Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Interpret the Bible
http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/interpreting-the-bible ^ | May 1, 2011 | Faith Facts

Posted on 05/10/2011 6:26:58 PM PDT by grumpa

In 1993 Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a book entitled Christianity in Crisis. In the book he exposed problems within evangelicalism. Many think that in actuality Hanegraaff understated the problems of both doctrine and practice within Christianity, and time has made the issues even more acute.

Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. And maybe we don’t. Some serious introspection is in order.

(Excerpt) Read more at faithfacts.org ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; dispensationalism; interpret; prophecy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 next last
If you are not ready to be challenged, this article might make you a bit uncomforable.
1 posted on 05/10/2011 6:27:00 PM PDT by grumpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grumpa

Thanks for posting. Will read it later.


2 posted on 05/10/2011 6:31:15 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
this article might make you a bit uncomforable.

Actually, although I'm not finished reading it, this seems one of the more rational articles on the subject I've read in a while.

3 posted on 05/10/2011 6:31:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
There are the ultra-fundamentalists who think that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally—making a mockery of language itself including the language of Scripture.

You know, it's funny, I keep hearing about these folks, but of all the fundamentalists I've met over the years, I haven't actually met any.

4 posted on 05/10/2011 6:43:25 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Ever talk to a Dispensationalist or a Church of Christ person?


5 posted on 05/10/2011 6:45:43 PM PDT by grumpa (VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
Just finished reading and I liked it. From what I've seen on FR, some here won't like the article because it doesn't support their particular theology... I'd like to be wrong.

I was glad to see the reference to context, something many either don't understand or ignore.

In addition to a number of books, I use Logos Bible software to study the Bible. Well, who am I kidding... I rarely use books any more because Logos is excellent.

Good stuff. Thanks.

6 posted on 05/10/2011 6:47:02 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
I see no mention of the Sabbath or other commandments. Too sticky a topic for one that wishes to challenge one's thoughts on the Bible?

Also no mention of Isaiah 28:10-13, which gives one of the most important clues on how to study scriptures.

It always helps to have a copy of the Bible with Strong's Dictionary if you want the meaning of the words in the text.
7 posted on 05/10/2011 6:47:57 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
Yes actually. And the problem with Hanegraaf's statement, especially as you're trying to apply it to dispensationalists, is that attacking somebody for thinking "that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally" essentially just serves to allow the attacker to set themselves up as the arbiter of what is supposed to be taken "literally" and what isn't. In essence, overturning Hanegraaf's argument and making it self-contradictory, at least by their application.

He complains about people not taking the Bible seriously as the inspired Word of God, but then basically turns around and encourages them not to do so, since doing so is "taking every word literally," which is a big bad, horrible no-no.

Further, the argument over how literally to take the Bible is one that a lot of people, frankly, just don't even understand. I think we can all understand that Jesus wasn't saying He was literally a plant (John 15:1), nor was He saying He was a wooden plank with a doorknob (John 10:9), nor did He really mean that we should actually eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:54) - well, except many Catholics on that last one. Nevertheless, making those arguments, as Hanegraaf does, is something of a red herring. Nobody makes those arguments - nobody "takes the Bible literally" in that sense, and trying to use this as an argument is simply a straw man.

Now, concerning dispensationalists - amillennialists and other heretics will tend to try to, ah, expand this idea of "not taking the Bible too literally" to mean, basically, that wherever something the Bible says is in conflict with their theology, then it's meant to be taken "figuratively." Hence, they set their own theology up as the arbiter of what determines whether the Bible is "literal" or not. This is done, for instance, with the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. Amillennialists, preterists, and others will jump through every hoop to make this non-literal. Yet, there's not any *scriptural* context to suggest that this isn't meant to be taken literally.

Yet, by making the "only dummies would take the Bible over literally" argument, they essentially give themselves an out to dispense with all those uncomfortable questions about why their theology is in such conflict with the actual words of Scripture. The millennial reign is just figurative, or is happening right now in a, well, non-millennial fashion, because we said it is. And if you point to Scriptural context to refute this, you're just an uneducated buffoon who takes the Bible too literally.

8 posted on 05/10/2011 7:00:46 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
Hank sold out to the “different” doctrine guys several years back.

I guess his books weren't selling well enough, so he had Willow Creek guys onto his program to promote their “seeker sensitive” theology.

Sorry, but Hank USED to be bible based sola scriptura, but now he's more into doing and saying what he has to to get listeners

9 posted on 05/10/2011 7:11:44 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Jews know that G-d gave every letter in the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai— and the correct interpretation/application of the letters/words/phrases/sentences...in Hebrew (or, lashon hakodesh—the holy tounge.) It’s so liberating...no revisionists, no doubts. Pure genius. God says “I want this” and we do it. I don’t envy you guys.

What is the New Testament written in originally?


10 posted on 05/10/2011 7:19:55 PM PDT by jdlevy95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grumpa; The Ignorant Fisherman

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm


11 posted on 05/10/2011 7:21:33 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

when Jesus says “This is My Body”, Catholics believe Him, what do you do?


12 posted on 05/10/2011 7:26:46 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/3438053039/yesnomaybe-20


13 posted on 05/10/2011 7:30:36 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: grumpa

The biggest problem with post-modern evangelism are the emergent, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven churches that cater to itching ears.


14 posted on 05/10/2011 7:33:06 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa

Hmmmm

place marker.


15 posted on 05/10/2011 7:33:45 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpa

Have read some of the website already. Looks like an excellent resource to me. Thank you for sharing it.


16 posted on 05/10/2011 7:38:08 PM PDT by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
when Jesus says “This is My Body”, Catholics believe Him, what do you do?

I understand His statement in light of the biblical theology surrounding the "eating" of the Word of God and it acting as spiritual sustenance (Job 23:12, Jer. 15:16, Ezek. 3:1-3, Rev. 10:9), connecting this with the idea of Jesus also being the Word of God. In other words, there is a well-established line of doctrine in Scripture which treats the "eating of God's Word" as spiritual and/or soemthing that happens in visions (i.e. figurative), so I would also understand Jesus' words in John 6 the same way.

17 posted on 05/10/2011 7:46:25 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jdlevy95; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What is the New Testament written in originally?

Many who have studied the Greek in the book
of Matthew detect underlying Hebraisms.

This would suggest that it was originally
written in Hebrew for Hebrews.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
18 posted on 05/10/2011 7:46:27 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; jdlevy95
The NT was originally written in Greek, including Matthew. In fact, there's no evidence for an Aramaic Matthew (rather than Hebrew, for which there's NO early evidence) until the 3rd century.
19 posted on 05/10/2011 7:49:40 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
This would suggest that it was originally written in Hebrew for Hebrews.

Wasn't Aramaic, followed by koine Greek, the business and everyday language of that region for centuries, Hebrew being relegated to the more erudite regions of scholarship? Of course, Hebraisms could have persisted across languages in much the same way that many figures of speech are found throughout the Romance languages and English today.
20 posted on 05/10/2011 7:50:23 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jdlevy95

Greek?


21 posted on 05/10/2011 7:50:23 PM PDT by Dogbert41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

so when Paul says in 1 Cor 10:16, “and is not the bread we break a participation in the Body of Christ”, Catholics believe him. what do you do?


22 posted on 05/10/2011 7:52:58 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. And maybe we don’t. Some serious introspection is in order.

Yeah, I mean, obviously the Father doesn't know what the hell he's doing with his Son's own body, the church, so it's a good thing we have folks like those at FaithFacts.org to give the Deity a sorely-needed helping hand.
23 posted on 05/10/2011 7:55:37 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; jdlevy95
The NT was originally written in Greek, including Matthew. In fact, there's no evidence for an Aramaic Matthew (rather than Hebrew, for which there's NO early evidence) until the 3rd century.

You know that as a fact ?

Many believe that the Roman "church" destroyed many
documents which disagreed with it's "theology"

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
24 posted on 05/10/2011 8:09:06 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SVTCobra03
emergent, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven churches that cater to itching ears.

You left out "on a faith journey."

25 posted on 05/10/2011 8:12:16 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Shemp was the Fourth Stooge of the Apocalypse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; grumpa

the problem the author of this article has is they don’t believe Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. so when the Apostles spread the Faith over the Roman Empire, and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church formed, it had authority to teach and baptize. it had authority to teach true doctrine because it received these doctrines directly from the Apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. doctrines received universally from the Apostles were accepted, if it wasn’t from the Apostles it was rejected. this is the standard the Church used in determining which books that claimed to be Scripture were part of the canon and which were not. but vain men long ago rejected this Church and it’s authority and started deciding on their own and using their own minds which doctrines were true or not. so doctrines received from the Apostles and believed for 1,500 years on baptism, the Eucharist, the Church, the Bible, etc. were thrown out the window overnight. the result? mass confusion and heresy. everyone is their own pope and every doctrine is up for discussion. some groups are close to historical Christianity such as the Lutherans, others like the JW, LDS, SDA, COC, Baptists, Oneness, etc are way off base. once you reject Jesus and His Body on earth, The Church, you get chaos and rebellion. the devil must be proud!!


26 posted on 05/10/2011 8:14:20 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; jdlevy95
Many believe that the Roman "church" destroyed many documents which disagreed with it's "theology"

Well, of course they did. They also destroyed the grant given to me personally by Caesar Augustus to all the land in Italy.

It it wasn't for the RCC, I could be living it up in my Tuscan resort right now, reading Matthew's gospel in Aramaic.

27 posted on 05/10/2011 8:18:40 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews:
for the place where Jesus was crucified
was nigh to the city: and it was written in
Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
28 posted on 05/10/2011 8:19:14 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
so when Paul says in 1 Cor 10:16, “and is not the bread we break a participation in the Body of Christ”, Catholics believe him. what do you do?

Oh, I believe him too, since he said the cup and bread are had in communion, the correct meaning of the Greek koinonia, at least as is indicated by every other use of that word in the NT.

29 posted on 05/10/2011 8:22:48 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

well, well, you accept the Real Presence and reject the Gnostic symbolic belief? welcome to historic, orthodox Christianity!


30 posted on 05/10/2011 8:28:30 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
Do you reject Yah'shua's command to do
a Pesach Seder in remembrance of Him?

Using the Third cup (cup of Redemption)
of the Pesach Seder and the Afikoman.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

31 posted on 05/10/2011 8:35:24 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Actually, I reject the pagan “real presence,” which had its origins in gnosticism...


32 posted on 05/10/2011 8:35:55 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ca. A.D. 110
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [the Gnostics] 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 Smyrn 7:1)

so St Ignatius, taught by St John himself was a pagan? you also abstain from the Eucharist because you, like the Gnostics in the early second century, do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. learn your history.


33 posted on 05/10/2011 8:46:26 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

yes


34 posted on 05/10/2011 8:47:31 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grumpa
The author evidently has never done the self examination that he would have others do.

“If you are not ready to be challenged, this article might make you a bit uncomfortable.”

Uncomfortable? Only to the extent that had he practiced what he advised he might be less anxious to “challenge” anyone.

35 posted on 05/10/2011 9:00:41 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
"Many believe that the Roman "church" destroyed many documents which disagreed with it's "theology""

Most scholars believe that the impetus for the Roman invasion of the British Isles was for the significant tin deposits.....which were necessary for the tin foil hats for those who believe that the "Roman" church destroyed documents.

36 posted on 05/10/2011 9:02:09 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I agree with you about that. What some fail to realize is that Jesus often used symbolic language in his teachings. I looked up the verse John 1:12 where the apostle John says of Jesus:

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

We see where he uses the word "receive" and further clarifies it by saying "believed". The Greek word used for receive is lambano and is used interchangeably with the word "take" or "took". In John 13:20, where Judas "takes" the bread Jesus offered him and then leaves, is the same Greek word. In the lexicon the further definitions of the word and its uses EVEN apply to "taking as food"! I thought that was quite enlightening.

I really do understand that some people insist that Jesus literally meant his very flesh and blood had to be eaten in order to impart eternal life, and so naturally they also insist that there must be a way that Christians can avail themselves of that special food of life. That is why we are told they celebrate the Mass which is a participation in the sacrifice of the cross and where simple bread and wine are spiritually changed into the flesh and blood of our savior. By eating this wafer, they believe they are "receiving" the body and blood of Christ. This act then is what imparts the grace for sanctification of their souls - along with other acts.

Where I disagree is the very act of faith - receiving and believing in Jesus Christ - IS what Jesus meant with his words of eating and drinking his flesh and blood. When we receive him we are taking him into our hearts. This act of faith is NOT something that must be repeated over and over again because just as he ONCE offered himself up for our sins, we place our trust in him and we BECOME - right then and there - his redeemed, his very own. The commemoration of the Lord's Supper after that really is then done in remembrance of him. It is a reminder of what he did for us on the cross and its purpose is to cause us to examine ourselves and get rid of any barriers to full fellowship with him and our family in Christ.

37 posted on 05/10/2011 9:32:01 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

emergent, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven churches that cater to itching ears.

You left out “on a faith journey.”

Unfortunately that journey leads to false teachers, false doctrine and apostasy.


38 posted on 05/10/2011 9:39:51 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

ROFLOL!!!!! Hardy Har Har!!!


39 posted on 05/10/2011 10:21:38 PM PDT by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Titus, I apologize in advance for the length of this answer, and do so respectfully. I sincerely hope that, at the least, it provides you some small evidence of why we, as Catholics, believe what we do, regarding the Holy Eucharist.
from Scripture Catholic (www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html)

“(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.” This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus’ words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Top

(b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn’t come to Jesus’ sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.

Top

(c). Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten

Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

(d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord’s blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ’s sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.”

Again, while I would vastly prefer to not only help you to see this as we do, I will settle for helping you to understand that we have all the reason we could want to believe as we do, and, with this, I must pray, and get ready for work, so I wish you a pleasant wednesday, wherever you may be.


40 posted on 05/11/2011 3:41:00 AM PDT by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

> I see no mention of the Sabbath or other commandments.

Been there, done that.
Got the shirt, got the hat.

See how well you can keep this one during a New Hampshire Winter when the temperatures go to minus 20 with winds up to 40 mph.

Ex 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

And be sure to send your menfolk to the Temple in Jerusalem three times per year to stand before the high priest.

Don’t forget, there are three tithes. One for the priests, one for the governance, and one for the poor. One of these was once every three years, so the effective overall tax rate was 23.3%.


41 posted on 05/11/2011 5:54:43 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
The main problem is that Catholics tend to, ah, selectively quote the patristics such as Ignatius, and tend to do so from their own prepared translations that just so happen, coincidentally, to be translated in such a way as to support Catholic doctrine.

Nevertheless, the idea that Ignatius actually believed in transubstantiation is highly unlikely.

Of course, even the Egyptians and Aztecs believed that they were actually eating their gods' bodies.

42 posted on 05/11/2011 6:18:23 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
U-2012>
Do you reject Yah'shua's command to do
a Pesach Seder in remembrance of Him?
Using the Third cup (cup of Redemption)
of the Pesach Seder and the Afikoman.

yes

Mazol Tov !

Have a wonderful journey on the wide road of life.

You might want to prayerfully consider
Matthew 7:12-16 in YHvH's WORD.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
43 posted on 05/11/2011 6:20:42 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Absolutely, since in the context he is talking about honoring the others in the assembly, often referred to as the body of Christ. Koinonia = communion. BTW, no capital letters in the original language to bias interpretation.


44 posted on 05/11/2011 6:27:18 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave
Don't worry about length of posts, I've been known to drop a few stemwinders on people here on FR myself!

It's not that I don't know or understand what Catholicism teaches on this subject. It's that I don't agree with it - and the reason is that I see Catholicism engaging in a whole lot of eisegesis on this subject.

Take the lists of verses you gave. These verses, in and of themselves, don't support the "real presence" or transubstantiation. That is an idea that comes from early medieval Catholic doctrine that has to be eisegeted into them. It only becomes "apparent" that they are talking about the "eucharist" after that doctrine has been "read back" into them.

I read them, without the preconception, and see that the Bible tells us to take the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. Further, in John 6, I take what Jesus says about eating His body and drinking His blood in the context of what is really a fairly extensive line of other portions of Scripture where the idea of eating the Word of God is used - in a figurative sense. I see no reason to suddenly take John 6 in a different sense, just to fulfill a pre-ordained theological mode.

45 posted on 05/11/2011 6:32:01 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I would agree - and we MUST receive Him and incorporate Him into us by faith. We must make the Word of God a very part of our being, otherwise we are failing at what God desires for us to be and do.


46 posted on 05/11/2011 6:33:53 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("I'm a member of the Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus fan club!" (Sarah Palin, Sept. 31, 2010))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; sayuncledave
It only becomes "apparent" that they are talking about the "eucharist" after that doctrine has been "read back" into them.

I'm sorry, that is incorrect

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16). Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16) --> you can say that Paul is reading into it, but that's starting things pretty early, right?
47 posted on 05/11/2011 6:42:59 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; sayuncledave
What does Paul say? (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain 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 SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
48 posted on 05/11/2011 6:43:26 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; sayuncledave
This is also not Medieval in origin as we have comments from the Early Christians such as Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who 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 SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

You can refer to the Didache (AD 70) that states

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs
-- ok, granted that is not explicit, but why would bread not be shared with non-baptised folks? Many Christian groups give their idea of communion to all and sundry, right? The reason for the restriction is that the Early Christians KNEW that the bread was holy.
49 posted on 05/11/2011 6:49:33 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Jesus also said “Come, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men”, but we don’t go around hooking, gutting and skinning people in order to get them to church, do we?


50 posted on 05/11/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson