The Universal Church

[mcq72]

I’d say it looks like Nicodemus got directly involved in the beginning ,

John, xix, 39 , where he is shown cooperating with Joseph of Arimathea in the embalming and burial of Jesus.

Amen, looks like Nicodemus had an encounter with Jesus Christ fully as his Savior, and was born again and granted faith, somewhere between John 3 and John 19…
…Jesus was bold enough not to assume Nicodemus the religious rabbi and leader was regenerated in spirit and called him out on it .

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’d say it looks like Nicodemus got directly involved in the beginning ,

John, xix, 39 , where he is shown cooperating with Joseph of Arimathea in the embalming and burial of Jesus.

Amen, looks like Nicodemus had an encounter with Jesus Christ fully as his Savior, and was born again and granted faith, somewhere between John 3 and John 19…
…Jesus was bold enough not to assume Nicodemus the religious rabbi and leader was regenerated in spirit and called him out on it .

What exactly are you saying?

 

[mcq72]

What exactly are you saying?

That Jesus dared tell Nicodemus, a rabbi, that he needed to be saved, that he needed to be born again, receive and believe the gospel.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What exactly are you saying?

That Jesus dared tell Nicodemus, a rabbi, that he needed to be saved, that he needed to be born again, receive and believe the gospel.

dared tell?

Howz what He said to Nicodemus that different from what He said to everyone He talked to?

 

[mcq72]

Howz what He said to Nicodemus that different from what He said to everyone He talked to?

It is not what He said but who He said it to that is a bit “different”.

The dare is not on Jesus’s part but my reaction as a viewer.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Howz what He said to Nicodemus that different from what He said to everyone He talked to?

It is not what He said but who He said it to that is a bit “different”.

The dare is not on Jesus’s part but my reaction as a viewer.

thanks for the explanation,

 

[Nicene]

Actually none of them took it as symbolic, the evidence is in fact overwhelming. Though I have seen non catholics attempt to purposefully misrepresent them such as Augustine and Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus. I don’t see the need to mock someone by laughing at them when they are correct. Is your position that weak?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

This is a modern belief system, i.e. man made. Biblically Anamnesis and Mnmesynon mean to recall by making present. The cooresponding terms in Hebrew are zikkaron and askerah. This isn’t just a catholic understanding but as Meltzerboy2 reiterates in the Jewish Passover Question - #9 by OurLadyofSorrows Jewish Passover Question thread:

“I was taught that we enter into the Passover ceremony as though we are actually present in Egypt as slaves, and not only our forebears. In other words, we directly were brought out of Egypt and by the hand of G-d Himself, not by an angel. We are there ourselves and we are liberated”

This can further be illustrated in the canticles of Mary and Zechariah when they refer to God “Remembering” his covenant. Under the modernist application of this word, it means that God actually forgot about his covenants. Entering into those mysteries and participating in them is what seals the covenants. In the modern belief system they can only remember Gods covenant to others and not actually be a part of them.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

Actually none of them took it as symbolic, the evidence is in fact overwhelming. Though I have seen non catholics attempt to purposefully misrepresent them such as Augustine and Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus. I don’t see the need to mock someone by laughing at them when they are correct. Is your position that weak?

you misconstrue “lol”…not mocking, but healthy outlet to our obvious friction between our contentions…like “agree to disagree”.

Now for you to say "purposely misrepresent’’ evidences is not quite as “healthy” to our dialogue.

 

[mcq72]

This is a modern belief system, i.e. man made. Biblically Anamnesis and Mnmesynon mean to recall by making present. The cooresponding terms in Hebrew are zikkaron and askerah. This isn’t just a catholic understanding but as Meltzerboy2 reiterates in the Jewish Passover Question Jewish Passover Question thread:

“I was taught that we enter into the Passover ceremony as though we are actually present in Egypt as slaves, and not only our forebears. In other words, we directly were brought out of Egypt and by the hand of G-d Himself, not by an angel. We are there ourselves and we are liberated”

This can further be illustrated in the canticles of Mary and Zechariah when they refer to God “Remembering” his covenant. Under the modernist application of this word, it means that God actually forgot about his covenants. Entering into those mysteries and participating in them is what seals the covenants. In the modern belief system they can only remember Gods covenant to others and not actually be a part of them.

yes, have sen this argument before, and not sure but that it is a straw man, that indeed we are to apply the deepest meaning of remembrance semantically, and erroneous to suggest other communion understanding do less.

Plus read somewhere that so much attention to the “present” by straining at the literal understanding of eating might make some forget that we are still in covenant, until the Testator come back, the glorious ultimate and final fulfillment . Just as Passover was memorable and inspiring, it was not done in a vacuum, but in expectation of something further, even better, His first coming. So to we also look forward to His second coming, in our communion remembrance, in thanksgiving.

 

[Nicene]

I’m not exactly sure How you believe it is a straw man, the context of the above mentioned post was Steve b, body and blood and Ianman87’s response about remembrance, thus my reply about remembrance, and all in the context of the Last Supper. However lets keep this on track and deal with the remembrance topic and ill deal with the 3 straw men you introduced in the next post. a straw man is an attempt to divert when one cannot answer the subject. You have stated

we are to apply the deepest meaning of remembrance semantically

Can you tell us what that actually means? Semantically the word Askerah and Zikkaron in Hebrew and Anamnesis and Mnemosynon have a different understanding to evangelicals. To put it in evangelical terms, if God doesn’t “recall to make present” you aren’t “washed in the blood of Christ” as you say. However it also isn’t erroneous as you have just argued that it is something completely different.

So what do evangelicals believe the deepest meaning of Askerah/Zikkaron, Anamnesis/Mneosynon that Jews who have understood it this way for several millennia, the rabbis then and now understand it to be (as attested to by Melttzerboy2 above) Jesus as a Jew and Rabbi understood it, and Catholics and Orthodox have understood it for the last 2000 years? FWIW the importance of understanding these words and concepts is on par with “Harpagmos”, probably more so. However it’s obvious from your objection that it is different than the above.

Point 2 is that you actually have no remembrance of the last supper. How can of have a memory of something in which they never participated? The best that can be said is that you are remembering when you were told about it by someone else , or remember reading about the event in Sacred Scripture. However Anamnensis goes beyond just the last just participating in the last supper but to the crucifixion in his resurrection. Which you have inadvertently stumbled onto and I’ll address in the next post.

So lets keep this reply focused on the last supper as is the topic of the previous posts which I addressed.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

I’m not exactly sure How you believe it is a straw man, the context of the above mentioned post was Steve b, body and blood and Ianman87’s response about remembrance, thus my reply about remembrance, and all in the context of the Last Supper.

Ok…like 600 posts ago…all lanmam said was to change the passover to the Passover…so that whatever Jewish passover was/ is as far as bringing to " present", we now do with eucharist communion…his words were " remember and celebrate" if I recall correctly…heard no argument against what meltzer or others infer to remebrance…it may be quite objective and subjective at same time…certainly meltzer would not say the sacrificial lambs of the remebrance were miraculously somehow the lambs of the original passover…current lambs signifying the original lambs suffices for the celebration/ remembrance.

And I wonder, is going back to the past so as to “participate” the same as brining the past to the present as to “participate” ?

Again not sure how any form or definition of remember is not bringing the past to the present .

We have objective facts to “remember” (deliverance, salvation) and even objective based feelings of thanksgiving, etc…

Our communion has " words" to recall and replay, just as old passover did, to objectively remember and bring again to the forefront or present.

straw man is an attempt to divert when one cannot answer the subject.

Not sure about you definition of straw man, perhaps so, …i thought straw man was misrepresenting an opposing argument for an easier attack, …so agree it is diversion and not really answering anothers argument.

My argument has been centered on transubstantion vs other forms of real presence ,even symboluc only.

Perhaps the other aspect you refer to is the remembrance vs sacrifice aspect. On quick reflection then we do have a difference between bringing to “present”. For sure God commanded old passover to continue slaying lambs but in new testament we are told an end to such sacrifices (except for praise and thanksgiving, which is one of the passover cups), and the first supper there also was no sacrifice yet. Just thinking out loud here…and finally i can only add the Greek term that the communion rite was identified with was “thanksgiving”, which to me has implication of not so much of a sacrifice but a reaction to said sacrfice as central to meeting.

 

[mcq72]

How can of have a memory of something in which they never participated

Ok, very well thought out. Yes, how do we eat Jesus? It is not subjective for us as i think you imply.

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life.

So two thousand years later, we are either like the centurion, or like the thief on the cross, where we encounter a living Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, in and with saving faith.

Calvary is objectively realized and we burst forth in thanksgiving, again and again, as we remember as how we came to be betrothed to the Almighty.

 

[steve-b]

Nicene:

How can of have a memory of something in which they never participated

Ok, very well thought out. Yes, how do we eat Jesus? it is not subjective for us as i think you imply.

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life.

going back over 364 posts ( I can’t believe I posted that much on a subject ) objectively speaking, for the Eucharist to be literal and real, it requires valid ordination to make a valid consecration happen.

I “believe” 100% in the Eucharist being the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.

However

My belief in the Eucharist, isn’t what makes the Eucharist the Eucharist. My belief doesn’t make that happen.

It requires valid consecration from a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession. I didn’t make up that rule. That comes from scripture and 2000 yrs of tradition in His Church.

mcq72:

So two thousand years later, we are either like the centurion, or like the thief on the cross, where we encounter a living Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, in and with saving faith.

Calvary is objectively realized and we burst forth in thanksgiving, again and again, as we remember as how we came to be betrothed to the Almighty.

Re: the centurion, which centurion? are you thinking of the one who speared Jesus at the end?

Re: The thief on the cross, in the few words recorded that he spoke, whole theology courses could be taught on his words. AND Jesus had mercy on him and gave him salvation

 

[mcq72]

: the centurion, which centurion? are you thinking of the one who speared Jesus at the end?

Well if I recall the one who said surely He is the Son of God.

Just referring to anyone in scripture we may know that was changed at the foot of the cross, and how we really do the same, and hence have a " present" in which to eucharist/ be thankful for…no valid ordination needed for this ( remembering being at and participating in, Calvary and the new covenant).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

: the centurion, which centurion? are you thinking of the one who speared Jesus at the end?

Well if I recall the one who said surely He is the Son of God.

Just referring to anyone in scripture we may know that was changed at the foot of the cross, and how we really do the same, and hence have a " present" in which to eucharist/ be thankful for…no valid ordination needed for this ( remembering being at and participating in, Calvary and the new covenant).

Re: the Eucharist

The point I’m making, is different.

Jesus made, a do this or else statement

Jn 6:
53…?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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

When did He institute this sacrament?

When Jesus ordained His apostles at the Last Supper, and gave them the power to do exactly what He did when He used the words

Lk 22: 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this ποιεῖτε in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."[c]

ποιεῖτε = make, manufacture, cause, produce, construct, change one thing into another, & ordain,

They (the apostles) are to Do exactly what JESUS DID here. That is, they are to actually Change bread and wine into His body and blood. Not a symbol, but the actual body and blood of Jesus just as Jesus did… And in this action and those words, Jesus ordained THEM, He gave His apostles the power and authority to do exactly what He did. And what Jesus did here, as He said, was to continue… i.e. as in ordination, in apostolic succession. THEY don’t do any of this on their own. Jesus does it IN THEM and Jesus does the same in all those who are validly ordained in apostolic succession.

Without this authority and ordination, THEY could NOT do this or anything supernatural…

AND

We look back on the do this or else statement of Jesus in Jn 6. We are to literally, ingest Him, not just in a spiritual way but a physical way.

And we know From Jn 6, His own disciples (not the 12) found that too hard to even listen to, and they left Him over that.

 

[lanman87]

ποιεῖτε = make, manufacture, cause, produce, construct, change one thing into another, & ordain,

Why do you always ignore definition b. when you give that link and definition II. that expands on it farther down the page.

poieó: to make, do

Original Word: ποιέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: poieó
Phonetic Spelling: (poy-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I do, make
Definition: (a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause.

Especially considering the translated text is “Do this” not “make this” or “construct this”. And the page you link gives definition (b) as being used in Luke 22:19?

Simply claiming that it means “to make or change” doesn’t make it so, especially considering the consensus of linguist and theologians who believe it means to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

The same word is used in a lot of places in the Bible.

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, Luke 2:27

11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Luke 3:11

Those are just two examples, out of dozens, where the word poieó has no sense of creation or change of substance. It simply means “to do” or “do some specific action”.

 

[lanman87]

“I was taught that we enter into the Passover ceremony as though we are actually present in Egypt as slaves, and not only our forebears. In other words, we directly were brought out of Egypt and by the hand of G-d Himself, not by an angel. We are there ourselves and we are liberated”

I have no problem equating the Lord’s Supper as being “as though” we were at the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Lord’s Supper is more than an intellectual assent or remembering. It is a Spiritual experience that helps us understand and appreciate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and understand our total dependence on Christ.

Point 2 is that you actually have no remembrance of the last supper. How can of have a memory of something in which they never participated?

The Lord’s Supper wasn’t instituted to help us remember the Last Supper. It was instituted to help us remember and celebrate and give thanks for the Sacrifice of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. All who have faith in Christ and have been renewed and born by the Spirit spiritually receive the atoning benefit of what Christ did for us on the cross. In that sense, we have who have been converted to be followers of Christ spiritually participate Christ passion. And the Lord’s Supper is a physical (outward) representation of the Spiritual reality and grace we receive by faith.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

ποιεῖτε = make, manufacture, cause, produce, construct, change one thing into another, & ordain,

Why do you always ignore definition b. when you give that link and definition II. that expands on it farther down the page.

poieó: to make, do

Original Word: ποιέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: poieó
Phonetic Spelling: (poy-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I do, make
Definition: (a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause.

Especially considering the translated text is “Do this” not “make this” or “construct this”. And the page you link gives definition (b) as being used in Luke 22:19?

Simply claiming that it means “to make or change” doesn’t make it so, especially considering the consensus of linguist and theologians who believe it means to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

The same word is used in a lot of places in the Bible.

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, Luke 2:27

11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Luke 3:11

Those are just two examples, out of dozens, where the word poieó has no sense of creation or change of substance. It simply means “to do” or “do some specific action”.

The context of using that word ποιεῖτε is the Last supper, and it tells us how DO THIS is being used by Jesus. DO WHAT? Jesus is changing bread and wine into His body and blood. Changing one thing into another thing.

AND

Jesus is giving His apostles the authority to do exactly what He is doing here. Namely Jesus is ordaining His apostles to change bread and wine into Jesus body and blood.

AND

BTW, The Catholic Church is THERE sitting at the table.

 

[lanman87]

The context of using that word ποιεῖτε is the Last supper, and it tells us how DO THIS is being used by Jesus. DO WHAT? Jesus is changing bread and wine into His body and blood. Changing one thing into another thing.

Strongs (that you link) disagrees with you.