[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It’s not a symbol, the Bible doesn’t say it’s a symbol, the early Church Father’s don’t say it is a symbol, it is not a symbol.[/quote]I gotta go with the Westminster divines again. The Cpnfession of 1646
CHAPTER XXIX.
Of the Lord’s Supper.
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
[/quote]
Symbolic faiths have symbolic sacraments. The true faith has real sacraments.
How can one desire to find the true faith, and be content that, when all is found that can be found it is merely a faith of symbols?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: @newbatman:
I suspect that a coherent and substantive post is simply beyond your powers and will accordingly refrain from holding the lack of same against you.
[/quote]
so you can answer these questions below?
(from before)
so how come this Catholic nun type lady showed up at my doctor’s appointment in Wilmington, DE and was waiting outside for me?
then she was waiting for me when I went to my health insurance appointment in New Castle?
then she would go to the football field at 10pm where I trained in Claymont when no one was ever there except her for months?
and how come she after a while of just showing up places finally flashed this white cross type badge thing at me that was under her vest?
and what about the other dude that did this stuff from 2006-2008 before she took over? and also flashed the white cross badge thing?
Again, if nothing else comes out of all this time I spend wrangling with you guys, the undeniable demonstration of the utter incompatibility of catholicism and protestantism (the gospel) will be enough. I know there are some folks lurking around back there who had no real idea. The mindsets we bring to the pursuit of God and His Christ entirely contrast with one another.
I have to remember this as I read your posts and marvel at the comprehensive absence of acuity in reference to almost anything I say. See when I read your posts I’ve actually studied what you believe so I pretty much understand where you’re coming from. Like I told Chris. I’ll bet real money that I know the catholic religion better than 98% of the catholics in pews in especially the western world. I read the Summa Theolgica (owned it actually), I’ve read the catechisms, I’ve read the canons and decrees of the great ecumenical councils. I’ve read about many of the saints, some of whom I am convinced did indeed know the same Jesus I do. I had a huge white Catholic bible that had a very extensive encyclopedia in the back. That thing alone kept me busy for weeks.
I said all that to preface the truth that in holy communion the body and blood of Christ and hence, as I said before, REAL and TRUE efficacious grace are indeed partaken of. (check my use of the word “merely”). Just like every single other truth of the new covenant. >>>—Spiritually–> Which is eternally more REAL and TRUE than any “accidents” of bread and wine could ever be. That concept is foreign to you people because your religion is built on the sandy foundation of Anaximander, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. (most directly Aristotle). This has chained you to the carnal world where truths like partaking of the Lord’s body and blood must take on some bizarre and creepy cannibalistic ritual or have no meaning.
I say that I partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. That is said by our pastor in the blessing and the order to partake as well. It is neither taught in scripture nor is it necessary to it’s purpose for the earthly elements to ACTUALLY BECOME GOD which is not explicitly stated by any of the quotes above though Ignatius comes close. Speaking of which. Tell me. Am I perishing in my disputes? Don’t be shy. I can take it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Again, if nothing else comes out of all this time I spend wrangling with you guys, the undeniable demonstration of the utter incompatibility of catholicism and protestantism (the gospel) will be enough. I know there are some folks lurking around back there who had no real idea. The mindsets we bring to the pursuit of God and His Christ entirely contrast with one another.[/quote]
What that you claim to follow the Gospel, but don’t follow the entire thing? You are really going to try and claim that you’re the only one that follows the Gospel? Even though Catholics wrote it?
Tell me where did the Bible come from?
[quote]
I have to remember this as I read your posts and marvel at the comprehensive absence of acuity in reference to almost anything I say. See when I read your posts I’ve actually studied what you believe so I pretty much understand where you’re coming from.[/quote]
You have yet to show me that you have even the smallest grasp of what I believe. You can’t even get our name right, let alone our doctrine.
98% of the world? No, maybe the current generation, but not the old and new generations that are in the Church.
Great, so you read it. Doesn’t mean you understand it, I know plenty of people who fancy themselves of a Canon lawyer because they read the Canon Law of 1917 and 1983, doesn’t make them one. They just read it, they don’t understand it. It takes a degree in philosophy and a minimum of six years of formal education (after undergrad) to understand to the point you can become a priest. Merely reading something does not give one the mastery of the subject.
All the saints knew Jesus, and now they have received the beatific vision.
[quote]
I said all that to preface the truth that in holy communion the body and blood of Christ and hence, as I said before, REAL and TRUE efficacious grace are indeed partaken of. (check my use of the word “merely”).[/quote]
Didn’t use merely.
Yes, the Body, blood, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus Christ is hidden behind the appearance of bread and wine. Spirit is more real than physical, but symbols…like I said.
Really? Show me in the Catechism where my Church is built on these men? Last time I checked, Christ was the foundation. And, I suppose if you have a problem with these men you’ll throw out Augustine. After all the man was a Platonist, dye in wool.
You thinking that it is cannibalism just shows your lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine.
[quote]
I say that I partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. That is said by our pastor in the blessing and the order to partake as well. It is neither taught in scripture nor is it necessary to it’s purpose for the earthly elements to ACTUALLY BECOME GOD which is not explicitly stated by any of the quotes above though Ignatius comes close. Speaking of which. Tell me. Am I perishing in my disputes? Don’t be shy. I can take it.[/quote]
It’s not in Scripture? You mean John 6 when Jesus says eat my flesh and drink my blood, that’s not there? I must have an errant Bible, because he uses metaphors to hide that he’s saying that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood…then he’s just plain clear here what he means.
Are you telling me that you really don’t see that Ignatius and everyone else I pointed out is talking about the bread and wine becoming Jesus?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Again, if nothing else comes out of all this time I spend wrangling with you guys, the undeniable demonstration of the utter incompatibility of catholicism and protestantism (the gospel) will be enough. I know there are some folks lurking around back there who had no real idea. The mindsets we bring to the pursuit of God and His Christ entirely contrast with one another.
I have to remember this as I read your posts and marvel at the comprehensive absence of acuity in reference to almost anything I say. See when I read your posts I’ve actually studied what you believe so I pretty much understand where you’re coming from. Like I told Chris. I’ll bet real money that I know the catholic religion better than 98% of the catholics in pews in especially the western world. I read the Summa Theolgica (owned it actually), I’ve read the catechisms, I’ve read the canons and decrees of the great ecumenical councils. I’ve read about many of the saints, some of whom I am convinced did indeed know the same Jesus I do. I had a huge white Catholic bible that had a very extensive encyclopedia in the back. That thing alone kept me busy for weeks.
I said all that to preface the truth that in holy communion the body and blood of Christ and hence, as I said before, REAL and TRUE efficacious grace are indeed partaken of. (check my use of the word “merely”). Just like every single other truth of the new covenant. >>>—Spiritually–> Which is eternally more REAL and TRUE than any “accidents” of bread and wine could ever be. That concept is foreign to you people because your religion is built on the sandy foundation of Anaximander, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. (most directly Aristotle). This has chained you to the carnal world where truths like partaking of the Lord’s body and blood must take on some bizarre and creepy cannibalistic ritual or have no meaning.
I say that I partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. That is said by our pastor in the blessing and the order to partake as well. It is neither taught in scripture nor is it necessary to it’s purpose for the earthly elements to ACTUALLY BECOME GOD which is not explicitly stated by any of the quotes above though Ignatius comes close. Speaking of which. Tell me. Am I perishing in my disputes? Don’t be shy. I can take it.[/quote]
You say that you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is different from what I believe when I receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not think the word “transubstantiation” is a bad word, but we never used it until we had to discuss these issues with the Roman Catholics. We held that Christs true presence in the Eucharist was an “indescribable mystery”. In fact while we have come to use the word sacrament, the “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church were historically and are more properly called “indescribable mysteries”. Words CAN not describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and we felt that the Church was not supposed to try to describe an indescribable mystery.
But I think that perhaps some misunderstanding is had because of a failure to realize that it is Christ’s risen, glorified flesh and blood. It is not “dead meat”. What is the nature of glorified flesh and blood? We cannot understand. Now this is personal and if someone could give me reason I would believe otherwise, but I do not feel that the flesh and blood are “hidden” by an illusion of bread and wine. In the Eucharist, fallen bread and wine matter are utterly consumed in the glorified matter of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Do bread and wine become Glorified flesh and blood? Does glorified flesh and blood become bread and wine? Bread and wine, and the Glorified flesh and blood of Christ become one thing. Christ is the “true bread”. There is no truer bread and wine than the flesh and blood of Christ.
And what is a greater mystery, the Word becomming flesh, or the glorified flesh of the word becoming the only true bread. I think protestants have problems understanding that some things are actually ultimate, real things.
By the way, the Orthodox use leavened bread for communion and we all share from 1 single loaf of leavened bread. I am not sure of all of the historical debate of leavened versus unleavened, but I do know that the Gospel says Christ took “artos” meaning leavened bread.
[quote]newbatman wrote:<<< so you can answer these questions below? >>>[/quote]You may be a really great guy, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Chris and Mertdawg. There is no possible way I can keep up with all this. EDIT: Holy communion and the eucharist (which is simply a term from the Greek, meaning to thank or thanksgiving depending on the form) is one of those doctrines the precise ontological mechanisms of which I am only certain of in the negative. In other words I KNOW what it’s not, but due to my own finitude find myself somewhat in want of an adequate explanation for what it is. This is where I see many going terribly wrong and not just with this. Probing beyond what God has been pleased to reveal and hence arriving at obscene conclusions when “I don’t know” is a perfectly wise and legitimate answer.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Again, if nothing else comes out of all this time I spend wrangling with you guys, the undeniable demonstration of the utter incompatibility of catholicism and protestantism (the gospel) will be enough. I know there are some folks lurking around back there who had no real idea. The mindsets we bring to the pursuit of God and His Christ entirely contrast with one another.
I have to remember this as I read your posts and marvel at the comprehensive absence of acuity in reference to almost anything I say. See when I read your posts I’ve actually studied what you believe so I pretty much understand where you’re coming from. Like I told Chris. I’ll bet real money that I know the catholic religion better than 98% of the catholics in pews in especially the western world. I read the Summa Theolgica (owned it actually), I’ve read the catechisms, I’ve read the canons and decrees of the great ecumenical councils. I’ve read about many of the saints, some of whom I am convinced did indeed know the same Jesus I do. I had a huge white Catholic bible that had a very extensive encyclopedia in the back. That thing alone kept me busy for weeks.
I said all that to preface the truth that in holy communion the body and blood of Christ and hence, as I said before, REAL and TRUE efficacious grace are indeed partaken of. (check my use of the word “merely”). Just like every single other truth of the new covenant. >>>—Spiritually–> Which is eternally more REAL and TRUE than any “accidents” of bread and wine could ever be. That concept is foreign to you people because your religion is built on the sandy foundation of Anaximander, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. (most directly Aristotle). This has chained you to the carnal world where truths like partaking of the Lord’s body and blood must take on some bizarre and creepy cannibalistic ritual or have no meaning.
I say that I partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. That is said by our pastor in the blessing and the order to partake as well. It is neither taught in scripture nor is it necessary to it’s purpose for the earthly elements to ACTUALLY BECOME GOD which is not explicitly stated by any of the quotes above though Ignatius comes close. Speaking of which. Tell me. Am I perishing in my disputes? Don’t be shy. I can take it.[/quote]
You say that you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is different from what I believe when I receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not think the word “transubstantiation” is a bad word, but we never used it until we had to discuss these issues with the Roman Catholics. We held that Christs true presence in the Eucharist was an “indescribable mystery”. In fact while we have come to use the word sacrament, the “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church were historically and are more properly called “indescribable mysteries”. Words CAN not describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and we felt that the Church was not supposed to try to describe an indescribable mystery.
But I think that perhaps some misunderstanding is had because of a failure to realize that it is Christ’s risen, glorified flesh and blood. It is not “dead meat”. What is the nature of glorified flesh and blood? We cannot understand. Now this is personal and if someone could give me reason I would believe otherwise, but I do not feel that the flesh and blood are “hidden” by an illusion of bread and wine. In the Eucharist, fallen bread and wine matter are utterly consumed in the glorified matter of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Do bread and wine become Glorified flesh and blood? Does glorified flesh and blood become bread and wine? Bread and wine, and the Glorified flesh and blood of Christ become one thing. Christ is the “true bread”. There is no truer bread and wine than the flesh and blood of Christ.
And what is a greater mystery, the Word becomming flesh, or the glorified flesh of the word becoming the only true bread. I think protestants have problems understanding that some things are actually ultimate, real things.
By the way, the Orthodox use leavened bread for communion and we all share from 1 single loaf of leavened bread. I am not sure of all of the historical debate of leavened versus unleavened, but I do know that the Gospel says Christ took “artos” meaning leavened bread. [/quote]
I like your explanation. However I have never heard anything less than it is the body and blood through transubstantiation. I agree that if this is true than it is the most important part of the faith and what the church has to offer. That being said, I still think that many people who identify as Catholics refuse to face that this is what they are to believe, and the implications of this when attending mass. I think that many believe in the way that you do. If that is true then the miracles that the church upholds of the bread and wine turning in to actual blood and flesh are either false or they confirm that it is truly the flesh and blood.
I don’t know if the Orthodox Church recognizes these occurrences or if they have similar stories in their faith.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Again, if nothing else comes out of all this time I spend wrangling with you guys, the undeniable demonstration of the utter incompatibility of catholicism and protestantism (the gospel) will be enough. I know there are some folks lurking around back there who had no real idea. The mindsets we bring to the pursuit of God and His Christ entirely contrast with one another.
I have to remember this as I read your posts and marvel at the comprehensive absence of acuity in reference to almost anything I say. See when I read your posts I’ve actually studied what you believe so I pretty much understand where you’re coming from. Like I told Chris. I’ll bet real money that I know the catholic religion better than 98% of the catholics in pews in especially the western world. I read the Summa Theolgica (owned it actually), I’ve read the catechisms, I’ve read the canons and decrees of the great ecumenical councils. I’ve read about many of the saints, some of whom I am convinced did indeed know the same Jesus I do. I had a huge white Catholic bible that had a very extensive encyclopedia in the back. That thing alone kept me busy for weeks.
I said all that to preface the truth that in holy communion the body and blood of Christ and hence, as I said before, REAL and TRUE efficacious grace are indeed partaken of. (check my use of the word “merely”). Just like every single other truth of the new covenant. >>>—Spiritually–> Which is eternally more REAL and TRUE than any “accidents” of bread and wine could ever be. That concept is foreign to you people because your religion is built on the sandy foundation of Anaximander, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. (most directly Aristotle). This has chained you to the carnal world where truths like partaking of the Lord’s body and blood must take on some bizarre and creepy cannibalistic ritual or have no meaning.
I say that I partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. That is said by our pastor in the blessing and the order to partake as well. It is neither taught in scripture nor is it necessary to it’s purpose for the earthly elements to ACTUALLY BECOME GOD which is not explicitly stated by any of the quotes above though Ignatius comes close. Speaking of which. Tell me. Am I perishing in my disputes? Don’t be shy. I can take it.[/quote]
You say that you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is different from what I believe when I receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not think the word “transubstantiation” is a bad word, but we never used it until we had to discuss these issues with the Roman Catholics. We held that Christs true presence in the Eucharist was an “indescribable mystery”. In fact while we have come to use the word sacrament, the “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church were historically and are more properly called “indescribable mysteries”. Words CAN not describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and we felt that the Church was not supposed to try to describe an indescribable mystery.
But I think that perhaps some misunderstanding is had because of a failure to realize that it is Christ’s risen, glorified flesh and blood. It is not “dead meat”. What is the nature of glorified flesh and blood? We cannot understand. Now this is personal and if someone could give me reason I would believe otherwise, but I do not feel that the flesh and blood are “hidden” by an illusion of bread and wine. In the Eucharist, fallen bread and wine matter are utterly consumed in the glorified matter of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Do bread and wine become Glorified flesh and blood? Does glorified flesh and blood become bread and wine? Bread and wine, and the Glorified flesh and blood of Christ become one thing. Christ is the “true bread”. There is no truer bread and wine than the flesh and blood of Christ.
And what is a greater mystery, the Word becomming flesh, or the glorified flesh of the word becoming the only true bread. I think protestants have problems understanding that some things are actually ultimate, real things.
By the way, the Orthodox use leavened bread for communion and we all share from 1 single loaf of leavened bread. I am not sure of all of the historical debate of leavened versus unleavened, but I do know that the Gospel says Christ took “artos” meaning leavened bread. [/quote]
I like your explanation. However I have never heard anything less than it is the body and blood through transubstantiation. I agree that if this is true than it is the most important part of the faith and what the church has to offer. That being said, I still think that many people who identify as Catholics refuse to face that this is what they are to believe, and the implications of this when attending mass. I think that many believe in the way that you do. If that is true then the miracles that the church upholds of the bread and wine turning in to actual blood and flesh are either false or they confirm that it is truly the flesh and blood.
I don’t know if the Orthodox Church recognizes these occurrences or if they have similar stories in their faith.
Please understand that I believe that the bread and wine become Jesus’ flesh and blood, but that his risen flesh and blood are archetypal, perfect flesh and blood. Risen and glorified flesh and blood has none of the defects of the fallen cosmos. Risen blood does not CHANGE and so would not coagulate. Coagulated blood is dead. The meat and blood in the chalice described IS DEAD and so can not possibly be the flesh and blood of the risen Christ.
The miracle you described may have occurred, but the ancient Canons of the one church say that if the bread and wine appear as flesh and blood, the priest should cover it, set it aside and wait for it to appear as bread and wine again. It is also not considered to be a good thing. I think the priest may be forbidden to serve for at least some time when this happens.
Some Greek Orthodox Church confessions of faith use the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis), but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of “substance” and “accidents”, while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during Divine Liturgy. Other terms such as “trans-elementation” (Ã?¼Ã?µÃ??Ã?±Ã??Ã??Ã?¿Ã?¹Ã??Ã?µÃ?¯Ã??Ã??Ã?¹Ã?? metastoicheiosis) and “re-ordination” (Ã?¼Ã?µÃ??Ã?±Ã??Ã??Ã??Ã?¸Ã?¼Ã?¹Ã??Ã?¹Ã?? metarrhythmisis) are more common among the Orthodox.
The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[4] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood”.[5]
During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an import into Christian teaching of Aristotelian “pseudo-philosophy”,[6] in favor of Martin Luther’s doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.[7]
The Council of Trent in its thirteenth session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood â?? the species only of the bread and wine remaining â?? which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[8] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[9] with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[10] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term “accidents”, and the word “substance” was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[11] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same “Ã?¿á½?Ã??Ã?¯Ã?±” (Greek) or “substantia” (Latin) as the Father.
The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that in a valid Divine Liturgy bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a “Mystery,” something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer not to elaborate upon the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, there are official church documents that speak of a “change” (in Greek Ã?¼Ã?µÃ??Ã?±Ã?²Ã?¿Ã?»Ã?®) or “metousiosis” (Ã?¼Ã?µÃ??Ã?¿Ã??Ã??Ã?¯Ã??Ã??Ã?¹Ã??) of the bread and wine. “Ã??Ã?µÃ??-Ã?¿Ã??Ã??Ã?¯-Ã??Ã??Ã?¹Ã??” (met-ousi-osis) is the Greek word used to represent the Latin word “trans-substanti-atio”,[55][56] as Greek “Ã?¼Ã?µÃ??Ã?±-Ã?¼Ã??Ã??Ã??-Ã??Ã??Ã?¹Ã??” (meta-morph-osis) corresponds to Latin “trans-figur-atio”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]
I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.
Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]
I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.
Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”[/quote]
Christ’s body IS the only real bread! All other bread is a symbol. Boy, who’s being Aristotean? Both the Protetants and Roman Catholics apparently.
I AM the true bread that came down from heaven.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…
My flesh is truly meat…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]
I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.
Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”[/quote]
Yes, as often as you eat this bread…this is my body…and drink this cup…which is my blood.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]
I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.
Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”[/quote]
I am not a biblical literalist. The creation story tells an account of Creation that that ancient man can understand. It is accurate in that, God made it, he made man, chose to have a relation with man and man betrayed his trust. I do not see it as a literal account. Remember there are 2 different creation stories in Genesis. Further, through out scripture, creation is referred not as Gen 1 & 2 describe, exactly.
Paul was not being allegorical, he was admonishing the abuse of the Eucharist and describing it’s real meaning. I think 1 Cor 11:17-25 establishes that fairly clearly.
If you remember the context in which St. Paul was speaking, he was quite irate with the Corinthians for abusing the sacrament as a feast and also excluding others in the Christian community.
Honestly, the early Christians weren’t always a well behaved bunch. And the Corinthians were particularly rowdy and disobedient, which is why he referred to them as ‘Infants in Christ’.
Does anyone think, that the original last supper discourse was symbolic?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< No where in here does it say, those who do not practice the ritual of baptism are automatically damned to hell…Got anything else? I want the specific passage or passages that say, no baptism, automatic trip to hell.
Show me, please. This ^ does not say any such thing, at all, in anyway.[/quote]I didn’t even mention baptism. You did. I have no burden in this exchange regarding baptism for that reason. I said mankind is universally damned and none are saved minus a self conscious commitment to the risen Christ. Go on about baptism all ya want. That’s not what I was talkin about.
[/quote]<<< Fair enough what are you talking about and how do you get undead from sin?[/quote]A man is raised from death to life when born again into the resurrection of Christ. Dead means DEAD. Dead men do nothing until raised. A dead person in whom the saving grace of God is moving WILL believe and confess Jesus as Lord, WILL be baptized, WILL repent of their sin AND sins, WILL begin a life of consecration and sanctification wherein they learn to love what God loves and hate what God hates. They will do it freely, willingly and joyously.
I do not know the precise divine mechanisms by which this series of events takes place. Don’t care. Just know that it is, because the living Word of God in my heart testifies to the written Word of God in my hands that it is so. The entire system of faith and thought that emerges? To me simply IS. The same way the laws of logic and rationality just were and are to Aristotle and yourself? The all governing, all defining, comprehensively sovereign and victorious most high God of all JUST IS to me. Everything else follows from Him. If this is not so then God is contingent upon man and cannot act in a saving way until man gives Him permission.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Did Elijah have a self conscious awareness of the Risen Christ? If not, where’s he (by your logic). If he did, then your definition of a self conscious awareness sounds a lot more like “a spritual intuition” which is sort of the opposite of conscious awareness.[/quote]Very short version.
1 Cor.10:1-4 [quote]Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant,
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink:
for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them:
and that Rock was Christ.[/quote]Everybody in all ages is saved by faith in the blood and resurrection of the Christ. The O.T. patriarchs by believing in the promise of His future advent and those born post Pentecost (Acts 2) by believing in that work now accomplished. Like I say, the entire book of Hebrews majestically proclaims that very thing. Actually the entire New Testament majestically proclaims that very thing. I could write a several hundred page tome detailing all the ways that is unmistakably evident (other men have). Typology is mind bogglingly cool.
Now, in the age of covenant fulfillment and grace, any person not self consciously and deliberately confessing Jesus the Christ as Lord and savior, and His blood and life alone as their salvation is justly and most deservedly left in their state of sin and death to be eternally adjudicated guilty and damned by the perfect holy judge of all. This is so clearly stated in scripture that only someone willfully refusing to bow before the mind of almighty God could convince himself he’s escaped it. I wish I had time for more now as this is one of my very favorite theological pursuits. The comprehensive Christocentricity of every last syllable of holy scripture. The Father loves His Son and everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING is absolutely about Him. Every if and and but.
In the mind of the Father the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world before ever sin was because it was certainly coming. The eternal covenant wherein from a creation decreed to fall was given to the Son those whom the Father would promise. They would be bought by the Son Himself, the spotless lamb and He would be their lord, savior, prophet, priest, king, brother and bridegroom. Anyone who at this point has to ask why is beyond any explanation I’m capable of. Oh praise and honor be to His holy name. How I long to see that magnificent glorious face. I can hardly contain myself typing this post. Me, a man deserving a thousand horrible deaths for crimes committed against His holy throne is brought freely into the family of the very God I’ve offended and by His choice and sacrifice. And people ask “How can this be a God of love?”. There simply aren’t words.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.
EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]
Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?
What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)
No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]
I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.
Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”[/quote]
Christ’s body IS the only real bread! All other bread is a symbol. Boy, who’s being Aristotean? Both the Protetants and Roman Catholics apparently.
I AM the true bread that came down from heaven.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…
My flesh is truly meat…
[/quote]
Further, “So Jesus said to them, â??Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
(John 6:53 ESV)