Roman priesthood invented a sacrifice for the Roman church

[Jude3b]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?

[Jude3b]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?

The Bible specifically states that the sacrifice of Jesus shedding His blood, need not be done daily:
"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:27)

[Joe Gofish]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?
Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

[Joe Gofish]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

Jude3 Sorry for the TWO post but I need your help,Will you please give me the Chapter and verse from the Bible on these things.
Alter call
Songs then Sermon
SS or Bible alone

Being able to appoint the Pastor ( rather then a Pastor being appointed or by inheretance)
Take your time and do a little study B4 you answer,
Did you remember where the words for the Hail Mary are from,Keep looking in the Bible and you will see. Have a great day and you are still in my prayers.

[furay]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Dude, he made this thread over a year ago.

[Cynic Sage]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

Catholics don't believe that the Mass is an atoning sacrifice then?

[Kenite]

][QUOTE]In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). So Moses spoke Greek?[/color]

[Krusader]

Catholics don't believe that the Mass is an atoning sacrifice then?

The RC Church teaches that the Mass offers up the atoning death of Christ in an ubloody manner, as satisfaction for sins.

[Amazing Rando]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH] So Moses spoke Greek?

In the Septuagint translation, he does!

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

In the Septuagint translation, he does!
Joe, please don't encourage the anti-Catholic trolls:teeth:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]
Joe, please don't encourage the anti-Catholic trolls:teeth:Troll = anyone who sees through a Catholic ploy.

[Jude3b]

The RC Church teaches that the Mass offers up the atoning death of Christ in an ubloody manner, as satisfaction for sins.

Dear Crusader:

You are absolutely correct. That is what the Roman Catholic Catechism says on Page 344, #1367

And according to the verse on page 343, # 1364 - "the work of our redemption is carried out...when the (Roman Catholic) Church celebrates the Eucharist."

What a difference from the Bible that reveals that redemption was a one time act which was completed when Jesus died on the cross. Praise the Lord we don't have to participate in any man made hocus pocus doctrines of Romanism - in order to be saved!

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden]Troll = anyone who sees through a Catholic ploy.

Yup, you caught me. That's exactly what it means. :ahem: :wink:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

Yup, you caught me. That's exactly what it means. :ahem: :wink:And that's another Catholic ploy.

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

And that's another Catholic ploy.
Hmm. Sarcasm is of the Catholic Church, and was therefore invented by Satan. :ahem:

[Kenite]

Hmm. Sarcasm is of the Catholic Church, and was therefore invented by Satan. :ahem:This isn't sarcasm, though. It's just apparent sarcasm. A mirage, like Roman theology.

That's sarcasm.

[spl_cadet]

And according to the verse on page 343, # 1364 - "the work of our redemption is carried out...when the (Roman Catholic) Church celebrates the Eucharist."


Nice butchery of the quote. Here's the actual one:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

And here's a couple more:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

[Cynic Sage]

Nice butchery of the quote. Here's the actual one:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

And here's a couple more:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Jude3b]

When Jesus shed His blood, that one time act purchased eternal redemption for all who would put their fiath and trust in Christ alone:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he (Jesus) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12)

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.

[Alden]

When Jesus shed His blood, that one time act purchased eternal redemption for all who would put their fiath and trust in Christ alone:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he (Jesus) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12)

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.
"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"

where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"?

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden]And that's another Catholic ploy.

:lol: That is actually pretty funny. Say, can you tell me where I can find a list of these "Catholic ploys"? I'm not Catholic, so I'm not familiar with them.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me" When did Jesus say that?

where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"? 'But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.' (Eph 2:4-6 NIV)

But not Catholic cultists. They go back to being unsaved every time they go to mass, so they can kill Christ again.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

[QUOTE]:lol: That is actually pretty funny. And another.

[Amazing Rando]

"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"
When did Jesus say that?



53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just 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. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]John 6So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

[Amazing Rando]

John 6So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

Certainly... so he must have been talking about gnawing off his arm then. Unless his disciples were to sieze him and gnaw his arms off, they would have no life in them.

[Kenite]

Certainly... so he must have been talking about gnawing off his arm then. Unless his disciples were to sieze him and gnaw his arms off, they would have no life in them.You've got it. So either the Roman farce follows disciples who were intending cannibalism, or there was a spiritual meaning to 'bread'.

Now that's a bit scary, eh?

[spl_cadet]

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.

It isn't ever done again.


So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

Why not?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]It isn't ever done again.Then it must be a pagan sacrifice. Though the reality is that there is no sacrifice whatever.

Why not? :smile:

[spl_cadet]

Then it must be a pagan sacrifice. Though the reality is that there is no sacrifice whatever.

Or it is the same sacrifice as Calvary and that is presented in Heaven, made present here on Earth.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Or it is the same sacrifice as Calvary A man waving a piece of bread is Jesus dying on the cross? It's not even a sacrifice.

[spl_cadet]

You're not worth wasting my time on anymore.

[Kenite]

You're not worth wasting my time on anymore.:smile: You don't have an answer.

[Jude3b]

"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"

where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"?



Dear Alden:

Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.Some people became preposterous in order to avoid submission to the Holy Spirit.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Jude3b] Some people became preposterous in order to avoid submission to the Holy Spirit.

Crackers, baby! Crackers! :lol: Ah, the smell of irony. :teeth:

[Alden]

The question of "where in the bible does it say: 'don't do the Eucharist, has yet to be answered.

Dear Alden:


Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church

Brother Jude:

Hyperbolic as usual. First of all, "your Roman Catholic church" is inaccurate, although I cannot say that I am surprised yet another of numerous errors. I profess the creed of Nicea. I believe in "one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I believe in the Church of the Disciples. The Church that suffered, was persecuted, and fought for the faith. So yes, I am "Catholic", but not Roman. It is no small pity that your Romophobia prevents you from making any distinctions.

...loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"Cannibalistic idea"? This statement finds you misrepresenting the holy Eucharist and the church, in much the same way as the early opponents of the church. This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD.

66. This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.[1] For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, "Do this for my memorial, this is my body"; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, "This is my blood"; and gave it to them alone.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.htm (section #286)


Jude, you take issue with the teaching and practice of the early church. You take issue with the teaching of the apostles.

Instead of asking "are these early Christians in my church?", why don't you start asking if you are in theirs.

"We do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation."

The Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Do you think that people would become gravely ill for taking a symbol in a manner in which they were not supposed to? This is a question that I would like you to answer.



"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

Glory be to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen!

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

It's not an either/or type thing here Jude. Your reasoning is unfortunately off the mark.

Let's look at more John 6, more than just 33-35, or 53-54.

"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

The people took issue with this, much as you do.

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to 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 him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

This has always been a hard thing for people to accept and understand. You are not alone, even many of his disciples left him.

Jesus makes yet more clear and unambiguous statements in 1 Cor 11:23-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body which is broken[b] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Here he takes ordinary bread and wine and proclaims them to be His body and blood. How? We don't know, as it is a blessed mystery. It is because He says it is. Who are we to dispute HIM?

To summarize a few things:

(1) Jesus said, "This is My body...this is My blood." (Luke 22:19). There is no statement that these are merely symbolic things. At no time, historically speaking, did the Church believe that they were symbols.

(2) In the New Testament, those who receive Christ's Body and Blood unworthily bring condemnation upon themselves. "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" (literally, "are dead"; 1 Cor. 11:30) To quote Drs. Jack Sparks, Norman Allen, and Michael Najim (eds.), "a mere symbol, a quarterly reminder, could hardly have the power to cause sickness and death!"

In the verses preceding 11:30 (just to provide yet more context for you), Paul says

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Why would Paul be concerned with taking "in an unworthy manner" that which you have declared all but meaningless? I would really like to hear an answer to this, and all of the previous, questions put before you. We prepare for the Eucharist by examining ourselves (v. 28), as Paul says, so that we are not bringing judgment upon ourselves. How does something that is a mere symbol, something created at the whim of man, bring judgment? One again, were is it ever relegated to that position in which it finds itself in your eyes Jude?


The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ by His word, by which all things were made.

If the Lord can make the heavens and earth by speaking them into existence, could not Christ, of one essence with the father, change bread and wine into body and blood with His words?

The sacrifice of Christ's body and blood every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy are not new sacrifices, offered in the manner of the Old Testament Mosaic Law. We "continue to offer one and the same sacrifice in every place throughout the world until the end of time, because there is only one sacrifice that was offered for us all, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord, who suffered death on the Cross for our sake. "By a single offering He has perfected His work for all time in those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). (Anne Field, "From Darkness to Light").

Alden

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]Crackers, baby!How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.

[Jezz]

How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.
Why must the two be different? When I approach to partake of the Holy Eucharist, it is with fear and trembling.

[Kenite]

Why must the two be different? When I approach to partake of the Holy Eucharist, it is with fear and trembling.I can't imagine why.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden][QUOTE=Kenite]How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.

I'm going to ditto Jezz's statement. Care to respond to my other post in any kind of meaningful way?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=Alden][QUOTE]I'm going to ditto Jezz's statement. Then I'll make the same reply.

Care to respond to my other post in any kind of meaningful way? I haven't got round to reading it all, being somewhat busy at present. But the fact that Jesus spoke of his body being food well before anyone could have known about the last supper means either that he intended cannibalism, which is preposterous, or that he intended a spiritual meaning, which is 100% in line with all his metaphors about food, water, etc. This a lie that can only have ever taken root in an atmosphere of total ignorance (forced, in this case) and wishful thinking; confirmation that the darkness hates the light, and that the great majority of humanity will justly be destroyed.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD. 'Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.' (Acts 20:28-31 NIV)

In view of the above, all Catholic and Orthodox teachers must be categorised as rank and absurd heretics. There is no other possibility. Sola Scriptura is not just desirable; anything else is punishable with eternal fire.

[Jezz]

I can't imagine why.
You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

(Is 6:9, Matt 13:14, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26)

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will be able to imagine why.

[Kenite]

You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

(Is 6:9, Matt 13:14, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26)

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will be able to imagine why.Can your god not supply us all with a reason? What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all. Are Catholic anorexics or something? Or are they nervous about cannibalism?

[Jezz]

Can your god not supply us all with a reason?
If you have a different God to me, then you have a false god.

Of course He can supply us with a reason - he already has. Those who have ears to hear it, will hear it.

What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all.
That depends on what you're eating, doesn't it? Would you approach your food with trepidation if it were puffer fish, for example? Knowing that if you didn't quite eat it properly, you might die? I think you would.

When we approach the Eucharist, it is not merely our life that is at stake - it is our soul. As St Paul tells us, 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, and whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27,29).

If the possibility of sinning against the Lord or bringing His judgment upon you does not strike fear and awe into your heart, you are either arrogantly sure of your own worthiness, or a fool. Or perhaps both. This is no ordinary meal that we are talking about here, and the fact that you would compare it to an ordinary meal "which most people do not find nerve-racking to eat" only shows that you are failing to discern the body of the Lord.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE] When we approach the Eucharist, it is not merely our life that is at stake - it is our soul. As St Paul tells us, 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, and whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27,29).Why did he make that warning?

Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

I haven't noticed it, ever!

This is no ordinary meal that we are talking about hereCould anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Why did he make that warning?

Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

I haven't noticed it, ever!

Could anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?
You seem to be just about the most obstinate, argumentative, narrow-minded and prejudiced person I've seen around here. Congratulations, you're one of the insidious three. Mass derives its basic form from the Jewish Passover, being as Christ is the ultimate Passover Lamb, offered for our cleansing. So the Eucharist itself isn't necessarily the ordinary "meal," but its roots are in a feast. Besides that, the heart of the Eucharist is that those who partake of it will never hunger but have everlasting life with the Lamb.

Nevermind that all this has been addressed already, in a different thread. I think someone just likes to try to keep bringing up the same issues in different places, making it look like the questions haven't been answered, when I'd be willing to bet a dollar that the Eucharist issue has been dealt with exhaustively at the very least twice.

Again, it's not a new sacrifice, but the same Eternal Sacrifice made present. It's not cannibalism because the substance remain in the likenesses of bread and wine but are in truth the body and blood of Christ in unbloody form, and not until 1500 years after Christ did anyone, ANYONE get the idea that anything was symbolic; certainly not the people present when Christ said the words.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]the Eucharist itself isn't necessarily the ordinary "meal," 1 Cor 11:27,29. Why did Paul make that warning?

[Jude3b]

Concerning the misinterpretations about John 6:53 & 54 by Romanism and some TWEBers: Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 9:4)

"...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

THE REAL BIBLICAL PURPOSE:

Paul's instructions in I Cor. 11 shed the necessary light on this matter:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (I Cor. 11:23-24).

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:

"After the same manner He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:25).

Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper: "And He (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE of me." (Luke 22:19).

Dear Roman Catholics reading this: Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have you eating God than placing your faith in Him?

[spl_cadet]

Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 9:4)

"...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.


Except that those verses aren't talking about cannibalism, but eating something with the blood still in it. To be fair, you must also condemn rare steaks, duck blood soup, blüdwurst, and black pudding as immoral. Furthermore, I could've sworn that we weren't under the Law of Moses anymore.

[Jude3b]

Except that those verses aren't talking about cannibalism, but eating something with the blood still in it. To be fair, you must also condemn rare steaks, duck blood soup, blüdwurst, and black pudding as immoral. Furthermore, I could've sworn that we weren't under the Law of Moses anymore.


Dear spl_cadet:

You must be right about the Law of Moses. No one is under the Law of Moses now, because we are all supposed to be under the Law of Romanism now!

On a more serious note, to address your post theologically:

Genesis 9:4: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

THE BLOOD THEREOF: The profoundly scientific truth that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11) is here mentioned in the Bible for the first time. This verse is not part of the "Law of Moses," but rather part of the Edenic mandate and the Noahic covenant. This, as well as the other principles of the Edenic mandate and the Noahic covenant, is still in effect and should be observed by Christians especially.

The blood, both in symbol and in reality, is "the life of the flesh." Thus, it is appropriate to offer in sacrifice (until the offering of Christ) but never to consume, either as food or as a religious ritual - as is done today in Romanism.

Please note that Blood sacrifices became obsolete with Christ's death and resurrection, for He "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26) and then was "raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:25).

[Jezz]

Why did he make that warning?
In the context of our discussion, does it matter why?

You originally asked: "What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all."

I answered by giving the example from 1 Corinthians, where people who ate it unworthily got ill. Do you not think that this is a good reason to be nervous about eating the Eucharist?

Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

Well, I can't speak for every other Catholic, but this Catholic certainly has trepidation about all kinds of sin. Which is the main reason I approach the Eucharist with trepidation and fear about my worthiness.

(Btw, although I'm Catholic, I'm not Roman Catholic - in case you were wondering.)

I haven't noticed it, ever!
You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will notice.

Could anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?
:shrug: I can certainly see why the carnally minded, soulish person would not take the Eucharist to be a meal. Only the spiritually minded consider it to be a meal.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]In the context of our discussion, does it matter why?Do Catholics not like to put Scripture into context? Did you not quote Scripture? Are Catholic arguments to be given immunity from scrutiny? Can you demonstrate, Jezz, that Catholicism can survive without the advantages of force majeure, ignorance and superstition?

For the third time, why did Paul make that warning?

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]1 Cor 11:27,29. Why did Paul make that warning?
27Therefore, 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. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Why did Paul make this warning? Because he realized the potency of the Eucharist; he would have had no reason whatsoever to make a warning about it if it were just symbolic, if it weren't literally the body and blood of our Lord. He made this warning because taking the Eucharist inappropriately would be to profane God and very well could and did cause sickness and death in the offenders. His point wasn't that if you eat too much and drink all the wine, your innards will swell and explode, but that taking the Eucharist unworthily is blasphemy and punishable by death by God's doing.

And for the umpteenth time, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS CANNIBALISM. This is one of the oldest complaints against Christianity by pagans, and not put forth by "Christians" until immediately before the Reformation. IT IS NOT CANNIBALISM because God has changed the substance to the blood and body of Christ, but has granted the appearance of wine and bread to remain, so we would not be cannibals. It is a holy mystery as to how it is done; that's God's business. How did Jesus heal the sick? How did Jesus rise from the dead? We don't know the hows of those things--they are also holy mysteries. We don't know how God did it, only that He did it.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]Why did Paul make this warning? Because he realized the potency of the EucharistWrong. Do try again.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite]Wrong. Do try again.
please reread, all of it. keeping holy the name of God extends further than just cursing--if it's blasphemy to misuse his name, it is also to misuse his body, in whatever form it is in, living, dead, risen, or transubstantiated. paul knew this. so he warned people not to blaspheme the blood and body of our Lord.

how about you tell me, a) why was that wrong? and b) why, since you seem to know, did paul make the warning? or is that like the bible's appendix, it's there but completely useless and can be chopped out? are there any other passages like that, that can be ignored or dispatched with?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]please rereadThat won't make it a correct answer. Quote Paul's reason, don't give your own.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]That won't make it a correct answer. Quote Paul's reason, don't give your own.
oh for pete's sake! i showed the whole verse! here, again, for the last time and after this you can think of a creative place to forcibly insert your antagonism: 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I showed the whole verse!
Not the ones that give the reason for Paul writing his warning.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]
Not the ones that give the reason for Paul writing his warning.
A Heir, you won't get any kind of meaningful dialogue here,


Jude3b--

I have asked you specific questions. You have failed to answer them, except with more of your blind "I hate Catholic stuff" rantings. Please answer the questions. Those are the sentences with the "?" thingy at the end of them. I'll be back sometime on Friday to check in on this thread. Please show us that your person is not forfeit, and that you are capable of rational thought and cogent discussion.

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Do Catholics not like to put Scripture into context? Did you not quote Scripture? Are Catholic arguments to be given immunity from scrutiny? Can you demonstrate, Jezz, that Catholicism can survive without the advantages of force majeure, ignorance and superstition?
I looked hard, but I did not find an argument there. Just a(nother) rant.

For the third time, why did Paul make that warning?
This is not the third time that you have asked me this question. It is the second. The other time, you asked nobody in particular.

In answer to your question: because if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. St Paul did not want the Corinthians to get sick, so he warned them not to eat unworthily (as they had been).

Now perhaps you might like to answer my question (unlikely, seeing as how you haven't answered any of them so far): Do you not agree that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

[VFarris01]

In answer to your question: because if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. St Paul did not want the Corinthians to get sick, so he warned them not to eat unworthily (as they had been).I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. Is that the only reason he gave?

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Kenite]
A Heir, you won't get any kind of meaningful dialogue here,


Jude3b--

I have asked you specific questions. You have failed to answer them, except with more of your blind "I hate Catholic stuff" rantings. Please answer the questions. Those are the sentences with the "?" thingy at the end of them. I'll be back sometime on Friday to check in on this thread. Please show us that your person is not forfeit, and that you are capable of rational thought and cogent discussion.


Post 34 was my answer to your question.

[Alden]

Post 34 was my answer to your question



Wrong, it was, as usual, no kind of answer.


Dear Alden:

Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

Again, where does it explicitly say "DON'T DO THE EUCHARIST"?

My response to 34 was in post 37. Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.

[Jezz]

if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick.

Is that the only reason he gave?
Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Any of these reasons is a good enough reason to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling. The latter two more so, of course, but all three should strike fear into the hearts of any sinner who approaches the Eucharist.

So, for the fifth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?Why is that no Catholic or Orthodox here will answer this question? That they apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[VFarris01]

Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Any of these reasons is a good enough reason to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling. The latter two more so, of course, but all three should strike fear into the hearts of any sinner who approaches the Eucharist.

So, for the fifth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?

[Jezz]

Why is that no Catholic or Orthodox here will answer this question? That they apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.
This is a lie. I have answered the question, on at least two occasions now. Which is more two more times than you've answered any of my questions.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be a complete answer. Either way, this is not the same thing as not answering at all.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]This is a lie. Is that the only reason Paul gave for his warning? Answer that, if you will.

[VFarris01]

This is a lie. I have answered the question, on at least two occasions now. Which is more two more times than you've answered any of my questions.Really? I disagree.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be a complete answer. Either way, this is not the same thing as not answering at all.Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.

[adopted heir]

I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"
Well he does say that many of them died. Where is the spiritual context? Not argumentatively, but curiously--I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.

[adopted heir]

Really? I disagree.

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.
OMG. What a ridiculous exchange of dweebyism. Not surprised to see VF get in on the action. Kenite, you question was answered. He answered it! I answered it! We both gave Paul's reasoning why one should not approach Eucharist lightly. Then we gave Paul's multiple reasons, like you asked, and Jezz was cool enough to get them straight from Scripture, of that same section, in the same context (being the right one). Either you skipped a lot of posts and just dropped your own antagonistic one at the end, or you're illiterate, which makes me awe at how you're typing posts anyway, unless you're dictating, in which case, Kenite's stenographer, please read to him the posts you've skipped over and save him the embarrassment of not seeing that his questions were indeed answered and that he indeed has answered no questions from anyone else. Bad stenographer!!

[adopted heir]

Well he does say that many of them died. Where is the spiritual context? Not argumentatively, but curiously--I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.
VF--I really would like to know where you got that. That's an interesting view.

[VFarris01]

I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"Well he does say that many of them died.He does? The words are, ασθενής (G772, weak, feeble), άρρωστος (G732, without stength, sick), and κοιμάω (G2837, be still, sleep, die), which in this case (I believe) are being used metaphorically in light of Paul admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober)...

(20) Therefore when you come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (21) For in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another drunken. (22) For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? I do not praise you!
... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.

Where is the spiritual context?Ah, all of it?

Not argumentatively, but curiously--Your "OMG" comment (to follow) would suggest your motives are otherwise.

I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.You should get out more or read with an open mind (one uncorrupted by the literal interpretation handed down to you; the catch-phrase is "think outside the box").

OMG. What a ridiculous exchange of dweebyism. Not surprised to see VF get in on the action.Why should I give my opinion when a reply such as this is awaiting my effort?

VF--I really would like to know where you got that. That's an interesting view.Your response to this post will be revealing of your true intent. Hopefully, the first three letters of your response will not be "OMG."

[Jude3b]

Wrong, it was, as usual, no kind of answer.



Again, where does it explicitly say "DON'T DO THE EUCHARIST"?

My response to 34 was in post 37. Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.


Where does the Bible say "Do the Eucharist"?

[Alden]

Where does the Bible say "Do the Eucharist"?
Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...

Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.



Don't let me down Jude

[VFarris01]

Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...Excerpts from post #37...

Hyperbolic as usual. First of all, "your Roman Catholic church" is inaccurate, although I cannot say that I am surprised yet another of numerous errors. I profess the creed of Nicea. I believe in "one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I believe in the Church of the Disciples. The Church that suffered, was persecuted, and fought for the faith. So yes, I am "Catholic", but not Roman. It is no small pity that your Romophobia prevents you from making any distinctions.Ah, bashing the RCC, the last acceptable -phobia (-ism).

"Cannibalistic idea"? This statement finds you misrepresenting the holy Eucharist and the church, in much the same way as the early opponents of the church. This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD.JtM's opinion is no better than your... or mine. Since the so-called ECFs did not hold a universal opinion on much of anything, quoting them is a waste of space.

Jude, you take issue with the teaching and practice of the early church. You take issue with the teaching of the apostles.He does? How do you know what the Apostles taught? You were there I suppose.

The Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Do you think that people would become gravely ill for taking a symbol in a manner in which they were not supposed to? This is a question that I would like you to answer.The "thanksgiving meal" is absolutely and purely symbolic, anything otherwise is a perversion of "... do this in rememberance of me."

No one was actually and physically becoming sick and/or dying from this symbol; the Corinthians were spiritually sick and/or dead. One must take Paul's admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober) out of context... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.It's not an either/or type thing here Jude. Your reasoning is unfortunately off the mark.After reading your exposition of John 6 it seems it is your reasoning which is "off the mark." (You did a nice job of "scripture mining" though.)

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Kenite, you question was answered. He answered it! I answered it! We both gave Paul's reasoning why one should not approach Eucharist lightly. Not so. No-one has mentioned what occasioned Paul's warning in the first place. In an English comprehension test there would be no marks given here for this question.

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz] Is that the only reason Paul gave for his warning? Answer that, if you will.
I already did answer it, in post #67 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=22946&page=5&pp=16#post1230941). I cut and paste it for your benefit:

Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That makes at least three times I've answered your question. Now, let me repeat for the sixth time my question (which I also cut and paste from post 67), which you have failed to answer at all:

So, for the [sixth] time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I already did answer itWhat was it that caused Paul to write about this matter?

[VFarris01]

... do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question?I believe he has!

That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.How so? Only you seem interested in his "answer."

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

However, I answered this question did I not? Why should anyone "approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling Jezz?" Is this the Gospel according to Jezz?

Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?

This is exactly why Paul's admonishment means spiritual sickness and/or death not literal sickness and/or death.

[adopted heir]

He does? The words are, ασθενής (G772, weak, feeble), άρρωστος (G732, without stength, sick), and κοιμάω (G2837, be still, sleep, die), which in this case (I believe) are being used metaphorically in light of Paul admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober)...

(20) Therefore when you come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (21) For in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another drunken. (22) For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? I do not praise you!
... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.

Ah, all of it?

Your "OMG" comment (to follow) would suggest your motives are otherwise.

You should get out more or read with an open mind (one uncorrupted by the literal interpretation handed down to you; the catch-phrase is "think outside the box").

Why should I give my opinion when a reply such as this is awaiting my effort?

Your response to this post will be revealing of your true intent. Hopefully, the first three letters of your response will not be "OMG."

What's wrong with "OMG?"

A: You know, I can write two different posts in two different contexts. Especially since I first read your interpretation of the verse meaning spiritual and not physical sickness, and then later reading your disappointing banter, which seems to be your only consistency. So, when I try to give you a chance to actually answer a kind question asked out of the genuine desire to know, you respond, well, as you usually do, avoiding answering the question in favor of putting up some kind of irrational defense against who knows what.

B: I will give you that you made a partial answer, though I don't really see your line of deduction. I can see where you could get that, but not without reading with a lot more effort than I would think it'd take, that is, extrapolating a lot more than I think is evident in the verse. That's not to say I don't think spiritual sickness/death are included, but I would not, and had not ever thought it meant the exclusion of literal, bodily sickness and death, and I don't think it was because of my narrow-mindedness.

A: Can you tell me where my interpretation was handed down from? I mean, a: I do believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says, and doesn't require reading between the lines or trying to extrapolate metaphors where there are none. Are you telling me now to not believe the Bible? B: "Uncorrupted by the literal translation handed down to you." Handed down to me from where?! Who?! My brainwashing I mean Catholic upbringing? My Southern Baptist parents?

If the literal translation is corrupt, then what credence should I give the Bible at all? I don't think it was written to scholars and priests only, but that people should be able to get the message from it directly without having to invent interpretations unnecessarily. And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know? If you can answer this then you may have some measure of credibility you can build upon. Otherwise, well, an old dog can't change his spots I guess.

[VFarris01]

A: You know, I can write two different posts in two different contexts.Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?

Especially since I first read your interpretation of the verse meaning spiritual and not physical sickness, and then later reading your disappointing banter, which seems to be your only consistency.I guess not.

So, when I try to give you a chance to actually answer a kind question asked out of the genuine desire to know, you respond, well, as you usually do, avoiding answering the question in favor of putting up some kind of irrational defense against who knows what.You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.

B: I will give you that you made a partial answer, though I don't really see your line of deduction.Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.

I can see where you could get that, but not without reading with a lot more effort than I would think it'd take, that is, extrapolating a lot more than I think is evident in the verse.Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.

That's not to say I don't think spiritual sickness/death are included, but I would not, and had not ever thought it meant the exclusion of literal, bodily sickness and death, and I don't think it was because of my narrow-mindedness.I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!

While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.

A: Can you tell me where my interpretation was handed down from? I mean, a: I do believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says, and doesn't require reading between the lines or trying to extrapolate metaphors where there are none.How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?

Are you telling me now to not believe the Bible? B: "Uncorrupted by the literal translation handed down to you." Handed down to me from where?! Who?! My brainwashing I mean Catholic upbringing? My Southern Baptist parents?I am telling you not to believe everything your crutch has told you to believe.

I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.

If the literal translation is corrupt, then what credence should I give the Bible at all?The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

I don't think it was written to scholars and priests only, but that people should be able to get the message from it directly without having to invent interpretations unnecessarily.Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know?How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

If you can answer this then you may have some measure of credibility you can build upon. Otherwise, well, an old dog can't change his spots I guess.My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.

[spl_cadet]

Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?


Pot, meet kettle.

[VFarris01]

Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?
Pot, meet kettle.Kettle, meet another Pot :lol:.

[adopted heir]

Pot, meet kettle.


Lol!! Awesome! :lol: :lmbo: Hello, Pot! Or as my friend Mr Mumbles says, that's the pet calling the poodle black.

[adopted heir]

WHAT CRUTCH???!!! What are you even talking about here?? Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much? Just spill it! What are you talking about?Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?

Nope. Probably not. It's a lifelong struggle--it started with freebasing a little sarcasm, and now I'm a full-blown condescension addict and no one can really tell when I'm serious or not, I guess. It's a shame. Are there any twelve-step programs for kettles? Anyone have a saucepan?

I guess not.

You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.

Wow. And you're a mind reader. That was so amazing, I didn't even think of that when I was thinking it!! It's not so much whoever disagrees with me, just the more annoying ones who try to tell me my own thoughts or motives or life history, especially people I've never met or even seen in my life.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.

Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.

Don't go getting your panties in a bunch, VF. I said I can see how you could get that, but not that i see your reasoning. Meaning, sure, spiritual sickness is allowable but I don't see how you came to that conclusion specifically. I, for example, would have read that passage and thought, "Oh, he really means they'll get sick and possibly die," and not see from that passage that he meant spiritually, and even when in the next chapter he talks about spiritual gifts, reading it as a letter and not as something divided somewhat arbitrarily into chapters and verses, I'd see that as a change in subject and context. But that's just me; and I mean that, just me. Not my "crutch" talking, because Mom won't allow any more talking medical supplies.

I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!

I didn't say you did; I said it. Maybe I should have said "closed-mindedness," would that be more accurate to your insinuation? Now, I can include spiritual sickness maybe in that interpretation, but by no means do I see any reason that it would be, other than in the fact that the person is defiling the Body of Christ, and not to the exclusion of physical sickness. I think we can ultimately agree to disagree here. I hope.

While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.

How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?

Um. No. Because when I read it, that's what it clearly says. Maybe I'm not suspicious enough of the Bible or of its writers, because to me that's pretty evident what it means. If not for you, okey dokey. And, as you and I both have seen, I'm not blind to another interpretation, otherwise I'd not concede at all that your interpretation has any validity. You already congratulated me for that concession. I to the best of my ability don't read from the bible what I want it to say, because it's not about what I want to hear, but what God wants to tell me through His word. And I understood that unless it's a parable, it's most likely literal. No one told me but common sense.

I am telling you not to believe everything your crutch has told you to believe.

WHAT CRUTCH???!!! What are you even talking about here?? Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much? Just spill it! What are you talking about?

I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.

Okay! Agreed! Does this mean you'll lay off a little bit?

The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.

The "credibility" paragraph: wha?? We already agreed that I can see that there is another possible interpretation to I Cor. 11:30, but that I don't personally agree with it, and you've already said not to believe what you believe but to believe as I believe is right. Am I really going to be judged by my taking the Word for what it says? And who will judge me for believing what I see as evident? Plausible, maybe, but not equally, at least not in my mind, or if so, at too far a stretch to be realistic. I can make some concessions to faith, the mystery of God, blah blah blah, but not quite to the point of reading something there that I just don't see.

Now, again about that crutch.... ???? Look, you don't know me, you don't know how I was raised or how my faith was formed. You don't know jack squat about that so no, it's not that my "crutch" says you're wrong, it's that you're WRONG. Kay? No one, no crutch, is responsible for me but me. I wasn't brainwashed or brought up prejudiced or any of that. I wasn't kept in a cage as a child and forcefed my faith. And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know?

[Jude3b]

Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...




Don't let me down Jude


Just as I thought, the Bible does not say to "do the Eucharist!" Of course you would not answer the question. Thats because the false doctrines of Romanism cannot be defended from Scripture. They are not Biblical!

[VFarris01]

WHAT CRUTCH???!!!Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.

What are you even talking about here??Your crutch, what you lean on.

Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much?Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.

Just spill it! What are you talking about?Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.

Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?Nope. Probably not. It's a lifelong struggle--it started with freebasing a little sarcasm, and now I'm a full-blown condescension addict and no one can really tell when I'm serious or not, I guess. It's a shame. Are there any twelve-step programs for kettles? Anyone have a saucepan?Sarcasm is not so bad as "condescending;" use the above "crutch quotes" as a rule for what "condescending" looks/sounds like.

You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.Wow. And you're a mind reader. That was so amazing, I didn't even think of that when I was thinking it!! It's not so much whoever disagrees with me, just the more annoying ones who try to tell me my own thoughts or motives or life history, especially people I've never met or even seen in my life.It does not take a "mind reader" to understand your "genuine desire." I have read many of your posts... it is obvious you seek nothing but to be disagreeable.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.

Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.Don't go getting your panties in a bunch, VF. I said I can see how you could get that, but not that i see your reasoning. Meaning, sure, spiritual sickness is allowable but I don't see how you came to that conclusion specifically. I, for example, would have read that passage and thought, "Oh, he really means they'll get sick and possibly die," and not see from that passage that he meant spiritually, and even when in the next chapter he talks about spiritual gifts, reading it as a letter and not as something divided somewhat arbitrarily into chapters and verses, I'd see that as a change in subject and context. But that's just me; and I mean that, just me. Not my "crutch" talking, because Mom won't allow any more talking medical supplies.If you "can see how I could get that" you also, by the "rule of statement equality" (do not try to look this up, you will not find it; it is my own term), see my reasoning.

I appear to not be the only one with "my panties in a bunch."

I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!I didn't say you did; I said it. Maybe I should have said "closed-mindedness," would that be more accurate to your insinuation? Now, I can include spiritual sickness maybe in that interpretation, but by no means do I see any reason that it would be, other than in the fact that the person is defiling the Body of Christ, and not to the exclusion of physical sickness. I think we can ultimately agree to disagree here. I hope.I do not recall saying anyone was bound by my "take" on the passage; did I?

While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.

How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?Um. No. Because when I read it, that's what it clearly says. Maybe I'm not suspicious enough of the Bible or of its writers, because to me that's pretty evident what it means. If not for you, okey dokey. And, as you and I both have seen, I'm not blind to another interpretation, otherwise I'd not concede at all that your interpretation has any validity. You already congratulated me for that concession. I to the best of my ability don't read from the bible what I want it to say, because it's not about what I want to hear, but what God wants to tell me through His word. And I understood that unless it's a parable, it's most likely literal. No one told me but common sense.Since 1 Corinthians 11:30 is a literal statement to you, when Jesus says anything beginning with, "I am," or "This is," it should be taken (every time, without exception) literally by your "common sense."

WHAT CRUTCH???!!!Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.

What are you even talking about here??Your crutch, what you lean on.

Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much?Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.

Just spill it! What are you talking about?Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.

I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.Okay! Agreed! Does this mean you'll lay off a little bit?Lay off? Lay off what/how? Elaborate.

The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.The "credibility" paragraph: wha?? We already agreed that I can see that there is another possible interpretation to I Cor. 11:30, but that I don't personally agree with it, and you've already said not to believe what you believe but to believe as I believe is right. Am I really going to be judged by my taking the Word for what it says?You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.

And who will judge me for believing what I see as evident? Plausible, maybe, but not equally, at least not in my mind, or if so, at too far a stretch to be realistic. I can make some concessions to faith, the mystery of God, blah blah blah, but not quite to the point of reading something there that I just don't see.You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.

Now, again about that crutch.... ???? Look, you don't know me, you don't know how I was raised or how my faith was formed. You don't know jack squat about that so no, it's not that my "crutch" says you're wrong, it's that you're WRONG. Kay? No one, no crutch, is responsible for me but me. I wasn't brainwashed or brought up prejudiced or any of that. I wasn't kept in a cage as a child and forcefed my faith.You got your panties in a bunch there a h?

And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know? I told you already... that you do not accept the answer is not my problem.

[Jezz]

What was it that caused Paul to write about this matter?
And if I answer this new question of yours, will you finally answer mine? I doubt it, but let's try anyway.

The specific instance of unworthy behaviour that precipitated this warning was the schismata (divisions) in the congregation at the Supper. From what we can gather from St Paul's writing, it seems that the rich, "important" people in the congregation would hoard the lion's share of the Supper to themselves, while the poor, "insignificant" people would get little or nothing.

Hearing of this unworthy behaviour prompted St Paul to issue a general warning about partaking of the Eucharist unworthily. A warning that was obviously applicable to the Corinthian situation, but also equally applicable in any situation where unworthy behaviour is present.

----

So how many of your questions do I have to answer before you will answer any of mine? (And how many times do I have to answer each one of them?) Let me repeat my question for the seventh time:

So, for the [seventh] time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE] the rich, "important" people in the congregation would hoard the lion's share of the Supper to themselves, while the poor, "insignificant" people would get little or nothing.Is that likely to happen at a Roman Catholic Mass?

[kommandermatt]

No, it's not.

[Alden]

Just as I thought, the Bible does not say to "do the Eucharist!" Of course you would not answer the question. Thats because the false doctrines of Romanism cannot be defended from Scripture. They are not Biblical!

Jude--

Are you incapable of answering post 37? I have been patient with you. Many of us have been patient with you. I defended my position with Scripture, and with citation of the the practice of the early church. You have defended your position with proof-texting and personal opinion, backed up with, at most, a few hundred years of practice.

I say again:

Please, take post 37, and respond line by line. I am asking you to complete this task. You, and no one else. We have listened to your constant "Romanism is the devil!!!" for years. It is time for you to engage in dialogue. That is the least you can do. You have appeared to many to be the broken record for sometime. Here is an opportunity to gain some credibility. Please show us that you can think critically and respond in kind.

[Jude3b]

HOW THE IDEA OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AROSE:

The Lord's Supper in the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ was served in connection with an abounding meal of charity called the agape, or love feast. This fact is made too plain for contradiction by the testimony of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 11:20-22.

At first the Lord's Supper was administered at the close of this meal, which was always held in the evening. In the course of time, however, the Lord's Supper was received at the beginning of the meal, and after this course was followed for some time it became customary to separate the Lord's Supper from the feast of charity. After the Lord's Supper was separated from the feast of charity it was possible to hold the Lord's Supper in the morning, for the feast of charity continued to be held in the evening.

These changes were completed by the end of the second century. Inasmuch as Christians still worshiped in private homes, the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity might be held at the same place. But when church houses began to be built, by the close of the third century, the feast of charity was relegated to the private homes of Christians. There this charity meal persisted until the eighth century, when it practically disappered until it was revived in modern times by the Moravians, Mennonites, Dunkards, and some Methodists.

At first the term EUCHARIST was applied to the thanksgiving prayer uttered to God on behalf of the offering of the church which stood before the president of the congregation. Sometime during the second century this term EUCHARIST was applied to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that is, a part of the materials for which the first prayer of thanksgiving or Eucharist had been spoken.

In the meetings of the early church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians brought donations of food on behalf of the poor, and the leader of the congregation offered this food to God in a prayer of dedication; and later through the generations after the food donations had ceased, the prayer of dedication still continued and was finally understood to be the act of offering the bread and wine alone to God. Still later this prayer was supposed to offer the body and blood of Christ in an unbloody sacrifice, later called the Mass.

Harnack says: "Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries and in consequence of the development of the priestly notion, the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate him."

Every Christian should be on his guard lest he take the word of fallible men for the doctrine of God. The depths of superstition and ignorance from which the first Gentile converts of Christianity came were so deep that we need not be suprised at any magical supersitious ideas creeping into the church of God - the body of Christ anywhere at an early time. Nevertheless, the idea that the bread and wine were the literal body and blood of Christ required centuries to gain ascendancy in the historic church.

Correct history:

Ignatius, who was martyred A.D. 115, is quoted as a believer in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, but his words will bear far different meaning. He wrote as he journeyed to Rome to martyrdom:
"I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God....and I desire the drink of God, namely, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

It is evident that he here expresses his longing to feast with Christ in heaven on the riches of His love as this truth is set forth in the message on the bread of life given by our Lord (John 6).

Romanism would come into power in the 4th century A.D. and the church of God - the body of Christ would be driven into the wilderness. The Religionists of Romanism would bring in their damnable heresies and one example of that is the fact that by the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) most of the leading theologians of the visible religious church world had expressed themselves in favor of the theory that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice efficacious as an offering for the souls of men.

How different the practice and teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are - to those taught so clearly in the Word of God!

Paul clearly tells us what the Lord's Supper really is: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he break it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11, verse 23-26)

So, according to the apostle, the Lord's Supper is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, after the example set by Christ. Therefore the Lord's Supper and the communion are the same. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16).

Its design:

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some special "grace" being received by partaking of the elements. Is that what the Bible teaches? NO!

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."

This post has been edited for plagerism and not giving proper citation

[Patroclus]

HOW THE IDEA OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AROSE:

The Lord's Supper in the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ was served in connection with an abounding meal of charity called the agape, or love feast. This fact is made too plain for contradiction by the testimony of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 11:20-22.

At first the Lord's Supper was administered at the close of this meal, which was always held in the evening. In the course of time, however, the Lord's Supper was received at the beginning of the meal, and after this course was followed for some time it became customary to separate the Lord's Supper from the feast of charity. After the Lord's Supper was separated from the feast of charity it was possible to hold the Lord's Supper in the morning, for the feast of charity continued to be held in the evening.

These changes were completed by the end of the second century. Inasmuch as Christians still worshiped in private homes, the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity might be held at the same place. But when church houses began to be built, by the close of the third century, the feast of charity was relegated to the private homes of Christians. There this charity meal persisted until the eighth century, when it practically disappered until it was revived in modern times by the Moravians, Mennonites, Dunkards, and some Methodists.

At first the term EUCHARIST was applied to the thanksgiving prayer uttered to God on behalf of the offering of the church which stood before the president of the congregation. Sometime during the second century this term EUCHARIST was applied to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that is, a part of the materials for which the first prayer of thanksgiving or Eucharist had been spoken.

In the meetings of the early church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians brought donations of food on behalf of the poor, and the leader of the congregation offered this food to God in a prayer of dedication; and later through the generations after the food donations had ceased, the prayer of dedication still continued and was finally understood to be the act of offering the bread and wine alone to God. Still later this prayer was supposed to offer the body and blood of Christ in an unbloody sacrifice, later called the Mass.

Harnack says: "Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries and in consequence of the development of the priestly notion, the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate him."

Every Christian should be on his guard lest he take the word of fallible men for the doctrine of God. The depths of superstition and ignorance from which the first Gentile converts of Christianity came were so deep that we need not be suprised at any magical supersitious ideas creeping into the church of God - the body of Christ anywhere at an early time. Nevertheless, the idea that the bread and wine were the literal body and blood of Christ required centuries to gain ascendancy in the historic church.

Correct history:

Ignatius, who was martyred A.D. 115, is quoted as a believer in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, but his words will bear far different meaning. He wrote as he journeyed to Rome to martyrdom:
"I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God....and I desire the drink of God, namely, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

It is evident that he here expresses his longing to feast with Christ in heaven on the riches of His love as this truth is set forth in the message on the bread of life given by our Lord (John 6).

Romanism would come into power in the 4th century A.D. and the church of God - the body of Christ would be driven into the wilderness. The Religionists of Romanism would bring in their damnable heresies and one example of that is the fact that by the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) most of the leading theologians of the visible religious church world had expressed themselves in favor of the theory that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice efficacious as an offering for the souls of men.

How different the practice and teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are - to those taught so clearly in the Word of God!

Paul clearly tells us what the Lord's Supper really is: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he break it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11, verse 23-26)

So, according to the apostle, the Lord's Supper is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, after the example set by Christ. Therefore the Lord's Supper and the communion are the same. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16).

Its design:

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some special "grace" being received by partaking of the elements. Is that what the Bible teaches? NO!

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."
I know this is SPAM, but this thread is annoying.

:pat:

[Jude3b]

I know this is SPAM, but this thread is annoying.

:pat:

And did someone force you to read it?

[Alden]

This is very sad.

Not only are you an unoriginal, obsessed, broken-record, but now you have added plagiarist to the list.

pathetic.


The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some


The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions. Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine-that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine

http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html






The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."

The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22: 19). If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html



I have asked specific questions that you have failed to directly answer. I asked you to examine and respond to my post #37 line by line. You have failed. I surmise that it has sometime to do with your ability to think critically about the subject matter without being blinded by your hatred for "Romanists". By the way, Orthodox Christians ARE NOT ROMAN.

I found myself wondering who typed the rest of this article, but I realized that it doesn't matter. The only person that is directly quoted is Harnack. The parts that I was able to catch are from 'What The Bible Teaches' by F. G. Smith. You should have given him credit for his work.

I'm done with you Jude. Your lack of imagination and willingness to see beyond your own biases saddens me. Your plagiarism, (which is what representing someone else's work as your ow