To those who deny the true presence

[workingman]

Radical;5782328]Actually the words are not the words of a covenant…if they were, one should be able to look at the verse you quoted and see the words of a promise stated. The cup is presented in affrimation of a covenant. If you look at this bit that you quoted, it becomes easier to see;

Rely you do understand testament and covenant are interchangeable if you look up the definitions.

The words of the first covenant are not contained at verse 20, instead they are the words which were read by Moses to the people.

And who gave those words/instructions to Moses? God. God gave the instructions and rules to make to covenant. They were not empty words spoken by a man.

the Lutherans got this part right…they remain bread and wine.

Yes the bread and wine are there but they also will tell you the true body and blood are present that it is not just bread and wine.

I do not see that the communion that is described here is achieved by way of a sacramental union.

How so explain your self then. Do you deny Christ established any sacraments at all?

It is true that Jesus wasn’t lying, but speaking figuratively is not lying. Jesus talked about raising the temple in 3 days after its destruction and his audience thought he was talking about the actual temple (and not his body). So if the declaration that “What Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is” means that Jesus’s must always be taken literally, then it is a very silly declaration.

How can you say He is speaking figuratively when He says plainly that “This IS my body…This **IS **my blood.” There are obvious places that are figurative but when all three Gospels record the Last Supper the same and with no figurative language around when they are spoken it is obvious not figurative language. Sounds like you are trying to build a bit of a straw man with that one.

 

[brkn1]

How can you say He is speaking figuratively when He says plainly that “This IS my body…This **IS **my blood.” There are obvious places that are figurative but when all three Gospels record the Last Supper the same and with no figurative language around when they are spoken it is obvious not figurative language. Sounds like you are trying to build a bit of a straw man with that one.

If Jesus Christ had said: “This is (now become) my body… This is (now become) my blood.” , then you could be definite in your outright dismissing of a figurative or symbolic meaning to “IS”. When Jesus continued to further explain that we were to “Do this in remembrance of Me.”, the “IS” must then obviously be figurative language. Jesus would not logically have immediately referred to such an explanation of “remembrance”, if what would have been a far more important “re-presentation” (IS) actually existed also.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;
seems that you are suggesting a spiritual presence (which is rather like Calvin’s position) or an extra-dimensional presence which is something different from transubstantiation

Gabriel of 12;
God is Spirit, transubstantiation does not define God, Trans. Only defines what happens to the bread and wine that become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus.

Radical:
and there are countless miracles claimed by the other branches of Christianity (said to ratify their manner of worship which doesn’t involve a RP)

Gabriel of 12;
You are correct, you reveal the difference of the miracles from the True Presence of Jesus and those miracles taken place from the mercy, grace of God with the prayer of the Church. Then there comes the scrutiny of these miracles that do not hold up to the Church’s scrutiny, yet the Eucharistic miracles not all have held up to both science and Church’s scrutiny. Something to consider.

Radical:
If “body” means “body and spirit” then why do we find passages from Paul such as:
But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Gabriel of 12;
I don’t see any confliction from scripture here; from your examples when viewed with the original language being used which makes for another topic of discussion. The reality of these examples rely on one who is in Christ from baptism then the whole of St. Paul exegesis on the body and spirit becomes clear in the English translation;

The following scripture will explain St. Paul’s teaching, so as you don’t accuse me of inventing a 2000 year old Apostolic Teaching.
Here is St. Paul **Romans 6: 3 **Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.
5 For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.
6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.
7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him.
10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.
11 Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.

Radical;
I haven’t heard this before…is it a standard Catholic belief, or is it unique to you?

Gabriel of 12;
The “in him, through him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours almighty God, for ever and ever” is recited in the Mass of the Canon. Now you know.

Radical:
I haven’t heard this before…is it a standard Catholic belief, or is it unique to you?

Gabriel of 12;
Your choice; its in the catechism, and in the writings of the Popes, most recently Pope Benedict XVI.

Radical:
what does this mean…explain it to me as you would explain it to one of the children brought to Jesus. What is the “substance” of bread? What is the “substance” of a body (or of Jesus’s body in particular)?

Gabriel of 12;
“Substance” of the bread and wine have changed into the body, blood of Jesus Christ by trans. In the Eucharist. God created all things that were not into being, God created the heavens and the Universe. Because God created the substance that we make into bread, this substance in the beginning was not until God created it, all things before they became were with God because they come from God. So When God created all things by his eternal Word, when the Word became flesh in time in the only begotten Son Jesus Christ. The Word spoke in time to the bread and said “this is my body” take and eat my body, because I have made this in time and will take it back with me in eternity “resurrection” raising it up to heaven as a perfect sacrifice “once and for all” for all of you, so that you may eat at my table in heaven in eternal life with me. Because without my body, blood soul and divinity which saves you from death eternal into eternal life, But it is through my body and blood in the Eucharist that your soul needs in order to “Passover” from death into eternal life.

In summary the “Substance” is mystery that cannot be defined except that the bread and wine have changed in substance becoming the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine remain to our senses. Can you describe your soul and its physical attributes? Or can you describe God’s Word in physical attributes when “God said” “let there be light” can one explain the physical action of the Word God spoke when he created? What can be explained is the result of creation and a guess when creation began. The mystery remains how God created all things placing them in balance from the beginning.

Radical;
but it wouldn’t be dirt and water…wouldn’t it at least be all the various organic molecules that make up a body? You have lost me…

Gabriel of 12;
No; we are talking about the elements that make up man; a mix of dirt and water, proof of this is that our physical bodies return to these elements to dust due to the concupiscence. The hidden but real “substance” that give life to this mud mix is God breathed who is living, from which all things created come from. The substance of bread and wine change at the Words of Jesus Christ into his body, blood soul and divinity, again while the accidents of bread and wine remain as these to our senses “flesh”, but to our eternal God breathed soul which eats this body and drinks this blood, which consumes our soul making us “ONE IN HIS BODY” to give us life and in the last day resurrection to eternal life.

This explanation is as simple as I can give it without going into official Church terminology or jargoned explanation.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If Jesus Christ had said: “This is (now become) my body… This is (now become) my blood.” , then you could be definite in your outright dismissing of a figurative or symbolic meaning to “IS”. When Jesus continued to further explain that we were to “Do this in remembrance of Me.”, the “IS” must then obviously be figurative language. Jesus would not logically have immediately referred to such an explanation of “remembrance”, if what would have been a far more important “re-presentation” (IS) actually existed also.

Gabriel of 12;

Good assumption but? the word “to do in remeberance of me” comes from the orginal word “Zakar” which means to make present.

From the Hebrew “zakar” rememberance is to “rememberance” the passover as it is actually taking place in the present every time the Hebrews celebrated their “passover” from the exodus they litterally relived this day in the present as to make present what occurred in the past, when God would make himself present before them.

Ths is what Jesus was speaking or fulfilling at his new covenant passover meal in the “do this in rememberance of me”. Because when we celebrate his Eucharist in the new covenant Mass Jesus instituted he makes himself present to all of us in his body, blood soul and divinity. Just food for thought.

 

[brkn1]

Gabriel of 12;

Good assumption but? the word “to do in remeberance of me” comes from the orginal word “Zakar” which means to make present.

From the Hebrew “zakar” rememberance is to “rememberance” the passover as it is actually taking place in the present every time the Hebrews celebrated their “passover” from the exodus they litterally relived this day in the present as to make present what occurred in the past, when God would make himself present before them.

Ths is what Jesus was speaking or fulfilling at his new covenant passover meal in the “do this in rememberance of me”. Because when we celebrate his Eucharist in the new covenant Mass Jesus instituted he makes himself present to all of us in his body, blood soul and divinity. Just food for thought.

You are using a Hebrew word to define or explain what is originally written in Greek.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are using a Hebrew word to define or explain what is originally written in Greek.

Gabriel of 12;

No, I am describing to you a first century Jew with a hebrew belief system in place (not a greek belief) to describe the covenant action since the Old testament when God gave his divine ordinance for his people to keep in “rememberance of me” So as God can become present to all their generations. Jesus does not change the old covenant action he fulfills it in himself. The english “rememberance” definition does not apply adequately, But “rememberance” is as close as english can get to the original meaning.

That is why scriptures states “we need a teacher”. We cannot interpret scripture from an English language understanding solely because without its teacher, it leads to many different interpretations and misunderstandings that lends to different winds of doctrine outside the Apostolic teachings and Traditions handed down.

What is even more striking is that God in the old covenant ordered his people to keep this “passover” feast as a “Perpetual law”. Jesus fufills the “perpetual law” in is Eucharist his body and blood eternal perfect sacrifice until he returns. The Mass Jesus instituted at the last supper continues on today in his Eucharistic sacrifice and has never ceased fulfilling the Prophets, because Jesus is truly present, not because the Catholic church believes and teaches this, because Jesus himself said “This is” and then commanded his apostles to “do this in rememberance of me”.

Here is the prophet Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

A Mass that contains the True Eucharist is offered up to God from the rising to the setting of the Sun in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity all around the world in every nation. Nothing else fulfills this prophecy that Jesus fulfilled in himself except in his Eucharist offered up in God’s name.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is the Source for the Augustine quote. It starts at Chapter 16/Paragraph 24. You should be able to see that what I said was accurate.

At Paragraph 13 Augustine had written:

**Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.

Gabriel of 12;
You had to pick one of the most deepest thinkers in Church history to this topic. I will try and be brief here. You do know that St. Augustine wrote to refute many christian heresies in his day such as Arianism, Pelagianism. He used his pen as did St.Paul we will get back to St. Paul in a minute, very carefully so as not to dip into these very fine lines of heresy which haunted his day. Taking all this in stride, we can see how St. Augustine from a “grand intellectual level” deals with his descriptions of Chrisitanity from the Apostles refutes all his heretical counterparts. This is where, in my opinion many today get different takes from his writings because he includes his counterparts arguments in his writings, making examples of them at the same time leveling his counterparts arguments against the Apostolic Teachings handed down to him.

For example Augustine many times does not argue from a Spiritual level, his enemies would think he is babbling, so he approaches them from his and their intellectual levels. Now no one believes that Augustine taught that one can be saved from the intellectual level, this would be an error. So it is very difficult to grasp the description from the Church teachings in Spiritual Realities, and compare them to Augustines “intellectual” discourses. Now I have seen when one comes to understand Augustines writings and then apply the Church’s teachings, The enlightenment comes when light is given to ones darkened intellectual side, it leads then to the heart. This has happened to me personally from reading Augustines Writings.

St. Paul does the same with his theology of the body. Paul a learned Jew takes his Hebrew faith in his writings at the same time revealing how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and surpassed the Old Covenant understanding of the body “flesh” when Jesus Christ implemented a “Change” from the flesh into his new creation in the spirit.

St. Paul uses old testament verbage which the english translation does not describe adequately so the footnotes are very important when reading Pauls Epistles. For example; Paul makes distinctions as does Augustine by taking the Jewish belief’s of Soma = body, Basar= body and flesh, Sarx = human being in whole, Pneuma = Holy Spirit, pneuma = ones spirit, Psyche = living being, Nepes = intellect of humanity, Nous = mind of humanity, Kardia = heart, ot = mind. These are all taken from his writings in his theology of the body which makes it difficult to draw a single conclusion from just one scripture without looking at Pauls whole teaching, Remember he is refuting both Jews and Gentiles, just as Augustine does in his writings.

What is beautiful about Paul is that he sum’s all of the above in one word “ZOE” = life. Which he again goes into great detail about the “new creation in Jesus Christ”. A new existence over and above the Old covenant can ever give in this “New (zoe) Life” Jesus gives beginning at baptism.

This new life of the body as Paul puts it, which the church identifies in the Eucharist as “Substance”, the life of Jesus Christ that never stops giving.

Gal.2:19
For through the law I died to the law, 19 that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ;
20
**yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; **insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.

Peace be with you

 

[brkn1]

Gabriel of 12;

No, I am describing to you a first century Jew with a hebrew belief system in place (not a greek belief) to describe the covenant action since the Old testament when God gave his divine ordinance for his people to keep in “rememberance of me” So as God can become present to all their generations. Jesus does not change the old covenant action he fulfills it in himself. The english “rememberance” definition does not apply adequately, But “rememberance” is as close as english can get to the original meaning.
That is why scriptures states “we need a teacher”. We cannot interpret scripture from an English language understanding solely because without its teacher, it leads to many different interpretations and misunderstandings that lends to different winds of doctrine outside the Apostolic teachings and Traditions handed down.

“Remembrance” still was originally written in Greek and God knew that it would be so.
To attempt to transfer some tradition from Hebrew to defend your position of the Greek word for “remembrance” is how error and false interpretations happen. You speak of the Greek word as if it was a Hebrew word, but it is still a Greek word none the less.

What is even more striking is that God in the old covenant ordered his people to keep this “passover” feast as a “Perpetual law”. Jesus fufills the “perpetual law” in is Eucharist his body and blood eternal perfect sacrifice until he returns. The Mass Jesus instituted at the last supper continues on today in his Eucharistic sacrifice and has never ceased fulfilling the Prophets, because Jesus is truly present, not because the Catholic church believes and teaches this, because Jesus himself said “This is” and then commanded his apostles to “do this in rememberance of me”.

Romans explains that we died to the Law in Christ’s death. To claim that a Christian is still subject to that same Mosiac Law is to ignore Scripture and become a legalist Pharisee.

 

[workingman]

brkn1
Romans explains that we died to the Law in Christ’s death. To claim that a Christian is still subject to that same Mosiac Law is to ignore Scripture and become a legalist Pharisee.

I wonder about something. Yes I under stand Christ perfectly fulfilled the law. And you say we are not subject to the same Mosaic Law. So are as a example saying that we should ignore the Ten Commandments and toss them out the window? IMO one should still try and live by the laws God handed down.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“Remembrance” still was originally written in Greek and God knew that it would be so.
To attempt to transfer some tradition from Hebrew to defend your position of the Greek word for “remembrance” is how error and false interpretations happen. You speak of the Greek word as if it was a Hebrew word, but it is still a Greek word none the less.

Romans explains that we died to the Law in Christ’s death. To claim that a Christian is still subject to that same Mosiac Law is to ignore Scripture and become a legalist Pharisee.

Gabriel of 12;

Let’s see if we can clear this up; Exodus 20:24 God commanded his people to offer sacrifice in his name when God himself will come to them and bless them “remembrance of his name” is used here, from the Hebrew original (zikkaron) is “Zakar” to make present.

In the New (Greek) testament the language changes but God does not; Jesus states in Aramaic (do this in rememberance of me) not Greek, so as not to complicate matters here lets stick to the recorded text in Greek; The Greek word for “remembrance” is “Anamnesis” which carries with it the equivalent meaning to make present from the Hebrew rememberance “Zakar”. We will skip over the “vulgate” latin into the english “rememberance”.

There is another Word that describes the second coming presence of the Lord that the Catholic Church uses from the New Testament describing Jesus true presence which is “Parousia”.

False interpretations begin when one loses the original content of the writer or speaker from sacred scripture, which non catholic Christians are known to do, thus you have many different non catholic Christian communities interpreting scripture in many diverse ways.

The languages have changed, but the orginal Apostolic Judeo Christian belief will never change in the Apostolic Catholic Church.

Secondly this language interpretation handed down to us from the Apostles themselves has nothing to do with obeying the Law or not. What I am disclosing to you is that God never changes. God made his “presence” known in the old covenant, Just as “emmanuel” God is with us, made flesh, died and resurrected makes his “presence” known to the New Covenant chosen people of God in his body, blood soul and divinity at every Mass since the ascension in every Eucharist. The Hebrew Word or meaning that Jesus uses translated into Greek does not force any divine law upon you. Only the practice to “do this in rememberance of me” as Jesus commanded his church to do, so as to be present to all his people in every age until he returns. That is why we proclaim the death of the Lord in the Eucharist until Jesus returns. The Law example you give is another topic.

Enclosing, The Catholic Church has always taught from Scripture that Jesus has freed us from the Law that convicts to death. It remains although the Law applies to those whenever we fall away from Grace into mortal sin, the Law of God still convicts, but praise be Jesus Christ he has given us the ministry of reconciliation (confession) should we fall into sin. By the blood of Jesus Christ who is “standing as though slain” on our behalf, in heaven as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World who washes away our sins every time we repent of our mortal sins, is our guarantee and advocate in heaven.

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

Gabriel of 12;

Let’s see if we can clear this up; Exodus 20:24 God commanded his people to offer sacrifice in his name when God himself will come to them and bless them “remembrance of his name” is used here, from the Hebrew original (zikkaron) is “Zakar” to make present.

Gabriel of 12, your way of viewing things differs so greatly from mine that I feel like I am communicating with a character from Alice’s Wonderland. The word “Zakar” that you refer to is used 223 times in the OT in instances such as: * We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick*. This is how a lexicon describes the word:

1.to remember, recall, call to mind
a.(Qal) to remember, recall
b.(Niphal) to be brought to remembrance, be remembered, be thought of, be brought to mind
c.(Hiphil)
1.to cause to remember, remind
2.to cause to be remembered, keep in remembrance
3.to mention
4.to record
5.to make a memorial, make remembrance

The KJV usage is given as: remember 172, mention 21, remembrance 10, recorder 9, mindful 6, think 3, bring to remembrance 2, record 2, miscellaneous 8

** Which lexicon gives the meaning of “make present” and what are the occasions (in the OT) for that usage as indicated by that lexicon?**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12, your way of viewing things differs so greatly from mine that I feel like I am communicating with a character from Alice’s Wonderland. The word “Zakar” that you refer to is used 223 times in the OT in instances such as: * We remember* the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick. This is how a lexicon describes the word:

1.to remember, recall, call to mind
a.(Qal) to remember, recall
b.(Niphal) to be brought to remembrance, be remembered, be thought of, be brought to mind
c.(Hiphil)
1.to cause to remember, remind
2.to cause to be remembered, keep in remembrance
3.to mention
4.to record
5.to make a memorial, make remembrance

The KJV usage is given as: remember 172, mention 21, remembrance 10, recorder 9, mindful 6, think 3, bring to remembrance 2, record 2, miscellaneous 8

** Which lexicon gives the meaning of “make present” and what are the occasions (in the OT) for that usage as indicated by that lexicon?**

Gabriel of 12;
You have got to be kidding; You are trying to get a first century (Jesus) Jewish Hebrew/Christian belief interpretation from a Lectionary? Look who’s living in disneyland. What may shock you as a wonderland is “Truth” that has not been revealed to you from an Apostolic 2000 year old Christian/Judeo faith that both the New and Old Testament have recorded.

Your "Qal, Niphal, Hiphil are good definitions but when did God use them to describe his covenants? Why you are defining words other than the “Zakar” that God uses and Jesus translates the same meaning in a different language as I explained earlier, which the bible translates “both” as “rememberance” leaves the topic to your own disneyland.

A Lexicon or Websters is not going to define for you how the ancient Hebrew interpreted the Law of Moses and practiced their faith. Thats like putting a basic class c driver in the drivers seat of an Indy 500 race car, your asking for trouble.

Tell you what? The best earliest Hebrew/Greek biblical (translater) scholar in the world, because even the Jews in his day went to him, so that he could translate their Hebrew books, was a Roman Catholic named St. Jerome. The teachings I revealed here are not mine, but St.Jerome works, not to mention many other Catholic/Protestant and Jewish sources that teach on this particular “rememberance”. Take up a St. Jerome biblical commentary, Every biblical scholar Christian and non Christian alike look to his biblical interpretations as authority, not a Lexicon.

So I am not offended by your Alice in wonderland compliment, because it reflects your depth of your Christianity “New”. The Alice in wonderland views consist of some of the greatest Christian and Jewish minds the world has produced. But your Christianity rests too far away from the Apostolic Tradition and these heavy weights from Christian and Jewish Traditions.

Aside from St. Jeromes and Jewish authorities on the “zakar” biblical faith of rememberance. Please enlighten us? what is your interpretation of Exodus 20:24, and Jesus last supper “do this in remembrance of me”? How do you translate their meanings of rememberance? and is your english translated definition speak for all of Protestantism? Ok, the last one is a trick question, there are Protestant biblical scholars who belong to Alice in wonderland along with St.Jerome and Jewish authorities.

I am very interested in your interpretation of Jesus “rememberance”, and can you give a source from antiquity who would agree with your interpretation?

I pray that your not using a Lexicon to dictate your biblical interpretations? along with your Christian belief’s?
Peace be with you

 

[brkn1]

I wonder about something. Yes I under stand Christ perfectly fulfilled the law. And you say we are not subject to the same Mosaic Law. So are as a example saying that we should ignore the Ten Commandments and toss them out the window? IMO one should still try and live by the laws God handed down.

You can not live by the Mosaic Law. The required temple does not even exist now, which further makes such obedience impossible.
Jesus Christ explained how we must live and it does not involve ignoring the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

No person can follow these two commandments, unless they first are born of God.
1 John 3:23-24 explains how one keeps God’s commandments:
“And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
“And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him. And hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us.”

It is the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that we willingly follow, after we are first enabled by being born (from above) of God. See Romans 8.

 

[Radical]

Gabriel of 12;
You have got to be kidding; You are trying to get a first century (Jesus) Jewish Hebrew/Christian belief interpretation from a Lectionary?

That’s lexicon…and yes, that is what a lexicon is designed for and used for

Your "Qal, Niphal, Hiphil are good definitions but when did God use them to describe his covenants? Why you are defining words other than the “Zakar” …

Qal, Niphal and Hiphil indicate the form of “Zakar”. As such, when Zakar is in the Qal form it means “to remember, recall”…got it?

Take up a St. Jerome biblical commentary, Every biblical scholar Christian and non Christian alike look to his biblical interpretations as authority, not a Lexicon.

my reaction is that you have got to be kidding, but then I have come to realize that you aren’t…which is why I have concluded that we don’t share enough common ground to have any sort of proper discussion.

So I am not offended by your Alice in wonderland compliment, …

good, it wasn’t intended to be offensive

Aside from St. Jeromes and Jewish authorities on the “zakar” biblical faith of rememberance.

which I note you have not actually provided…

Please enlighten us? what is your interpretation of Exodus 20:24, and Jesus last supper “do this in remembrance of me”? How do you translate their meanings of rememberance?

there are a number of sites available on the web that give access to many translations of the Bible…these translations are the product of our best scholars looking at the best transcipts…and they are very consistent in translating it “remembrance” as opposed to whatever concept you hope to force into the text

I am very interested in your interpretation of Jesus “rememberance”, and can you give a source from antiquity who would agree with your interpretation?

Here is something from Chrysostom…note how he uses “remembrance”…it just doesn’t mean “making present”

*And when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Wherefore does he here make mention of the Mysteries? Because that argument was very necessary to his present purpose. As thus: Your Master, says he, counted all worthy of the same Table, though it be very awful and far exceeding the dignity of all: but you consider them to be unworthy even of your own, small and mean as we see it is; and while they have no advantage over you in spiritual things, you rob them in the temporal things. For neither are these your own.

However, he does not express himself thus, to prevent his discourse becoming harsh: but he frames it in a gentler form, saying, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread.

And wherefore does he remind us of the time, and of that evening, and of the betrayal? Not indifferently nor without some reason, but that he might exceedingly fill them with compunction, were it but from consideration of the time. For even if one be a very stone, yet when he considers that night, how He was with His disciples, very heavy, how He was betrayed, how He was bound, how He was led away, how He was judged, how He suffered all the rest in order, he becomes softer than wax, and is withdrawn from earth and all the pomp of this world. Therefore he leads us to the remembrance of all those things, by His time, and His table, and His betrayal, putting us to shame and saying, Your Master gave up even Himself for you: and thou dost not even share a little meat with your brother for your own sake.*

 

[AdrianP]

For first 1500 years of the Church all the valid historical documents speak about Holy Eucharist as true body of Jesus. Were all the Christians in the first 1500 years wrong? Here is the Liturgy of Aposlte and Evngelist Mark and Holy Liturgy of Saint James that both show what Christians were doing on sundays and what you see? Holy Eucharist
Something to think about:monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6114
Holy Liturgy Saint James:web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm
Holy Liturgy Apostle and Evangelist Mark:ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.iii.html

 

[workingman]

You can not live by the Mosaic Law. The required temple does not even exist now, which further makes such obedience impossible.
Jesus Christ explained how we must live and it does not involve ignoring the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

No person can follow these two commandments, unless they first are born of God.
1 John 3:23-24 explains how one keeps God’s commandments:
“And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
“And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him. And hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us.”

It is the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that we willingly follow, after we are first enabled by being born (from above) of God. See Romans 8.

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page for the most part is all. I have heard some people try and say that you can throw out the commandments and they have no valid use. The commandments obviously do but that is another thread. Like I said just wanted to make sure we were on the same page as far as that goes.

 

[Radical]

Hi AdrianP…I don’t mean to be insulting, but your post is a good example of why I have a very hard time taking most Catholic claims presented in this forum seriously

For first 1500 years of the Church all the valid historical documents speak about Holy Eucharist as true body of Jesus. Were all the Christians in the first 1500 years wrong? Here is the Liturgy of Aposlte and Evngelist Mark and Holy Liturgy of Saint James that both show what Christians were doing on sundays and what you see?

You start off with a very dramatic claim and then in support of that claim provide links to two liturgies. I can only guess that you think that those liturgies demonstrate the truthfulness of your claim .

You should note that the link you provided wrt the Mark Liturgy indciates that the only authority for the work is from the 12th century. I guess you have assumed that no changes occurred for the first 1100 +/- years and so this liturgy somehow demonstrates that for the “first 1500 years of the Church all the valid historical documents speak about Holy Eucharist as true body of Jesus.” You can find a book on the Mark Liturgy here.

In the Preface it states that so many changes have been made that it is impossible to determine how the original liturgy read. The link you provided to the James Liturgy likewise acknowledges that “This version of the Greek Liturgy of St James is highly provisional and tentative, principally because none of the editions available agree among themselves…”

In short, you have made this grandiose claim and then support that claim with liturgies that have been “encrusted with ideas of later ages”. I would suggest that the Catholics here need to take a long hard critical look at what they present as historical proof…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear Radical;

I am prepared to give you Jewish sources and Scholary sources to the “interpretation” of the Old and New covenant term translated in both testaments as “rememberance”. But we have to clear up some of your misunderstandings here;

It appears to me from your response, that you have totally missed the interpretation here.
You quoted ““remembrance”…it just doesn’t mean “making present” . What makes Jesus Christ present are His own divine words of consecration “This is my body” this is my blood”. Let us be clear here.

The “rememberance” the act of rememberance when commanded by God himself does not give a 20th century interpretation to remember something from the past. “God remembers his covenant” not that God could forget his covenant, God in “Do this in remembrance of me” is renewing, reenacting, re-presenting his covenant in time to every age of people until he returns, and makes himself present to his people every time the chosen people did the divine commandment “do this in remebrance of me”. If you re-read Ex.20:24, and the last supper discourses you find God making his presence known to his covenanted people both in Old and New covenants.

The “rememberance” is not a 20th century to remember something from times past, The biblical Zakar (Hebrew), Anamnesis (Greek) is a re-acting out or reliving by renewing God’s saving Covenant in the past made present for every generation in the future until Jesus returns.

God’s presence is made known when we “do this in remembrance of me” by recalling from the past in the present, what Jesus is doing from eternity "Standing as though slain’ in heaven offering his “once and for ALL” sacrifice for the many in every age. This is done in every Mass since the ascension of Jesus in the Liturgy of Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

God created from his “substance” so that we might have bread, but man does not live on bread alone, but every word of God. Man creates bread from what God has given him, Jesus is the true bread from heaven that gives life. Jesus takes our gifts in the form of bread and wine which man has made, and transforms them into his body and blood which no man has made but God himself, every time we “do this in rememberance of me” Jesus makes himself present before all his people in the renewal, reenactmen of calling to the present from eternity The New and everlasting Covenant Jesus establishes in his body and blood for us all.

I really hoped you would have given your interpretation of “remembrance” from the Gospels, because in the web or protestants circles there are too many to discipher which one you believe and practice.

I find it interesting how you a protestant would reference a Catholic Saint who handed down this Catholic faith the same one I practice today and try to relate their writings in opposition to what they practiced and believed? That is why I introduced to you what you think you have found that conflicts with the Catholic faith does not. From your findings, you have selectively pulled out the “intellectual” sides of the writings rather than the revelation of what the ECF’s practiced.

If I have read you correctly thus far, you can find argument with anything including why the sky is or not blue. Thus far I have only presented to you my Catholic faith the way I practice and live it, I asked for your belief, and you referenced me to another source. I agree we are definitely not on the same footing as far as a “Truly present Jesus” and what you defined as a “symbolic” presence of Jesus which only remembers what Jesus did in the past, my faith practices what Jesus did in the past saves those from the past, present and future until Jesus returns for his Bride finding her “do this in remembrance of me”.

Hope this cleared this up some for you, peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

Affirming Gabriel12…Recall those who left Christ before He revealed the manner in which to ‘eat His body, to drink His blood’…the bread and wine is what we see, but we remember in essence His life, ministry of teaching and healing, His body and blood coming back to life to us through the Sacrament.

Earliest Christian liturgies verify that true worship centered on the True Body and Blood of Christ, this Truth facilitated by the Holy Spirit that travelled quickly throughout the world bringing about countless conversions.

Christian liturgy was not then and now a mere representation, another form of subjective relativism held in a breakaway service. To deny Christ in the Eucharist was the great Heresy of that time as it is today.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Affirming Gabriel12…Recall those who left Christ before He revealed the manner in which to ‘eat His body, to drink His blood’…the bread and wine is what we see, but we remember in essence His life, ministry of teaching and healing, His body and blood coming back to life to us through the Sacrament.

Earliest Christian liturgies verify that true worship centered on the True Body and Blood of Christ, this Truth facilitated by the Holy Spirit that travelled quickly throughout the world bringing about countless conversions.

Christian liturgy was not then and now a mere representation, another form of subjective relativism held in a breakaway service. To deny Christ in the Eucharist was the great Heresy of that time as it is today.

Amen, good point; It amazes me how non catholics can quote these Early Church fathers, martyrs and saints, without a mention of how they practiced and lived out their Catholic faith especially their uncontested faith in the Eucharist or sacraments in general. This was Christianity practiced long before the reformation period came on the scene and changed from the One body of Christ to individual “isolated” christian communities away from the body of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist which fuses past, present and future members of the Church as one in Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you