| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/19/2013 5:52:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
Enough! |
Posted on 10/18/2013 11:50:16 PM PDT by jodyel
“Brother, these words of Christ are plain. They are like rocks rolled on top of us. We need no exquisite spiritual sensibility to tease out their hidden meaning.”
Indeed, lets read them plain, like Augustine:
Commenting on these following verses:
“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
(Joh 6:27-29)
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Catholics always beat the drum on reading these things literally, and yet they can’t literally read a few verses down when Christ explains how one might eat and drink Him.
I also notice none of the Catholics in this thread have explained why Christ ate and drank Himself, if what they say is true, or why they do not have a sacrament of blessed water that they should drink which is necessary for eternal life.
Worldwide lithium shortage showing up again, Joydel? Haven’t you got anything to do healthier than attacking fellow Christians? Guess attacking atheism or Islam is riskier.
I will pray for you.
Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood - at the Last Supper.
However He did not institute a sacrament of drinking Living Water.
If He had, we would certainly carry it out. But He didn't, so we don't.
(In passing, we could certainly regard Baptism as being a sacrament of living water, but we don't drink it).
Just to remind the thread about the institution of the Eucharist, and to show its provenance in the early Church.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Which I quote at length because it shows that the Eucharist was celebrated in the extremely early Church.
In summary: Christ didn't only command us to eat His Body and drink His Blood: He also commanded us to re-enact the Eucharist.
However He didn't command us to carry out a specific sacrament where living water is drunk.
This other matter - about Christ effectively eating His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper?
Why would that be a stumbling block? After all, He is giving us His own living Body and Blood to eat and drink.
If God can so deploy Himself that He is eaten, whole and entire, by millions of people at the same time, why would the concept of God becoming reunited with Himself be some extraordinary contradiction?
Rather it says something about the Real Presence. He is present at a thousand altars at once - but that isn't to be thought of a thousand different Christs. It is all Him. And at the same 'time' He is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Guys, sorry to leave the thread but I must be off to stand vigil.
Please pray for an end to abortion, and may God bless us all.
ABOUT US
In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical, Christian church and was infiltrating youth groups, churches, seminaries, and Bible studies at an alarming rate.
In the spring of 2002, we began Lighthouse Trails Publishing with the hope of exposing this dangerous and pervasive mystical paradigm—six months later we published our first release, A Time of Departing by Ray Yungen.
As we learned more about contemplative spirituality (also known as the spiritual formation movement), we came to realize it had entered the church through a number of avenues—Willow Creek, Purpose Driven, and the emerging church just to name a few of the more prominent ones.
Because the premise of this spirituality is both pantheistic (God is all things) and panentheistic (God is in all things), thus refuting the gospel message of the Cross, we are compelled to address this issue—Lighthouse Trails Publishing and our research ministry, Lighthouse Trails Research Project, are here as a service to the body of Christ.
-----------------------------------------------
Though you choose to post a typical anti-Catholic piece (been done to death), yet the site as a whole claims to have a different emphasis.
It is interesting to read THIS PAGE to learn how Focus on the Family, John MacArthur and Charles Stanley have all gone off the rails. Perhaps posting of some of that might stimulate some interesting discussion. The current thread will surely be the same old, same old that has been gone over ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Some priests offer both the consecrated wine and bread, some only the consecrated bread. If you have one “waifer” or a speck of or three hundred, you have Jesus within you, so bread and wine or just bread, you have Jesus within you.
The main thing is - The Dude said it - unless you gnaw on my flesh and drink my blood....”
Note - this is what is post-bible labelled for communication purposes “transubstantiation” meaning change in substance - from bread and wine to consecrated bread and wine, as Jesus did, and it is Jesus Christ in his body, his blood, his soul, his eternal divinity (it’s ALL Jesus, Jesus’ ALL). BUT it still has the look, taste, smell, of bread and wine (it’s a faith mystery, like belief in God).
So Jesus did what it says at the Last Supper in the bible and ate/drank it, just as he was baptized with the Holy Spirit by John, to show us that we ought do it to follow Him.
You did not receive communion out of respect for God, your church and I trust the Catholic church. One must be free of mortal sin to receive, hence confession must be available to the recipient(in addition to being baptized a Christian with the HS). To receive Him with a mortal stain is to incur severe judgement upon oneself, and the Church doesn’t wish that on anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, of course. We pray for those (Catholics are ignorant sinners often) who receive unworthily and thus offend Jesus, including ourselves should we do so while still deceiving ourselves of having committed such a sin...hence, all the more need for the availability of confession after! Born again in Christ each time we drop to our knees and fully repent, because of His Mercy alone.
Catholics are not Christians...sorry to burst your bubble.
“ad nauseum, ad infinitum”
And yet you still refuse to hear.
Will keep repeating it till some of you get it....the Spirit that is.
Been hearing it for years - Same stuff, different pile.
But, discovering that Charles Stanley is going “emergent / mystical” - Now THERE’S something completely different.
I wish the thread poster would take his/her brand of evangelism to the Middle East.
For the last time, those who habitually simply paste links rather than an argument (not merely in supplement them) or post articles but do not engage responders, are hardly worthy of responses. .
Actually for a long time that was almost completely the practice of RCs here, who have turned FR into a Catholic news and apologetics service, advertizing elitist Rome as the one true church and often attacking Prot beliefs (search the RF), then complaining when challenged.
But i think the article lacks depth and is kind of a hit piece.
Oh, it only does so when needed to conform to RC doctrine. But consistent with believing that the Lord was speaking literally at the Last Supper, so that He was in the stomach of the disciples at the same time as He sat before them - and these kosher simply consumed their Lord, with not a word of characteristic query or protest (cf. Acts 10:9-16) - then David also engaged in transubstantiation.
For after 3 of his mighty men obtained water of the water of the well of Beth–lehem which David longed for, "he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord" saying, "Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it." (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
Here water can be said to have turned into blood like as at the last supper, if we are to take such literally.
Moreover, by consuming their Lord the entire church is, in turn, substantiated into bread: "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17)
For Israel became a lion who ate and drank men:
"Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain." (Numbers 23:24)
And of-course rather than the apostles understanding the Lord's words at the LS as being consistent with Hebrew use of metaphor, they not only believed David turned water into blood but that when Jeremiah proclaims, "Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart," (Jer. 15:16) then this also was literal, and thus they meekly submitted to chewing the flesh of their master.
Likewise when Ezekiel is told, "eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:1), or (in a phrase most similar to the Lord's supper) John is commanded, "Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it" (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Or when the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9)
For David himself faced cannibals,
"When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psalms 27:2) Instead, those who believe in transubstantiation and the claims made for it have "eaten the fruit of lies." (Hos. 10:13)
As for John 6, those who came for physical food were rebuffed by the Lord telling them to "labor for meat which endureth unto everlasting life," which "labor" being defined is "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (Jn. 6:27,29)
And which is entirely consistent with John, in which believing on the Lord Jesus is how one obtains eternal life. (Jn. 3;16,6; 5:24, etc.)
And in which the Lord is referred to by many metaphors:
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Truth whom a "shining light" bore witness to (vs. 33,34).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
That believing/receiving the Lord via the gospel of the crucified Christ in their innermost being and living by His words in faith is what "eating and drinking" refers to is seen by the fact that NOWHERE did anyone receive life in themselves by physical consumption, (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:8) but by believing.
Therefore in explaining His words in Jn. 6, the Lord states in Jn. 6:57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And rather than the Lord physically consuming some transubstantiated flesh the Father in order to live by Him, what this means is that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
Therefore the Lord said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
As for spiritual effects from the physical properties of food, "meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (1 Corinthians 8:8)
In addition, transubstantiation, in which the substance of bread and wine is said to be "really" changed, so that the bread and wine become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, is contrary to the miracles which the Lord and His followers did. The water actually became wine in John 2, and it tasted like it, and sick people who were supernaturally made well knew it, and it was apparent, (Acts 3) but such was not by transubstantiation as defined by Rome. Nor is this the case in regeneration, which creates a new heart.
Moreover, no where in the Lord's multitudinous miracles do we see anything approaching Him being literally physically in two places at once.
...... "I will pray for you"
Insult, then "prayer for you". Right.
[ahem] Haven’t you got anything to do healthier than attacking fellow Christians?
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
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 the 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 the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. 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 Smyrnians 7:1)
Everyone should notice that Ignatius, taught the faith at the feet of the Apostle John, says the Eucharist is the Body of Christ.
now, scoffers come along and deny this central belief of the Christian Faith.
but wait, i think i read somewhere that these scoffers would come.......
(Incidentally, nowhere else in Scripture is "eating flesh and drinking blood" used as a metaphor for faith. It's used in a couple of places as a metaphor for a crushing military defeat.)
Why did he issue this particular strange discourse at Passover, exactly a year before the Last Supper? Why did he not explain himself to the Apostles, instead asking plaintively, "Will you, too, go away?"
When you can answer all of these questions, I'll grant that your "spiritual" interpretation doesn't just sweep the passage under the rug. Until then, I'll stick with what all Christians knew and cherished for the first 16 centuries of the Christian era.
In the final analysis, you don’t get to decide whether Catholics are Christians or not. God makes that call, and you aren’t him. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.This was the teaching and practice of the early Church, the same Church that gave us the canon the the Scriptures. It is either trustworthy in both or in neither.
It's completely in keeping with the central miracle of Jesus' life, the Incarnation, in which a peasant carpenter from an obscure Roman province is -- according to Christian belief -- supposed to be Eternal God incarnate ... contrary, as you say, to sensory experiences.
The water actually became wine in John 2, and it tasted like it,
See the link on the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano posted above.
Moreover, no where in the Lord's multitudinous miracles do we see anything approaching Him being literally physically in two places at once.
So? Miracles don't require precedent.
But the lithium deficient just wrote that Catholics aren’t Christians, so your point is moot. To further that concept, he/she threw down the gauntlet with the thread proclaiming such.
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.