can word it anyway you’d like but you can’t dodge that statement. You don’t go around wondering which human being is God and which is not. You won’t find such things here on earth.

It doesn’t matter if it is two material things or one material and one non-material. The bottom line is, they are both against what we normally sense in our day to day experiences. Yet, I believe in both (even though they both go against my senses) and you believe in only one of them and think that yours is more logical. They are both difficult to fathom.

It doesn’t take Greek Philosophy for me to see God taking BREAD and saying “This is MY BODY” to understand that, that bread is no longer bread but it is His Body because He said so. I am not saying that this is something you are to accept based on what I am observing. I am saying that this is something that doesn’t require philosophy. The Evangelists call it Bread at one point and then Jesus says it is His Body.

Let me give you an example:

I own a clock. I drop this clock on the floor. The clock no longer works. I now use this clock for something else. I place it on top of my paper files so that the files do not fly away from a ceiling fan that I have on. Question: Is it still a clock? Yes. Is it now something else to ME? Yes, it is a paper holder. It has completely changed in what it does without changing in how it appears.

If God can take the form of a burning bush, he could take the form of bread…in the first case we would say that God is present in the form of a burning bush (not that the burning bush has ceased to be present and that God is bodily present under/behind the accidents of a burning bush).

So, what you’re basically saying is that God can’t do it (Catholic Eucharist) because you don’t think He can.

what unit of measurement are you using for “infinitely less”…if one used that unit of measurement, would it be fair to say that b/c man is made in the image of God, a human being is infinitely closer to God than a piece of bread?
so the “image of God” bit does nothing?

The “image of God” bit tells me that God loves humans more than a piece of bread. It doesn’t tell me that we are closer to God than a piece of bread is. Example:

I am a human being and I own a computer and a paper clip. The computer is more dear to me because it means more to me than a paper clip. Yet, I don’t consider the computer to be more equal to me than the paper clip. They are both mere objects to me.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

not the same thing at all and the difference is why most Protestants and a good percentage of Catholics deny a RBP, but accept the divinity of Christ. …one claim was supported by observable miracles from Christ himself…the other claim is supported by greek philosophy. One claim asks those who are present to disregard their senses and accept a claim that a miracle has happened…the other claim asked those present to use their senses to note the miracles and then decide what those miracles would establish.

Prophets performed miracles. With your logic, prophets are Gods. You also reject the miracles of the Eucharist. If those miracles really are bogus, then why can’t intelligent scientists explain them away? Why do they study them and can’t explain them away? Do you really think it’s as easy as you make it? This reminds me of:

[35] And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!”
[36] The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar,
[37] **and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” **

and

[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
[47] And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man is calling Eli’jah.”
[48] And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink.
[49] But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli’jah will come to save him."
[50] And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

You want to test the miracles to see if Jesus’ words of “This is my Body” are true the same way those people back then wanted to test Jesus’ Words of being the Son of God. Is that also different?

the argument …er rather observation doesn’t need a lot of help…I don’t begin my day trying to convince myself that my cereal bowl is actually my cereal bowl, or that the milk that I pour into my cereal bowl is actually milk…all these things are self evident. I mean really, if you are going to claim that the bread (a physical thing) has been transformed into Christ’s body (another physical thing), then the bread should (at least) not be physically present any longer (but it is) and the body should be physically present (which it isn’t). This isn’t something that is self evident based on questionable assumptions…this is something that is self evident based on how normal people think and act in order to function each and every minute of their conscious existence(s). The apostles followed Christ b/c of what the saw and heard (not despite what they saw and touched).

How about we think about this for a second. You expect this bread and wine to transform into actual body and blood. If God were to do it that way, we would be literally eating a piece of flesh and drinking literal blood. Would you prefer it to be done that way? Also, if God chose to do it that way, that would take away faith, wouldn’t it? We would have living proof of the existence of God and specifically the Christian God. Where would faith come into play? If Christ wanted us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, how would you want Him to have done it? You offer a problem to the Catholic understanding but you fail to give a solution. Please do not reply with “I don’t think God would want us to do it at all.” My challenge to you would be: IF (notice the IF) God wanted us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, how would you expect Him to do it? How would you want Him to do it without negating faith and at the same time eating the actual Body and drinking the actual Blood of Christ?

God bless

God bless you too, brother.

 

[lyrikal]

2:00 AM. Time for bed!

 

[choliks]

On the contrary, when Thomas expressed his doubts, Jesus invited Thomas to use his senses of sight and touch to verify the reality of the resurrected body.

Just a quick jab at this…

Didn’t Jesus also say afterward…

[SIGN]“Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have NOT seen, and have believed.”[/SIGN]

God bless.