Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

[joe370]

What all Christians are in agreement with, is the fact that the Old Testament Hebrew passover prefigured our New Testament Christian passover. A sacrifice of a lamb took place in the old as well as the new covenant. In the Old Testament passover, death passed over the dwelling of the Hebrews. They were liberated from the bondage in Egypt and given the promised land. In the Christian passover, thanks to the resurrection of the Lamb of lambs, Jesus Christ - eternal death has passed over us. Where the division seems to occur, lies here: The risen slain Lamb of Revelation, having freed us from the slavery of our enemy, has given us eternal life, and, as per scripture, Jesus still bears the wounds of Calvary, to remind us that His flesh and blood are still the source and summit of eternal life as per John 6, which tells us to eat the Lamb of God, who is the bread of life that came down from heaven. Jesus reminds us that their forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died, and then he tells them that he is the bread that came down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. Why can eating this bread keep us from dieing??? He then elaborates by saying: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. What so darn important about this bread, that, if eaten, we will live forever??? Perhaps because this bread is Jesus’ flesh, which he gave for the life of the world.

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Jesus actually says that he is the bread that came down from heaven and then he tells us, explicitly, that this bread is His flesh, and then he tells his apostles that this bread which is his flesh, will be sacrificed. Maybe that is why the bread is the key to eternal life? Now, if the bread is His body then it is an actual sacrifice - yes, no? If Jesus is not talking about the words of institution of the last supper, then what in the heck is he talking about??? Moreover, if Jesus, the Lamb of lambs, is in heaven, eternally glorified, which of course he is, then why not clean up the body of the Lamb of God, if the sacrifice of Calvary is no longer being perpetuated?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Jesus clearly abolished the old sacrificial system and ushered in the new sacrificial system, otherwise Jesus would not have a permanent priesthood, as per Hebrews. No present day sacrifice, no need for the permanent priesthood spoken of in Hebrews. We observe in Exodus 12 a perpetual ordinance:

*“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a perpetual ordinance.” Exodus 14

“Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.” Exodus 18
*

A lamb without blemish was sacrificed and eaten in the old covenant. We also know Jesus, in the NC, is the lamb without blemish, who is also to be eaten yes, no? We know from John the Baptist that Jesus is,** “…the Lamb of God,** who takes away the sin of the world,” and, according to John, the beloved apostle, Jesus, the Lamb of God, still bears His wounds in heaven: Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain ….Adding to that, we are commanded to eat the flesh of Jesus, who is the lamb, “…Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” In both the old and the new covenant, a lamb was and is to be eaten. In the case of the new covenant the lamb is the Lamb of lambs…the Lamb of God. Take into consideration all of these factors and the catholic, eastern orthodox perspective comes alive, to me anyway. The whole assembly was to gather together to sacrifice the lambs in the old covenant. According to the new testament, we too are called to assemble for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in the form of unleavened bread (Eucharist) - the new Passover celebration. In the old covenant they were to take the blood of the lamb and put it on the lintels and doorposts where they were going to eat the lamb with unleavened bread. The blood was to be a sign of deliverance of the first born sons of Israel, (and these ordinances of eating the lamb and the unleavened bread were perpetual/everlasting, yet we don’t see this in present day Jewish society) - just as Jesus’ blood, shed on Calvary, is a sign of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, and these ordinances of old were fulfilled and perfected in the new and everlasting covenant, and we, like those of the old covenant, **are to eat this Lamb of God. **It seems that a synthesis took place at Jesus’ last supper when He said that we were to eat his body in the form of unleavened bread, in the sense that Jesus is the Lamb of lambs, who held his own flesh and blood in his own hands at his last supper in the form of unleavened bread. It occurred to me, as a former non-Catholic that I was not eating the Lamb of God in the form of unleavened bread, for the simple fact that 1) I didn’t believe it was a genuine sacrifice, prophesied in Malachi, at the time, which meant it could not be Jesus’ flesh and blood, and 2)there was no validly permanent priesthood, spoken of in the book of Hebrews, in any of the protestant churches:

“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.” Hebrews 7

No one in protestant circles believes in an earthly ordained permanent priesthood, which started with the apostles, at the last supper, so where could I go to find this permanent priesthood? Why, if Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event, (in the sense that His flesh and blood are not re-presented under the veil of bread and wine) - is Jesus still considered a priest? Just as the sacrifice of the Priest Jesus on Calvary was supposedly a past event, according to protestants, so should His priesthood be a past event, and yet Paul tells us that He has a permanent priesthood and John tells us that Jesus, the Lamb of God, still appears as a slain Lamb in Heaven, long after He was sacrificed on Calvary.

Your thoughts guys…

 

[tester]

…
You should be here on this forum to learn. To learn the truth. To see the truth… God Bless.

THANK YOU!!

Well, he is with us, spiritually, in the same way that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.

Or in the same way when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit.

:

Not even close to the TRUTH.

PRmerge with over 6200 posts on this site,
is that what you think Protestants believe?

There are two realms of REALITY: the physical and the spiritual: Jesus is with believers in a REAL spiritual way " in Spirit and in Truth"

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerge with over 6200 posts on this site,
is that what you think Protestants believe?

tester, with over tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, each claiming their own dogmas and doctrines, I try never to say, “This is what Protestants believe”.

There’s countless views just on 1 Pet 3:21! Sheesh. How in the world would I be able to know which one of these views represents those of the current Protestants on any particular thread?

Jesus is with believers in a REAL spiritual way " in Spirit and in Truth"

Yes, I agree with you on this tester.

But he’s also with those of us who have the Eucharist in the most sublime, physical way: the ONE FLESH UNION.

 

[tester]

tester, with over tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, each claiming their own dogmas and doctrines, I try never to say, “This is what Protestants believe”.

There’s countless views just on 1 Pet 3:21! .

ah I see the ol’ gazzillion Protestant denominations argument …again.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494262

So you can say anything you want about Protestant beliefs , because somewhere someone believes it?

well if that is true, is this?
from Robert Sungenis:

• I’ll be as honest as I can be with you here, … In my years on both sides of the fence, Catholic and Protestant, people are people, and they will never get beyond being limited in their views and knowledge. As a result, whereas Protestants argue back and forth among themselves as to the meaning and authority of Scripture, Catholics argue back and forth among themselves as to the meaning and authority of Church pronouncements. And because of that unavoidable dilemma, both parties are going to have their “denominations.” **Don’t let anyone kid you. There are “denominations,” if you will, among Catholics as there are in mainline Protestantism.**That explains why you have so many opinions …as to what to do with the Council of Trent. *

so allow me to help: no Bible believing born again Protestants believe your statement

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Well, he is with us, spiritually, in the same way that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.

Or in the same way when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit.

 

[joe370]

Tester, there are in fact many conflicting views in the world of Christianity, doctrinally speaking, in the myriad PC’s. How would I be able to know which one of these views represents truth vs error. Let’s leave the CC out of it for the moment. Let’s assume that the general consensus regarding protestant perspective is right about the CC which states that the CC cannot teach infallibly.

 

[PRmerger]

ah I see the ol’ gazzillion Protestant denominations argument …again.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494262

It’s quite indefensible, is it not? If it’s just Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, (The Unholy Trinity of Reformation Theology ) then why all the chaos and confusion of these thousands and thousands of Christian denominations?

So you can say anything you want about Protestant beliefs , because somewhere someone believes it?

Not at all.

well if that is true, is this?
from Robert Sungenis:

• I’ll be as honest as I can be with you here, … In my years on both sides of the fence, Catholic and Protestant, people are people, and they will never get beyond being limited in their views and knowledge. As a result, whereas Protestants argue back and forth among themselves as to the meaning and authority of Scripture, Catholics argue back and forth among themselves as to the meaning and authority of Church pronouncements. And because of that unavoidable dilemma, both parties are going to have their “denominations.” **Don’t let anyone kid you. There are “denominations,” if you will, among Catholics as there are in mainline Protestantism.***That explains why you have so many opinions …as to what to do with the Council of Trent.

The difference is there is one authority under which Catholics must submit.

Protestants leave it to their own fallible self to declare “Thus says the Lord!”.

so allow me to help: no Bible believing born again Protestants believe your statement

Please clarify. What statement are you referring to?

BTW, not all Protestants would use the term “born again”. Which goes back to my original statement that it’s quite untenable to try to proclaim “Protestants believe ____”

Heck, not even all Protestants claim that they’re *protesting *the Catholic church.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s assume that the general consensus regarding protestant perspective is right about the CC which states that the CC cannot teach infallibly.

Yes, I suppose you are right, joe, and that is one thing in which Protestants agree: the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly.

I amend my statement to say that one cannot say “Protestants believe ____” regarding doctrines, as it pertains to Christ, salvation, the church, Scripture. Perhaps they do indeed agree on “Here’s where the CC is wrong…”

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s assume that the general consensus regarding protestant perspective is right about the CC which states that the CC cannot teach infallibly.

That reminds me of a quote I read by Mark Shea:

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

LOL! Quite trenchant, is it not?

Protestants will deny the Catholic Church its infallibility, yet, inexplicably, accept our Holy Book, and assume that the Catholic Church made no errors.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey flyonthewall…

Certainly the repetition and solemnity (Amen amen translated as “verily verily” in verse 53) and the principle of repetition in general (over seven and arguably nine times between verses 48 and 58) - demands a literal interpretation of John 6 or else no part of the Bible does.

For example:

Althes in verse 55 means “actual” which supports a literal rendering of John 6 and not a figurative or symbolic one. “My flesh is actual food indeed and my blood is actual drink indeed” is hardly the statement of someone making a parabolic statement unless they are a bad teacher and Jesus was the best of teachers.

Phago (in verses 49-53) - is almost always used literally which lends further evidence to taking Jesus at His word when he refers to eating his flesh in these verses.

Trogo, which Jesus employs to really bring his point home, in verses 54, 56, 57, ane 58 means “to gnaw or chew” which, to me, refutes a figurative or symbolic rendering of John 6 and places a heavy emphasis on a literal interpretation. Also, it is not a verb used in a figurative sense anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, why should it be applied that way here???

Let’s assume for the moment that the grumblers and the apostles all believed that Jesus was speaking in metaphor. In line with the OT figurative usages of “eat my flesh” - the following speak of assaulting or reviling someone:

Deut 28:53ff; 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18- 20; 49:26; Ezek 5:10ff; Bar 2:3; Micah 3:1-4

If “eating my flesh” is figurative in John 6, the meaning would be to “assault” or to “revile” Jesus in order to gain eternal life. That is how the term is used in Revelation and the list of other OT references above. This meaning would claim that to gain eternal life we must repudiate Jesus. Such a view makes no sense to me.

Your thoughts my friend.

Hey Joe, thanks for the shout…
The first thing that comes to my mind is:
How does a figurative meaning of “eat my flesh” mean to assault or to revile, but a literal meaning is somehow better?
If I were to say something like “I will eat you alive”, Figuratively I would mean that I will overwhelm you(in whatever the subject is).
However if I stated that “I will eat you alive”, and mean it literally…well that would be much less desirable.

Growing up, I was once told by a coach that I needed to eat, drink and sleep baseball.
Now he didn’t mean it literally, but the meaning was that I was to be totally committed to baseball.
It is the same with John 6.
In verse 47, He states “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” His next statement is “I am that bread of life” - this ties in to manna, the bread that was sent from heaven.
Then He states: “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead” Their fathers literally ate the manna and are dead, so the literal meaning is not what He is referring to.
Remember, He gave the key to understanding His words: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”.
Why would He first say that we must literally eat His flesh, then turn around and say the flesh profiteth nothing?
When taken as a whole, the literal meaning just does not fit.

 

[joe370]

Hey fly…Everytime I type that it reminds me of venus flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati. Remember that show; it was so funny…

flyonthewall;7165358]Hey Joe, thanks for the shout…
The first thing that comes to my mind is:
How does a figurative meaning of “eat my flesh” mean to assault or to revile, but a literal meaning is somehow better?

Good point. Both would have been equally as bad in their minds, no doubt.

If I were to say something like “I will eat you alive”, Figuratively I would mean that I will overwhelm you(in whatever the subject is).

An idiom that they would not have recognized just as I did not recognize the fact that eating ones flesh meant to hate or kill someone back then until recently. Actually, fly, I am not familiar with that figure of speech today. LOL…I would never use it that way…

However if I stated that “I will eat you alive”, and mean it literally…well that would be much less desirable.

I get the comparison, but, the grumblers clearly did not understand the idiom in that way, otherwise they would have stuck around, logically speaking. Instead, they walked away because they were repulsed by Jesus’ words, and because Jesus kept reinforcing his point with a more graphic verb. (Gnaw) It seems that he meant what he said. However, I would never claim to be right based on my own merit. I simply trust the church’s decision, just as most Christians do, regardless of church affiliation.

Growing up, I was once told by a coach that I needed to eat, drink and sleep baseball.Now he didn’t mean it literally, but the meaning was that I was to be totally committed to baseball.

I too use to eat, drink and sleep baseball, as a kid. Now that is an undeniably clear idiom. Again, if the grumblers would have recognized the idiomatic nature of Jesus’ words, then no doubt, they would not have left; you know what I mean venus flytrap LOL…???

Remember, He gave the key to understanding His words: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”.
Why would He first say that we must literally eat His flesh, then turn around and say the flesh profiteth nothing?
When taken as a whole, the literal meaning just does not fit.

Do you believe that Jesus meant: My (Jesus) - flesh profits nothing? It looks to me like Jesus was trying to steer them away from interpreting His words in a cannibalistic manner, ergo the reason for telling them: What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! In other words, Jesus is saying, in my opinion: I don’t mean take a bite of my lower left thigh. LOL…

I have to catch some zzz’s. Always a joy dialogging with you my friend.

 

[flyonthewall]

Your thoughts guys...

That is quite a mouthful!
I think you have laid you your case very well, and I agree with some things and disagree with others.
I will try to address your main pionts.

If the bread and wine truly become Jesus’ spiritual flesh and blood via the power of God, (I am the bread that comes down from heaven and this bread is my flesh) - then what we have is an actual sacrifice akin to what happened in the old dispensation and the old covenant priesthood - yes, no, maybe, with the exception that those sacrifices of old were not efficacious? If no, that’s cool; if yes, then the Eucharistic sacrifice is nothing more than a re-presentation of Jesus’ flesh and blood, at every Mass, the concept of which takes us outside the confines of time, re-presenting the flesh and blood of Jesus, which was shed on Calvary, sacramentally speaking, under the veil of bread and wine, which is then eaten, just as Jesus commanded, and this is done everywhere in the world, at the same time, just as God predicted in Malachi 1:11. Outside the CC and the EOC Malachi’s prediction (1:10-11) - that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to him by the Gentiles in every place, ceases to exist. It took a long time for that concept to hit home, and I can certainly understand your reluctance. By the way, how else would that prophecy be fulfilled today?

First I will agree that the Eucharist is a representation of the sacrifice made by Jesus. We partake of it in rememberance of His sacrifice.
The fulfillment of that prophecy is that the Jews have rejected the Savior. It ties in with “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”. The Jews/House of Israel were the first to be chosen by the Lord, the gentiles were last. The Gentiles are now first as they have not rejected the Lord but have accepted Him. The Jews will be last to accept Him. (This is a very rough explaination, others more knowledgable than I can give a better explaination)

Like the Jewish nation in the book of Exodus, Jesus’ Church does not allow non-believers to partake of the Lamb of God, who have not, by choice, entered into the Eucharistic covenant, as was the case in the old covenant, and it does seem logical. They must be “circumcised” in the spirit, much as in the old covenant circumcision of the flesh was required, otherwise they would be eating the flesh of the Lamb unworthily which is a no - no according to Paul. Have you ever noticed the perpetual remembrance of the Passover as expounded in Exodus? The Jewish leaders taught that this participation in the passover of the lamb and unleavened bread was no mere symbolism but a real partaking of the exodus experience from Egypt, by all who underwent the Passover,regardless of the generation, and it was to be a ever lasting passover. It must still be ever lasting/perpetuated, and it is; it’s just perfected in the blood of the Lamb of lambs, in the new and everlasting covenant, of Jesus Christ. It also occurred to me that Jesus simply carried this Jewish concept of His, over, into the new covenant which, like the old covenant, is a real partaking of the Calvary experience, as opposed to a symbolic one. Nothing is ever repeated as I am told so often in protestant circles, nor can it be repeated from our finite perspective. That’s just silly. We, at the Mass, simply enter into the once and all for all sacrifice of Calvary, due to the power of God transforming the bread and wine into His flesh and blood, and that is why we see Jesus on the crucifix at church. It reminds us that, although Jesus is the King of kings and our glorified savior seated at the right hand of the Father, He is also the Lamb of lambs, (Lamb of lambs is my little term) - looking as if He had been slain, even in His heavenly home: “Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain …” Revelations 5

It is interesting that you bring up the passover as it is purely symbolic. Everything about it is symbolic. It even states right in Exodus 12 that the blood is a token.
You cannot have a real, literal experience of the passover, without actually being there. The symbols used are to bring to mind(in rememberance of) the experience of their fathers. Symbolically they could partake of the experience, not literally.

 

[flyonthewall]

A lamb without blemish was sacrificed and eaten in the old covenant. We also know Jesus, in the NC, is the lamb without blemish, who is also to be eaten yes, no? We know from John the Baptist that Jesus is,** “…the Lamb of God,** who takes away the sin of the world,” and, according to John, the beloved apostle, Jesus, the Lamb of God, still bears His wounds in heaven: Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain ….Adding to that, we are commanded to eat the flesh of Jesus, who is the lamb, “…Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” In both the old and the new covenant, a lamb was and is to be eaten. In the case of the new covenant the lamb is the Lamb of lambs…the Lamb of God. Take into consideration all of these factors and the catholic, eastern orthodox perspective comes alive, to me anyway. The whole assembly was to gather together to sacrifice the lambs in the old covenant. According to the new testament, we too are called to assemble for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in the form of unleavened bread (Eucharist) - the new Passover celebration. In the old covenant they were to take the blood of the lamb and put it on the lintels and doorposts where they were going to eat the lamb with unleavened bread. The blood was to be a sign of deliverance of the first born sons of Israel, (and these ordinances of eating the lamb and the unleavened bread were perpetual/everlasting, yet we don’t see this in present day Jewish society) - just as Jesus’ blood, shed on Calvary, is a sign of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, and these ordinances of old were fulfilled and perfected in the new and everlasting covenant, and we, like those of the old covenant, **are to eat this Lamb of God. **It seems that a synthesis took place at Jesus’ last supper when He said that we were to eat his body in the form of unleavened bread, in the sense that Jesus is the Lamb of lambs, who held his own flesh and blood in his own hands at his last supper in the form of unleavened bread. It occurred to me, as a former non-Catholic that I was not eating the Lamb of God in the form of unleavened bread, for the simple fact that 1) I didn’t believe it was a genuine sacrifice, prophesied in Malachi, at the time, which meant it could not be Jesus’ flesh and blood, and 2)there was no validly permanent priesthood, spoken of in the book of Hebrews, in any of the protestant churches:

This is the very definition of symbolism, to use one thing in the place of another in representation of it.
To place a literal interpretation on it is mysticism
It does not require a literal interpretation to accomplish the rememberance of His sacrifice as He stated the purpose of the last supper was.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey fly…Everytime I type that it reminds me of venus flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati. Remember that show; it was so funny…I do remember it and really enjoyed it.

Good point. Both would have been equally as bad in their minds, no doubt.

I gotta hit the sack too, lots to do tomorrow. I enjoy the good dialoge with you also. Everytime I come away with a little better insight of your belief. Many nuances to consider.

 

[joe370]

Fly, as I understand it from a Jewish perspective, the passover was (still is for them) - an ongoing perpetual experience of the Exodus itself. Sound familiar? According to Jewish authority, the Exodus did not (still doesn’t) - present itself as merely ancient history or a one-time event, when celebrated on passover, year after year, a view the CC shares regarding Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. Since the key way to remember the Exodus for the Israelites, was reenactment, for them, the passover feast offered itself as an ongoing perpetual experience of that one time Exodus event that took place so long ago. As the Israelites relived the Exodus year after year, as commanded by God, it turned memory into a moral dynamic, alive and present, year after year. As the Israelites would partake of the lamb, they would remember the horrible acts that took place just prior to the Exodus of their forefathers etc… They would recall Gods incredible act of love. The same thing happens at the Mass. We recall and enter into that horrible event that took place so long ago on Calvary, and recall Jesus’ infinite act of love. It’s an an ongoing perpetual experience of Calvary itself, made present in a much more way for the simple fact that we are consuming the blood of the Lamb of God, the actual medicine for the soul, which also turns memory into a moral dynamic.This past event, called the Exodus, for them, became a real and active part of the lives of the people celebrating the passover, year after year. The Exodus was not some past ancient event to the Israelites. Still isn’t today. It was much more than that. It was their ever-recurring redemption, which is exactly how the CC views Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. It was, to the ancient Israelites, (as they would celebrate the passover, year after year) - the Exodus event. The exodus event, for the Israelites, was made present each and every time they celebrated the passover year after year. The passover of the Old Covenant and the passover of the New Covenant, from a catholic perspective, are strikingly similar in the manner in which each is celebrated/commemorated - don’t you think? They never would have view the passover in a simple symbolic way, nor do they today. It was and still is, much more than that.

Fly, do a little research, from a Jewish perspective; it’s really interesting.

 

[joe370]

A lamb without blemish was sacrificed and eaten in the old covenant. We also know Jesus, in the NC, is the lamb without blemish, who is also to be eaten yes, no? We know from John the Baptist that Jesus is,** “…the Lamb of God,**

who takes away the sin of the world,” and, according to John, the beloved apostle, Jesus, the Lamb of God, still bears His wounds in heaven: Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain ….Adding to that, we are commanded to eat the flesh of Jesus, who is the lamb, “…Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” In both the old and the new covenant, a lamb was and is to be eaten. In the case of the new covenant the lamb is the Lamb of lambs…the Lamb of God. Take into consideration all of these factors and the catholic, eastern orthodox perspective comes alive, to me anyway. The whole assembly was to gather together to sacrifice the lambs in the old covenant. According to the new testament, we too are called to assemble for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in the form of unleavened bread (Eucharist) - the new Passover celebration. In the old covenant they were to take the blood of the lamb and put it on the lintels and doorposts where they were going to eat the lamb with unleavened bread. The blood was to be a sign of deliverance of the first born sons of Israel, (and these ordinances of eating the lamb and the unleavened bread were perpetual/everlasting, yet we don’t see this in present day Jewish society) - just as Jesus’ blood, shed on Calvary, is a sign of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, and these ordinances of old were fulfilled and perfected in the new and everlasting covenant, and we, like those of the old covenant, **are to eat this Lamb of God. **It seems that a synthesis took place at Jesus’ last supper when He said that we were to eat his body in the form of unleavened bread, in the sense that Jesus is the Lamb of lambs, who held his own flesh and blood in his own hands at his last supper in the form of unleavened bread. It occurred to me, as a former non-Catholic that I was not eating the Lamb of God in the form of unleavened bread, for the simple fact that 1) I didn’t believe it was a genuine sacrifice, prophesied in Malachi, at the time, which meant it could not be Jesus’ flesh and blood, and 2)there was no validly permanent priesthood, spoken of in the book of Hebrews, in any of the protestant churches:

This is the very definition of symbolism, to use one thing in the place of another in representation of it.
To place a literal interpretation on it is mysticism
It does not require a literal interpretation to accomplish the rememberance of His sacrifice as He stated the purpose of the last supper was.

That is my thoughts on it anyway.

Fly, in what way does eating mere bread help you to remember Jesus’ sacrifice? What’s the significance of the communion meal of bread and wine, in relation to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross? If Jesus came to you and told you that the bread, upon the words of consecration, really becomes “MY” flesh, wouldn’t the words, this is my body… and, unless you eat my flesh…and, my flesh is real food… make more sense - maybe? Jesus is the door; I get the metaphor there. Jesus holds up the bread and says: This is my body. I don’t get the metaphor.

 

[SunnaB16]

Are you saying the Spirit is not real enough?

Jesus is fully God; and He is fully Man.

Do you understand Who and what He is?
His divinity means that Hes Spirit. His humanity means that He has an immortal spiritual (human) soul, plus a human body. Therefore, Hes not just spirit! That original statement appled only to Jesus.
To be FULLY PRESENT, He has to be physically present, as well as being spiritually “present”. As we say: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

By the way: do you think that the Holy Spirit would allow virtually all Christians to believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for more than 1500 years if it`s false?

(The quotation marks are there to cover the fact that a spirit is an immaterial entity, and so, doesn`t occupy space. The spirit is the seat of the intellect and the will. A spirit is somewhere only in the sense that “its” intellect and will are focussed on “somewhere”: eg our souls are focussed on our bodies which occupy space.)

Did you know the Invisible created the visible? IMO the spirit is more real than the body. After all, it was, is, is going ,and always be the Invisible. The human body is an important part, don’t get me wrong, but are you saying truth is bodily, and not from the Spirit?

???
i was emphasising the fact that we`re taught spiritual Truth through our physical senses.

As for actions, actions reflect the spirit, through the body, you right, this is what I was saying in the first place,no problem here. You got totally lost from my point. I thought you were answering someone else.

Were on different wavelengths because of religious differences. i was talking about the seven (versus two, for others) Sacraments of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and how, for them to be valid (ie conveyors of Grace), outward ie physical, signs are necessary. And some of our Lords curing miracles made use of outward signs.

We were redeemed via the Ultimate Physical/Bodily Act which is the Crucifixion.

Very badly worded; but it`ll have to do.

 

[tester]

Please clarify. What statement are you referring to? :

you point in post #29 is in error when you state that

Jesus is with us "spiritually*, in the same way** that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.
Or** in the same way** when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit. :"*

BTW, not all Protestants would use the term “born again”. Which goes back to my original statement that it’s quite untenable to try to proclaim “Protestants believe ____”

I was trying to differentiate between what pew potatoes and what knowledgeable protestants believe;
In the same way you would differentiate a what Catholics believe from what the Church teaches (I’m sure you have seen the recent infamous poll)…

I have read the Catholic apologetic "play book " also… it seems EVERY post eventually brings up the number of Protestant denominations or the CC gave you the Bible.

the Robert Sungenis quote I used in post #45 was the most refreshingly honest statement I have seen in a long time…

 

[tester]

noticed the above typo. too late to edit : the error is in post 39

to clarify
PRMerger reply to Araninski regarding Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

PRMerger stated that "Jesus is with us “spiritually, in the same way that our family is with us, in our hearts, when we travel away from them.
Or in the same way when we’re at a family gathering and we’re reminiscing about my late father. Someone will inevitably say, “I can feel him here right now!” --and they don’t mean it, of course, in a macabre way. Just that he’s there with us in spirit. :”

It seem that you are saying when believers gather in the name of Christ : He is with them “like a fond memory”

using the terminology of the OP:
A novel view that was seen nowhere in scripture and virtually non-existent in any Protestant theology

 

[PRmerger]

It is interesting that you bring up the passover as it is purely symbolic. Everything about it is symbolic. It even states right in Exodus 12 that the blood is a token.

The passover is purely symbolic?

Did the firstborn sons (of those who did not eat the sacrificial lamb) only symbolically die?