Why eat to remember?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taoist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nevim said:
The Roman Catholic church cannot reconcile its Transubstation theory from Scriptures it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few concepts not explicitly found in scripture but are a doctrinal part of our faith. You won’t find “trinity” in scrpture either but to be Christian is to believe in the mystery of the trinitarian God. We know the Eucharist to be true because of our belief in a teaching Magisterium and the inerrant nature of the scriptures that describe it, and beliefs of the earliest Christians that knew the bread and wine to be the “body and blood, soul and divinity”.
 
Nevim said:
… I understand how being raised in the RCC one could come to the conclusion you have therefore just who is really being conditioned ? I follow Scripture, not a religion. I am not here to defend a religion I am here to defend God’s Word.
Click to expand...
The problem you have here with this particular idea is that many of us here have come from Churches that did not in fact believe in the Real Presence of Christ but just through reading of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit have come to see the Truth in the teachings of Christ and His apostles as found in the Catholic Church.

May God bless you and keep you safe,
Maria
 
Church_Militant said:
Your passage that you say forbids drinking of blood actually says “you shall not eat any fat or any blood.”
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. Did God misspeak? Did He mean to say “drink” but Moses(?) accidentally wrote down “eat”? Or was God further differentiating between eating the blood of creatures and drinking the blood of the Creator? Could it be that God used exactly the right words to distinguish as forcefully as possible between the two situations?
 
Nevim said:
Well with all due respect back to you why do you suggest the the Messiah would break His own commandments ? I already posted Duet 13:1-5 if you didn’t read that it’s not my fault. It is against Scripture to drink blood. Bottom line if the Messiah taught something against the Torah He would be a false prophet.

You are right - Jesus would be a false prophet if indeed He taught a false doctrine. Jesus was a faithful Jew. He knew exactly what he was saying.

catholicfaithandreason.org/Eucharist1.htm
"The Protestant interpretation that “flesh and blood” are merely a Hebrew idiom for “life” might make sense if Jesus had not taken the trouble to clarify his meaning for his disciples. He has repeated his message four times (John 6: 51-58) fully aware that the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood was prohibited by Levitical law (e.g., Leviticus 3:17) with the severe penalty of being cut off from your people. Nowhere else in Scripture does Jesus say anything four times. Moreover, even after “many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer” unable to accept this apparent gross violation of Mosaic law, Jesus did not change His meaning! This is the only time in the New Testament that the message of Jesus caused such a mass exodus of his followers. Just as the announcement that Jesus was going to be taken and crucified scandalized them, so too did Jesus teaching about the Eucharist. Both the Cross and the Eucharist are stumbling blocks which can only be overcome with the help of the Holy Spirit."

He did? How, did He said someday I raise up a celibate priesthood that can transubstaint my body?

No, but he insituted a Church built upon Peter which has the succession and power to interpret infalliably. One can see the problem of no infalliable interpretation through the years by the many, many claims of truth and many different denominations among our Protestant bretheren.

First off sir, I suggest you don’t know the meaning of the word " Church" secondly the ECF where not the followers of the Apostles, most the ECF were anti-semitic, and Hellenist’s. And btw the Book of Acts does not support the Catholic church as the orginal faith of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
The earliest Christians considered themselves catholic, as in “universal”. But they followed a Mass as we do today, celebrated the Eucharist, and had apostolic succession.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea1.asp
“‘There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:4-5).” Vatican II goes on to describe this Church established by Jesus Christ as “God’s only flock . . . this one and only Church of God” (Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio] 2, 3).

Ignatius’s letters reveal his understanding of that same “one and only Church of God.” His emphasis on the central role of the bishop in each local Church, for example, stemmed from his conviction that the bishop was the center of unity in the Church, guaranteeing that it would remain “one.” Ignatius wrote to the Philadelphians that there was only “one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbyters and the deacons” (4:1)."
 
Nevim said:
First off sir, I suggest you don’t know the meaning of the word " Church" secondly the ECF where not the followers of the Apostles, most the ECF were anti-semitic, and Hellenist’s. And btw the Book of Acts does not support the Catholic church as the orginal faith of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
That is certainly an interesting twist to history. Mind telling us what your source for this view is?
 
Church_Militant said:
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.

Actually I find your assumptions grossly offensive. God is the God of whom ? Open you Bible and tell me the answer. As far as your orthodox Jewish buddy is concerned it is the Roman Catholic church, that perscuted my/his people, starting with the so called ECF, he should be more angry at you then me!
Saint Augustin:
Your passage that you say forbids drinking of blood
Click to expand...
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.

I see no thou shalt not order medium rare in those verses, how come you do ?
Click to expand...
 
Jennifer123 said:
There are quite a few concepts not explicitly found in scripture but are a doctrinal part of our faith.
Click to expand...
Yes Jennifer I know, that’s my point.
40.png
Jennifer123:
You won’t find “trinity” in scrpture either but to be Christian is to believe in the mystery of the trinitarian God.
Click to expand...
One thing is certain God states that He is one, therefore not 3 “persons” as the RCC has Him, but One God with 3 natures, that I’ll believe.
40.png
Jennifer123:
We know the Eucharist to be true because of our belief in a teaching Magisterium
Click to expand...
Yes someone else has told you so, probably, like me, from birth, however that just doesn’t cut it. Anyone raise in any religion will tell you the same thing.
40.png
Jennifer123:
and the inerrant nature of the scriptures that describe it, and beliefs of the earliest Christians that knew the bread and wine to be the “body and blood, soul and divinity”.
Click to expand...
The earliest “Christians” were all believing Jews who were obedient to the Torah which forbids the eating of blood. Catholic Communion cannot stand up to the Biblical evidence.
 
… but One God with 3 natures, that I’ll believe.
Click to expand...
That is not the Sh’ma. You are contradicting yourself. Even the Jews doesn’t believe in what you posted above.

A God with three natures is a belief in a “Trimurti”. Like the Hinduism with Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu.
 
Nevim said:
Yes Jennifer I know, that’s my point.

But the bible doesn’t interpret itself! That’s the point.

One thing is certain God states that He is one, therefore not 3 “persons” as the RCC has Him, but One God with 3 natures, that I’ll believe.

Well, this thread is about the Eucharist so I don’t think I’ll get explicit about the Trinity. My point is that all Christians believe things that aren’t outlined in scripture, Catholics are just honest about it. 🙂

Yes someone else has told you so, probably, like me, from birth, however that just doesn’t cut it. Anyone raise in any religion will tell you the same thing.

No - not only because “someone told me”. I myself am a convert, I used the intellect and reason God gave me, and prayed for wisdom regarding the rest. If you really love God, you’ll want to know the truth about Him regardless of your religious/political/ideological beliefs or what it would cost you.

The earliest “Christians” were all believing Jews who were obedient to the Torah which forbids the eating of blood. Catholic Communion cannot stand up to the Biblical evidence.

Jews? Yes some. But others were Gentiles and still some others were pagans. The Jews who became of “The Way” left the Law for the Living Word. 😉 The Eucharist is wholly biblical - there is much more upholding it than John 6. If that weren’t so there would be no reason why any historical evidence would show that the Eucharist was celebrated among those who knew the Apostles themselves - the very people who personally knew Jesus Christ. To say otherwise, especially as a Christian, is to say Christianity ran off the rails not long after Jesus died and was resurrected, which itself is a biblical error. The gates of Hell will never prevail.
Click to expand...
 
I dont really want to get my self crazy involved in this because i hate arguing especially about conflicting beliefs.

But Nevim…

Levi chapter three

If i am not mistaken, this scripture has no conflict with eating of the Body and Blood that Christ Gave us.
I am pretty sure this has to do with the priestly sacrafice of animals, and im pretty sure while sacrificing, you are not to eat any of the sacrafice for it belongs to God, not you!

The reason we dont eat it is probably because it belongs to the lord, and i should be un blemished.

And yes, these were the ways of Peace offerings, and to my knowledge. Since Jesus gave him self up for us all, we do not need to sacrafice animals or anything for offerings anymore. Though it could still be done, but yeilds no outcome you do not already have…
This is not to say we are sinless… i am not much of a theologian but thats all i can say…

This is no interference, that i can see, with the Sacrafice of the Lord, for he gave his body and blood up for US … so that we may indulge in it…

Don’t get me wrong, im not trying to say that im 100% correct, im still in a period of learning (my whole life), and i hope this proves viable arguement, it just bugged me that no one pointed this out??
or amybe im totally wrong…

And i want to let you all know, who ever started to pick on his “Bond Servant” title he has, i hope it was straightened out, because a bond servant is just a slave, or one who does work without wages… (Answers.com/BondServant)

May the grace of God be with you all.
 
Nevim said:
Actually I find your assumptions grossly offensive. God is the God of whom ? Open you Bible and tell me the answer. As far as your orthodox Jewish buddy is concerned it is the Roman Catholic church, that perscuted my/his people, starting with the so called ECF, he should be more angry at you then me!
Click to expand...
Not my fault. You are the one that is a blasphemer by any Jewish standard that you want to call up, and that is precisely my friend’s point. Whereas I acknowledge that I am not Jewish he respects that and we dialog accordingly, but those (like you) who purport themselves to be Jews offend him worse than anything that I can do. Moreover, he is often the target of n-C “witnesses” who rudely tell him that he is going to hell, doesn’t believe the Bible (which he actually knows better than most of them!), and a whole host of other rhetorical trash that teh guy shouldn’t have to put up with.

As for your alleged ECF presecutions of the Jews, I doubt you can substantiate that from any reliable history and will readily blow off the Biblical and historical fact of the early church being persecuted by the Jews. But you will allege that your Protestant forbears where lily white as snow in this regard, which is patently untrue. (But of course you will assert that you are not affiliated with them in spite of the fact that you share their same doctrines.
I see no thou shalt not order medium rare in those verses, how come you do ?
Click to expand...
Because you don’t want to…don’t confuse you with facts right? Your mind is already made up?
Pax tecum,
 
Look at Nevim profile and under religion you should read : “Messianic Judaism”.

I was right. (hehe) 🙂
 
I really dont think you should be so agressive…
What are you called to do after all?
Last i checked it was to follow Gods commandments.
And one of this is love your neighbor as yourself…

Grace of our lord be with you!

Pray about an answer, it will be given. I am not saying you cannot debate about it, this is how some people are supposed to learn, but when you get agressive about anothers faith, then thats where the fine line between Rising and Falling is broken.
 
Augustin,
If im not mistaken, he was questioning a Messianic Christian…

Messianic being redundant?

God be with you.
 
No no , i totally understand Messianic Judaism any everything. But i think what Nevim was thinking was Messianic Christianity, and maybe im totally wrong, but i think he said something about that, and he questioned it.
I dont remember him denying he was a Messianic Jew.
 
Saint_Augustin said:
The problem with the messianic Christians is that they want a reconciliation between two worlds: Judaism with the Christendom. And it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
Again im not sure, but you were replying to his or her comment on The Torah and the Body and Blood of Christ?

I dont know. Not sure, your going to have to clear this up for me,i guess.
 
Abiien said:
I really dont think you should be so agressive…
What are you called to do after all?
Last i checked it was to follow Gods commandments.
And one of this is love your neighbor as yourself…

Grace of our lord be with you!

Pray about an answer, it will be given. I am not saying you cannot debate about it, this is how some people are supposed to learn, but when you get agressive about anothers faith, then thats where the fine line between Rising and Falling is broken.
Click to expand...
You have many kinds of Christians in the modern “messianic movement”. Some are Trinitarians and some are not. Nevim doesn’t believe in the Trinity and he is a Sabellian.

And I quote the website from the URL I posted:

“The MJAA believe in one God as declared in the Sh’ma (Deuteronomy 6:4), who is Echad, or a compound unity and eternally existent in three forms: God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit.”

Without prejudice, I don’t care about what he want to believe. This is not my business. I only react to falsities.
 
No no, i totally agree with you and his beliefs…
But yet again, i think he said He believed in three Natures of God, as Father Son Holyspirit, i think he said he would believe that, but not three persons.

Its just a little misconception it hink.

Because i concluded that he believed in the trinity, God is 1, but at the same time is 3 different faces…

One person used the analogy of a Dad.

When the Dad is at work, he is the boss figure, then he is home, he is the father figure with his son, and when he is with his wife, he is the husband figure.

3 types, but 1 being.

From what i read, Nevim said this was believable, but not that God is 3 seperate beings. but just one with three natures.

Which i guess is waht i believe, i dont know if thats against trinitarianism, or what ever, im not very well taught on catholic beliefs, for ive only been one for a year and a half, and before that i was agnostic from birth lol but babtized episcopalean

Grace of God be with you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top