Why eat to remember?

[Saint_Augustin]

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

Trinity : Three persons in one essence (substance).
Trimurti: A God with three natures (Hinduism).
Sabelianism: One God but three different hats.

God bless you.

 

[Abiien]

consider me a trinitarian then …
Where is the voting booths?

haha
Thanks…
Godbwy

 

[Nevim]

I have a question which to which I haven’t found an answer which makes sense to me, and I have come here for help. As one who is not Christian I understand the importance and meaning of the Eucharist, but I do not understand the reason for consuming the body and blood of Jesus. I found a word to describe this - theophagy - (some may call it ‘cannibalism’) but am left with the question of “Why?” Why does the physical act of eating Jesus bring one closer to him? Why not just pray and have Jesus enter your heart that way?

By the way, I really wish to avoid a discussion on transubstantiation in this thread since it is covered elsewhere.

Thanks.

It is a man made doctrine with its roots in paganism.

 

[Nevim]

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.”

Excatly, you have to reconcile a doctrine with Scripture, which is what that does.
Saint Augustin:

Without prejudice, I don’t care about what he want to believe. This is not my business. I only react to falsities.

Me too.

 

[Truthstalker]

“Christ our passover is slain for us
Therefore let us keep the feast.”

Christ is the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world; He is the Passover lamb. God laid our sins on Him at Calvary.

As the Passover lamb is eaten in the Sedar, so Christians eat His body in the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is God, so we eat our God.

This has no pagan roots. Some totally misunderstand Christianity and totally misunderstand Judaism at the same time.

Some things in paganism echo the truth, because the truth is out there, being true, and there is a glimpse some pagans catch of the truth, but the truth is in Christianity, not in paganism.

 

[Nevim]

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.

Just for your understanding I would perfer just plain Messianic, why? Because there are Gentiles that are messianic believers as well, just like the orginal assembly of believers.

 

[Nevim]

“Christ our passover is slain for us
Therefore let us keep the feast.”

Christ is the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world; He is the Passover lamb. God laid our sins on Him at Calvary.

As the Passover lamb is eaten in the Sedar, so Christians eat His body in the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is God, so we eat our God.

Nice try but Y’shua is the Lamb of God is a figure or metaphor, obiviously Christ is not a wooly little lamb to be eaten.

Truthstalker:

This has no pagan roots. Some totally misunderstand Christianity and totally misunderstand Judaism at the same time.

Pagan roots–you bet, as for the rest of your statement excatly what are you trying to say ?

 

[Truthstalker]

Sabellianism is a heresy long rejected by the church. Look at some Scripture to see that God has three persons:

Genesis: let us make man in our image - God.

At the baptism of Jesus, we see Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit coming down as a dove, and the Father speaking from heaven. Three persons, not three modes.

In Psalms: the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand…today I have begotten thee…My God, why have you forsaken me…

Jesus:
No one has seen God at any time. When you have seen Me, you have seen the Father…

We see Jesus praying to the Father in the Garden. He was not speaking to Himself but to His Father.

To adopt Sabellianism is to totally misunderstand Scripture.

 

[Nevim]

Here you will find his paradigm:
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/mess.html

"They have persuaded Jews that to follow Yeshua is to denounce the Jewish faith, and therefore become non-Jewish. "

Not true…we do no such thing.

 

[Truthstalker]

Nice try but Y’shua is the Lamb of God is a figure or metaphor, obiviously Christ is not a wooly little lamb to be eaten.

Pagan roots–you bet, as for the rest of your statement excatly what are you trying to say ?

So you reject Scripture and the plan of God for salvation?

 

[petra]

Nevim,

I’m still very interested to know how you reconcile Ignatius of Antioch’s position on transubstantiation in light of 2 Tim. 2:2.

petra

 

[MariaG]

Hi Nevim,

I am reading many, many claims by you with absolutely not one link or source for your information.

While I certainly would like to consider your claims, right now, they are just unsubstantiated except by your own word.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Nevim]

Church Militant:

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.

Frankly I never say anything I cannot back up

Anti-Semitism of the “Church Fathers”​

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (98-117A.D.) – Epistle to the Magnesians

For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.

“Epistle of Barnabas” Chapter 4vs 6-7 (between 130A.D. and 138 A.D.)

Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.

The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.

We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) – One of the “greatest” of church fathers; known as “The Golden Mouthed.” A missionary preacher famous for his sermons and addresses.

The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.

From “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism” by Malcolm Hay

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14

How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Peter the Venerable – known as “the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity”

Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.

From “The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism” by Malcolm Hay

 

[Nevim]

Church Militant:

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.Because you don’t want to…don’t confuse you with facts right? Your mind is already made up?
Pax tecum,

They rightly say that assumption is the mother of all foul ups. When one assumes something he is in danger of becoming the first three letters of said word. My forefathers were Jews, DNA amply proves my point, until they were persecuted by the “Church Militant,” and forced conversions. However raised in a Catholic home, freed by the Adonai Y’shua and returned to the faith of my fathers. There is no peace between light and darkness.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is a man made doctrine with its roots in paganism.

Keep dreaming…It has no connection to paganism and is taken directly from the New Testament as is plainly shown in This Thread. It was believed by the early church as stated in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30 as well as the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna chapter 7. Be aware that he was a disciple of St. John the apostle and so learned the faith directly from him. He was bishop of the church in Antioch and for his faith was martyred by being thrown to wild animals.

So far as I can tell, your beliefs are more akin to non-Christian than anything that the Catholic Church teaches, so I’d suggest that you knock off the rhetorical assertions without factual basis.
Pax Domini sit semper vobsicum.

 

[Nevim]

Hi Nevim,

I am reading many, many claims by you with absolutely not one link or source for your information.

What information? Catholics here post all sorts of information with no links or sources, you know the pot and kettle routine yes ?

MariaG:

While I certainly would like to consider your claims, right now, they are just unsubstantiated except by your own word.

God Bless,
Maria

All I ask is that you read and study the posted Scriptures. The Sources for the anti-semitism of the ECF I have given, I have no idea what else you would like.

 

[Abiien]

Nevim, what about your side on my reply to your blood and body ??

Did you get my post?

Anyway… all fighting aside, May the Grace of God be with you.

 

[Abiien]

Since when did this simple question about the Eucharist change from A fight for the Torah to a Fight for defense of ones beliefs (anti semitism)
I believe that i would like to hear more defense on the disbelief of the Eucharist, because all the information i haev heard was just misinterpreted scripture… like Leviticus and the Gospels.

what i learned, in the greek language, the term “Is” in it was the term “literally is” and if im not mistaken, that language then they would depict metaphors and stuff with a different type of “is”, i might be totally wrong, for im not a biblical greek major, but this is just what i learned so far…

 

[Tietjen]

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.

There is a difference between receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the bloody and cannibalistic way of which Duet speaks.

Bottom line if the Messiah taught something against the Torah He would be a false prophet.

Yes, he would. Which proves the RCC’s position (See John chapter 6, Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28, Luke 22:17-20, and Luke 24:30-35). “Bottom line” what has the greater authroity:

1. The Torah
2. The Son of God
   Or… could there be yet another possibility? Could it be that Jesus Christ (The Son of God) did not teach against the Torah. The RCC believes this to be the case. Why is it that you cannot?

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

Celibacy has nothing to do with it. Stay focused on one topic at a time. If you wish to discuss celibacy after this topic, create another tread and let me know where and when. So, celibacy aside, He (Christ) did say:
Mat 26:26 - Take, eat; this is my body.
Mk 14:22 - Take; this is my body.
Lk 22:19 - “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1Cor 11:24 - “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Cor what ? How am I suppose to know what you mean? Please supply chp and verse.

Sorry, I assumed that you would have known the verses. My bad.
1 Cor 10:14-17
1 Cor 11:23-29
1 Cor 5:7 - (NOTE: Here Christ is called the Paschal Lamb." I again assume that you are aware that sacrifical lambs of the old testiment WERE eaten after the sacrifice?)

sir, I suggest you don’t know the meaning of the word " Church"

You suggest a lot of things which aren’t true, why stop with me. I like the definition mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Pillar of Truth.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

 

[Tietjen]

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.

Wow. Okay, first the Early Church Fathers were no more anti-semitic than Peter and the apostles. Many of them were in fact JEWS! Take Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of the Apostle John (He knew, worked with, traveled with John). He wrote the following concerning certain heretics and the Eucharist:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” - Letter to the Smyrnaeans

In another letter he writes this:
I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ… and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.

Oh… and let us not forget good ol’ Martin Luther himself who had this to say concerning the uniformity of the Early Church Fathers on this subject:
“… of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread’ or ‘Not that the body of Christ is physically present,’ or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand unifornily and consistently on the affirmative side.” - Luther’s Works, vol. 37 pg 54.