Why eat to remember?

[Nevim]

As your cited scripture correctly points out, God’s presence within the believer is the Holy Spirit. You should know that Catholics most certainly affirm this. But the Second Person of the Trinity does not indwell us in the same way. As many protestants frequently do, you blur the lines between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

First off lets look at what the Lord teaches: The “shema”
NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! The Lord is not 3 persons or 3 people instead His nature is Trinue.
I have some adivse for you catholics here, stop accusing people of things you know nothing about, here is a prime example " As many protestants frequently do”–according to whom ? Don’t just throw out and opinion with no source to back your claim–thank you.

petra:

Each person of the Trinity is a distinct person and has a particular role in our salvation.

Not according to Scripture:

NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

 

[Damascus]

I have never seen a compelling argument against the Eucharist. Not once.
Not here not anywhere. Its so clear I wonder why people cant see it. Why do they fight it so hard? What is the concern they have? Rebelling for the sake of rebelling is what I think it is. Protesting things just to be different.

Yet, the Christians who reject it claim a personal relationship with Jesus

It boggles my mind how this “relationship” is in any way “personal” when it includes refusing him and his teaching!

Its like saying I have a personal relationship with my spouse but I dont recognize my spouse since its merely a symbolic spouse I have. We have symbolic children and symbolic mortgage payments. Where does it end?

 

[VociMike]

I have never seen a compelling argument against the Eucharist. Not once.
Not here not anywhere. Its so clear I wonder why people cant see it.

Indeed. No doctrine is taught more explicitly or more forcefully in Scripture than that of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, and yet “bible-believing” Christians claim not to see it, but to see the opposite.

 

[Saint_Augustin]

First off lets look at what the Lord teaches: The “shema”
NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! The Lord is not 3 persons or 3 people instead His nature is Trinue.
I have some adivse for you catholics here, stop accusing people of things you know nothing about, here is a prime example " As many protestants frequently do”–according to whom ? Don’t just throw out and opinion with no source to back your claim–thank you.

One more mind infected by the Sabbelianism/Modalism heresy.

To bad.

 

[Nevim]

You are incorrect. The reason which God gives in Scripture for not eating the blood of creatures is because the life is in the blood.

Not according to Scripture it EXPLICTLY states not to drink ANY blood.
NAS Leviticus 3:17 ‘It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat** any fat or any blood** .’" Two things here Yahweh COMMANDS us NOT to drink ANY blood or eat ANY fat.
What does “perpetual” mean : Eternal, everlasting, forever etc. Surely you know what ANY means yes ?

VociMike:

Now, why did Christ become Incarnate?

Why did Christ come ? Here is the answer according to Him:

NET Matthew 15:24 So he answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

VociMike:

 The OT warning against eating the blood of creatures is simply part of the warning against pagan practices.

No the Scripture clearly and EXPLICTLY states ANY BLOOD. Futhermore it is mentioned again in the Newer Testament.

VociMike:

Jesus Christ is not a pagan god, thus drinking His blood is not a pagan practice, any more than worshiping Him is pagan practice, although worshiping any man would be pagan practice.

Huh ? Drinking blood is a pagan practice and un-natural to boot.

 

[Nevim]

One more mind infected by the Sabbelianism/Modalism heresy.

To bad.

You people never tire of leveling accusations. What is a Sabbelianism/ Modalism ?

If my mind is affective with anything it’s the Word of God…

 

[Nevim]

Indeed. No doctrine is taught more explicitly or more forcefully in Scripture than that of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, and yet “bible-believing” Christians claim not to see it, but to see the opposite.

To the contrary I already gave the reasons.

 

[Saint_Augustin]

Two things here Yahweh COMMANDS us NOT to drink ANY blood or eat ANY fat.

No fast food anymore!

What does “perpetual” mean : Eternal, everlasting, forever etc. Surely you know what ANY means yes ?

Not in the Hebraic language. It could be an indefinite period of time.

 

[Nevim]

(From this thread.)
If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

Nice Catholic version “Chalice of benediction” which is not in the orginal text. Other then that it’s clear that Paul is refering to a typically Messiniac Passover Seder ie. “the cup of blessing” is the third cup of wine comsumed and it is called the “cup of blessing” the Corthinians were holding a Passover Seder not a Roman Catholic Mass!

 

[Saint_Augustin]

You people never tire of leveling accusations. What is a Sabbelianism/ Modalism ?

Do your own research. You will learn something.

 

[Nevim]

You missed the point. As a human being Jesus had to accomplish the Law perfectly. This is why he told to Peter, John and James to be silent about this meeting with Moses.

And has human beings that’s why we are suppose to keep the Law.
Saint Augustin:

Nope. Paul had to deal with Judaists like you very often. And this is not an ad hominem.

I am not taking it as an ad hominem, but others here felt it their duty to do just that. What you really mean is a “Judiaizer” ie. someone who states you have to be a Jew to be saved, sorry that’s not what I am saying at all. But you can bet there is not two standards of Righteousness, one for the Jew and the other for the Gentile.
Saint Augustin:

You can be anything you want, it’s not my soul. I will respect you anytime, because I don’t care about what you are. Have a good week.

No it’s not my soul it’s yours.

 

[Nevim]

Do your own research. You will learn something.

As you should do yours…

 

[Church_Militant]

To the contrary I already gave the reasons.

But your reasons may well be in dire error. After all, you are already a Christian playing at being a Jew, something that my orthodox Jewish buddy finds grossly offensive.

Your passage that you say forbids drinking of blood actually says “you shall not eat any fat or any blood.” which sounds more like they are commanded to eat only well done meat. God knowing what he was talking about knew the dangers of undercooking meats.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[petra]

First off lets look at what the Lord teaches: The “shema”
NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! The Lord is not 3 persons or 3 people instead His nature is Trinue.
I have some adivse for you catholics here, stop accusing people of things you know nothing about, here is a prime example " As many protestants frequently do”–according to whom ? Don’t just throw out and opinion with no source to back your claim–thank you.

I meant no offense. It is merely an observation that I make, having formerly been a Protestant myself for 40 years. But your statement above affirms my point.

The denial that God is 3 persons is a 3rd century heresy known as Sabellianism or modalism. In this view, the apparent manefestations of the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely apparent “modes” of God relating to us, rather than an objective reality of there being distinct persons. This is not a scriptural or orthodox view of the Trinity.

The correct view is that there is one God, one in essence and unity. God is 3 persons, distinct in their personhoods, but all fully God.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

First off lets look at what the Lord teaches: The “shema”
NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! The Lord is not 3 persons or 3 people instead His nature is Trinue.
I have some adivse for you catholics here, stop accusing people of things you know nothing about, here is a prime example " As many protestants frequently do”–according to whom ? Don’t just throw out and opinion with no source to back your claim–thank you.

Not according to Scripture:

NAS Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Hey Nevim! It’s Godisawake under a different name. I’m glad you could join us in CAF…

Jesus Christ equally posesses divinity, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
Father equally posesses divinity, but He is not Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit equally possesses divinity, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Hence, God is three distinct (but not separate) persons equally possessing His divine nature.

 

[Saint_Augustin]

What you really mean is a “Judiaizer” ie. someone who states you have to be a Jew to be saved, sorry that’s not what I am saying at all.

Nope. I said that you are a Judaist…

Judaist (def.):

1. an adherent or supporter of Judaism.
2. (in the early Christian church) a convert from Judaism who followed or advocated Jewish rites or practices.

Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/Judaist

 

[Church_Militant]

Nice Catholic version “Chalice of benediction” which is not in the orginal text. Other then that it’s clear that Paul is refering to a typically Messiniac Passover Seder ie. “the cup of blessing” is the third cup of wine comsumed and it is called the “cup of blessing” the Corthinians were holding a Passover Seder not a Roman Catholic Mass!

What difference does that make? A chalice is a Latin word for a cup.

16 calicem

benedictionis cui benedicimus nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est et panis quem frangimus nonne participatio corporis Domini est 17 quoniam unus panis unum corpus multi sumus omnes quidem de uno pane participamur
You want it in Greek?

το ποτηριον της ευλογιας ὁ ευλογουμεν, ουχι κοινωνια εστιν του αἱματος του χριστου; τον αρτον ὁν κλωμεν, ουχι κοινωνια του σωματος του χριστου εστιν; ὁτι εἱς αρτος, ἑν σωμα οἱ πολλοι εσμεν, οἱ γαρ παντες εκ του ἑνος αρτου μετεχομεν.

Gee… what about that 4th cup? Oh and if this wasn’t a Catholic Mass, it sure as vitam aetrenam cannot have been just a simple Passover meal because Christ sure proclaimed the bread and wine to be His body and blood and commanded us to eat and drink it. If you were a time traveler, you no doubt would have been one of the mumbling Jews mentioned in John 6.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Jennifer123]

Hi Jennifer, being raised Catholic I have to disagree with you. Nothing about the Mass or communion is anything like the Passover seder.

{QUOTE=Jennifer123
Jesus is called the “Lamb” by his apostle John before Jesus’s death:

Yes John uses a metaphor what of it ? No disrespect meant here but surely Y’shua didn’t go “baa baa.”

Certainly the people who were trying to understand what Jesus meant when he said “Eat my body” and “drink my blood” wouldn’t have had a hard time understanding Him if they knew Him only to be speaking metaphorically. Not everything in scripture is literal OR metaphorical. There are all types of typology in scripture.
The verb he uses for “eat” in this passage of John 6 doesn’t mean “to consume” but rather its literal interpretation is “to gnaw”. Jesus knew he was telling his followers He intended them to really gnaw and chew his flesh. Many people left in disgust saying the teaching was hard and who can understand it? It just doesn’t make sense that people would be disgusted by a simple, metaphorical and symbolic teaching.

Ah but we do that at passover each year as God has commanded us to do. There is no commandment to celebrate a Catholic “Mass”

**That is what is meant by “DO THIS” - it is a “commandment” by Our Lord to do this in His name. If you read the earliest writings by the earliest Christians, we can see they did “this”, as we do today in the Catholic Mass, even then. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch, was a disciple himself of the Apostle John. His Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.: “I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” **

 

[MariaG]

Eating and Drinking are Jewish idioms for gaining knowledge. Drinking blood is fobidden in the Torah, and anyone teaching breaking that commandment would be a false prophet Duet 13:1-5

So you disagree with this?

from CA library Christ in the Eucharist
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Micah 3:2-3 you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin from off my people,
and their flesh from off their bones;
3 who eat the flesh of my people,
and flay their skin from off them,
and break their bones in pieces,
and chop them up like meat in a kettle,
like flesh in a caldron.

 

[VociMike]

Not according to Scripture it EXPLICTLY states not to drink ANY blood.
NAS Leviticus 3:17 ‘It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat** any fat or any blood** .’" Two things here Yahweh COMMANDS us NOT to drink ANY blood or eat ANY fat.
What does “perpetual” mean : Eternal, everlasting, forever etc. Surely you know what ANY means yes ?

Just as surely as you know what “the life of every creature” means. Why would Scripture insert the clarifier “every creature” if it had no meaning? Does God do things that have no meaning?

If you choose to continue to obey all the Levitical laws (you do obey all of them, don’t you?), to act as though there is no New Covenant, to act as though you are still awaiting the Messiah who will make all things new, nobody can stop you. But any lurkers can see that your charges are just OT legalism which have no meaning in the face of the explicit teachings of Christ.

And then there’s the question of why Jesus would tell us to incorporate even a symbolic violation of His laws in the very act of worship He has given us? “Yes, our worship includes a violation of God’s commands, but hey, it’s only a symbolic violation so we’re OK!” That’s another question I’ve never seen answered satisfactorily.