Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:15:39 PM EDT
New International Version

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.



New Living Translation

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



English Standard Version

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



New American Standard Bible

"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.



King James Bible

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Holman Christian Standard Bible

because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink.



International Standard Version

because my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.



NET Bible

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



Aramaic Bible in Plain English

"For my body truly is food, and my blood truly is drink.”



GOD'S WORD® Translation

My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



Jubilee Bible 2000

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



King James 2000 Bible

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



American King James Version

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



American Standard Version

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Douay-Rheims Bible

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.



Darby Bible Translation

for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.



English Revised Version

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Webster's Bible Translation

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Weymouth New Testament

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



World English Bible

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



Young's Literal Translation

for my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink;
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 1:06:02 AM EDT
[#1]
Adoni, always give us this Bread.

Yeshua is our Bread, and our Water, and without this Bread and this Water, we are nothing but walking dead.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 1:13:16 AM EDT
[#2]
[b]


35And 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. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

View Quote



Do you even metaphor bro?

Seriously though, I believe the bible "literally" as in these things happen this way, but  Jesus wasn't saying "you can eat me", it was more like, "I am nourishment"
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 1:46:38 AM EDT
[#3]
He is food and drink for our  everlasting souls. The BIble IS full of truth.



Praise The Lord
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:27:16 AM EDT
[#4]

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at
Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they
might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate
manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread
from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they
said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will
never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this
point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.



Again and Again







Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living
bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he
will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the
world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying,
‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).



His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and
correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis,
and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh
is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).







No Corrections







Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt
to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s
listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was
speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?



On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just
what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding
would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he
repeated himself for greater emphasis.



In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it,
said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his
disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to
think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the
flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and
life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).



But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of
the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this,
many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John
6:66).



This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers
forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a
misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense,
why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews,
who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted
everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he
was speaking only symbolically.



But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was
the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have
"to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of
what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that
could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic.








Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:27:43 AM EDT
[#5]

Merely Figurative?







They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and
drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus
said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not
hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that
coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his
flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.



But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A.
O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’
when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today,
meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by
calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively
then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit
for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to
utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.



Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can
show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like
John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The
problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread
of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors
because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also
like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John
6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and
my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).



He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of
the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The
Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.







Their Main Argument







For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an
appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of
no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They
say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make
sense?



Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to
eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what
"the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a
waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.



The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail,
then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and
he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more
than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the
incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then
"your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also
who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).



In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination
to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them
rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells
his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet
even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that
judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by
God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.



And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have
spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a
very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such
interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and
thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for
evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer
to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s
inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken
to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic."
The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line
means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith;
only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John
6:37, 44–45, 65).



Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:28:21 AM EDT
[#6]

Paul Confirms This







Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless,
is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).
So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and
blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said,
"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord
unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . .
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and
drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body
and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as
homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so
serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became
the real body and blood of Christ.







What Did the First Christians Say?







Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter
symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought,
keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be
interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.



Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and
who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to
"those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the
Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered
for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again"
(6:2, 7:1).



Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or
common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was
made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our
salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made
into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the
change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the
flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).



Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the
Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your
religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so
you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you
reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest
anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty,
and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).



Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the
mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply
that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and
blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let
faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully
assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy

of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).



In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be
speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ]
gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my
blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after
their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not
according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and
blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:29:02 AM EDT
[#7]

Unanimous Testimony







Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally.
In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies
Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no
document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the
metaphorical accepted.



Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal
interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because
they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter.
This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many
Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.



One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how
to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised
him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if
spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he
approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that
he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does
in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.



Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:33:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Unanimous Testimony



Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

View Quote

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

Earlier in the chapter Clement said this:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:48:12 AM EDT
[#9]
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:55:22 AM EDT
[#10]
Tertullian:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:56:19 AM EDT
[#11]
What spiritual value is their in a symbolic practice?  

What discipline or will power is necessary to believe in a symbol?  

As the exchange in John so amply illustrates, Jesus clearly intends to confront his potential followers with an obstacle, something the mind reacts against and which consequently requires an effort of faith to overcome.

Of course, at this point we're into the whole free will/merit issue.  Does God want our active participation in the process of our own salvation or is He content to exercise all of the agency Himself and leave us as passive recipients?

And, yes, I'm quite aware that some of the people posting here have different opinions.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:13:00 AM EDT
[#12]
Justin Martyr:
Justin continues to make his point in his second apology. Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset.

“For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds.” (2nd Apology, Chapter 12)

Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the Eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies. In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the Eucharist as he did in his first apology. To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church. With regards to the Eucharist, he said:

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 10:03:22 AM EDT
[#13]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Justin Martyr:

Justin continues to make his point in his second apology. Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset.



"For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds.” (2nd Apology, Chapter 12)



Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the Eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies. In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the Eucharist as he did in his first apology. To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church. With regards to the Eucharist, he said:



"And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
View Quote




 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 2:32:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Justin Martyr:
Justin continues to make his point in his second apology. Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset.

"For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds.” (2nd Apology, Chapter 12)

Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the Eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies. In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the Eucharist as he did in his first apology. To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church. With regards to the Eucharist, he said:

"And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
http://orthogals.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/words1.jpg
 

Justin makes his point even more clearly in chapter 70 where he connects a prophecy of Isaiah with the Eucharist.

“They [the words of Isaiah] are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counselors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,–the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not. The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

Justin explicitly stated that bread (not the flesh) is given by Christ in remembrance of His flesh, and that the cup is in remembrance of – not is – His own blood. If Justin believed in transubstantiation i.e. the real presence, he would have certainly stated it here, instead he refutes it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 2:55:58 PM EDT
[#15]


Hogwash. As stated earlier...








"This food we call the 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."--"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.







 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 2:57:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Transubstantiation 1. Theol. The doctrine that the substance of the Eucharistic elements is converted into that of the body and the blood of Christ: distinguished from consubstantiation impanation. 2. A change of anything into something essentially different. [< Med. L transubstantiatus, pp. of transubstantiare < L trans- over + substantia substance
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 3:02:39 PM EDT
[#17]
http:////catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html



More reading. Love the website name 'Shameless Popery.' LOL.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 3:30:09 PM EDT
[#18]
John 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

1 Corinthians 11:24  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.
25  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.
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Twire, this is what you literally do, right?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:13:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Yes, I believe the words of Jesus. Paul did. Why don't you?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:14:46 PM EDT
[#20]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Transubstantiation 1. Theol. The doctrine that the substance of the Eucharistic elements is converted into that of the body and the blood of Christ: distinguished from consubstantiation impanation. 2. A change of anything into something essentially different. [< Med. L transubstantiatus, pp. of transubstantiare < L trans- over + substantia substance
View Quote
Thank you Merriam Webster.



 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:29:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Thank you Merriam Webster.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Transubstantiation 1. Theol. The doctrine that the substance of the Eucharistic elements is converted into that of the body and the blood of Christ: distinguished from consubstantiation impanation. 2. A change of anything into something essentially different. [< Med. L transubstantiatus, pp. of transubstantiare < L trans- over + substantia substance
Thank you Merriam Webster.
 


I know, cool huh?

Seriously though, was at our local library and they were having a "clearance" book sale.
Saw this dictionary on the rack about 8' in thickness, a, "The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary."
Thumbed through it and liked it immediately.
Asked the Librarian how much; smiling and attempting to turn on the charm as much as possible while dropping two quarters into a large jar that was supposed to be for the library fund or whatever.
I handed her the dictionary and she looks it over a little bit and says, "One dollar should do it."

btw. Didn't really know the exact meaning to this word, and thought that others might not know about it definition and context wise also.
Trying to help out also as what you are talking about may not be as common place knowledge-wise as some might suspect according to this topic.
It is completely neutral in my reasoning to list it; and thus neutral according to its intent to post it.

Rock on.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:33:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

No Corrections

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.
View Quote

If it was literal, did anybody ever actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:34:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http:////catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html

More reading. Love the website name 'Shameless Popery.' LOL.
View Quote

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:41:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Thanks
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:43:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes, I believe the words of Jesus. Paul did. Why don't you?
View Quote


Well, you must be a Roman Catholic priest, because Roman Catholic laity does NOT drink from the cup, correct?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:43:45 PM EDT
[#26]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Do you even metaphor bro?



Seriously though, I believe the bible "literally" as in these things happen this way, but  Jesus wasn't saying "you can eat me", it was more like, "I am nourishment"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:









35And 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. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.









Do you even metaphor bro?



Seriously though, I believe the bible "literally" as in these things happen this way, but  Jesus wasn't saying "you can eat me", it was more like, "I am nourishment"
Exactly

 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:48:17 PM EDT
[#27]
"Do this in 'remembrance' of Me."

Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:49:42 PM EDT
[#28]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



If it was literal, did anybody ever actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?
View Quote
Every Mass.



 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:50:03 PM EDT
[#29]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well, you must be a Roman Catholic priest, because Roman Catholic laity does NOT drink from the cup, correct?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

Yes, I believe the words of Jesus. Paul did. Why don't you?





Well, you must be a Roman Catholic priest, because Roman Catholic laity does NOT drink from the cup, correct?
Incorrect.



 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:50:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Every Mass.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

If it was literal, did anybody ever actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Every Mass.
 


Scriptural Authority?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:55:06 PM EDT
[#31]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Exactly  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:








35And 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. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.









Do you even metaphor bro?



Seriously though, I believe the bible "literally" as in these things happen this way, but  Jesus wasn't saying "you can eat me", it was more like, "I am nourishment"
Exactly  
Is the Bible to be taken literally or not?



There's whole museums and monthly periodicals dedicated to the absolute literal veracity of Genesis creation, but the words of Jesus Christ himself are not literally true? Makes sense....





 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:55:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Incorrect.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, I believe the words of Jesus. Paul did. Why don't you?


Well, you must be a Roman Catholic priest, because Roman Catholic laity does NOT drink from the cup, correct?
Incorrect.
 


Which part is incorrect? Enlighten me.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:57:12 PM EDT
[#33]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Scriptural Authority?

View Quote
Post 1 and post 7.



Must read before posting.



 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 4:57:58 PM EDT
[#34]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Which part is incorrect? Enlighten me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

Yes, I believe the words of Jesus. Paul did. Why don't you?





Well, you must be a Roman Catholic priest, because Roman Catholic laity does NOT drink from the cup, correct?
Incorrect.

 




Which part is incorrect? Enlighten me.
Laity partakes of both species.



 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 5:01:02 PM EDT
[#35]


Quiz time! Anybody know who said this??









"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil,
that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of
the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not
one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.



Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since
they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never
(if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there,
especially it being of great importance,  that men should not be
deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Link Posted: 9/18/2014 5:06:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is the Bible to be taken literally or not?

There's whole museums and monthly periodicals dedicated to the absolute literal veracity of Genesis creation, but the words of Jesus Christ himself are not literally true? Makes sense....

 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:



35And 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. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.




Do you even metaphor bro?

Seriously though, I believe the bible "literally" as in these things happen this way, but  Jesus wasn't saying "you can eat me", it was more like, "I am nourishment"
Exactly  
Is the Bible to be taken literally or not?

There's whole museums and monthly periodicals dedicated to the absolute literal veracity of Genesis creation, but the words of Jesus Christ himself are not literally true? Makes sense....

 


When Jesus said this does this mean that an actual river of water will pour out of someones mouth?
John 7:37-38
On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[

Link Posted: 9/18/2014 5:07:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Laity partakes of both species.
 
View Quote


Laity does NOT drink from the cup, laity does NOT drink the wine. ROMAN CATHOLICS THEMSELVES DO NOT TAKE THE PASSAGE LITERALLY.

Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:11:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Bread (food) and water are symbols of life throughout the TORAH. Yeshua is literally the Life that this symbolized. There is no way that the only One free from sin would advocate the sin of consuming blood.

Lev 17:14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

The main reason for misunderstanding of the renewed covenant scriptures is from lack of knowledge of the TANAKH (Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh).

Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was most possibly the religion of several Roman emperors making it the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity.

One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore.

Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist. The Eucharist is a tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religion of Mithraism.

And now my problem with Protestants (protesting Catholics). They didn't protest nearly enough, and carried on many pagan traditions of men.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:16:25 PM EDT
[#39]
There are a couple of issues here.

1) on whose authority is the Bible itself declared the word of God vs. just a work of human writers?
2) on whose authority is the Bible which has been declared the word of God to be properly interpreted when conflicts arise?
3) what has this historic authority said in the past, across centuries and cultures, from the start down to our time?
4) Jesus, as recorded in this Bible which this authority has declared genuinely inspired by God, said that either we are to accept his teaching for the words he said or because of the works, signs, that he did. Now...of the two interpretations of Jn 6, and the two communities that arise from these various interpretations, what signs do we see that might reflect a Christian spirit? Both are historic communities of men, both thus are made entirely of sinners who yet are sincere believers seeking to be disciples of this Jesus whom the book (which was approved by a historic authority as the word of God) states is the very Incarnate Word through whom the universe was created and sustained in being.

One group of believers numbers about 1.2 billion. The other another 1 billion or so. The works of the Holy Spirit are evident in each community in various ways. Healings and exorcisms in both. But what else could an unbiased 3rd party go on to tease out which is following the master's will and which is simply sincerely mistaken?

It's a tautology to declare one stands on the authority of the bible alone...when the very bible itself is held to be authoritative on account of some other group of men. Surely there must be an objective way to settle this dispute, no?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 7:29:35 PM EDT
[#40]
As to the old canard that Catholicism is "just" dressed up Mithras worship.....similarity is not identity.

Two can play this game. Try this on for size.

In India, there is a book considered "holy" called the Uphanishads. In this book, declared holy and full of wisdom, many affirmations are made about God, the universe, humanity, etc.... anyone can read the books and declare oneself a guru. Anyone can interpret this book for their own wisdom. But that's exactly like Protestantism, ergo Protestantism is nothing more than a tragic westernized version of Hinduism.

Or.... Islam is based on two books - the Koran and the Hadiths, but there is no hierarchy, no 'church'; each believer of the books can read it for himself and interpret it accordingly, and so Protestantism is just an unfortunate westernized version of Islam.

The US Coast Guard has Ships. The US Merchant Marine has ships, ergo the US Merchant Marine is the US Coast Guard. Right?

No, wrong, actually because similarity in some aspects does not make for identity in all aspects.

Many religions have a holy book and preachers who declare themselves as such (and are then hired) on account of so-called 'education' in the holy writings and a suitable familiarity from which to preach and are ipso facto endowed with 'authority' until such time as the community tires of them and fires them...or they self-destruct and leave.

But who would declare that this similar dynamic between Protestantism and Islam and other religions based on 'holy books' thus means there is no theological/doctrinal difference between them? I certainly wouldn't. Thus to claim "Mithras used altars.....Catholics use altars...ergo Catholics are Mithras is frankly stupid. Because Jews had altars too! And bloody sacrifices! And prophets talking about the Messiah being God...

No, the fact is, that historic Christianity looks far more Catholic than proto-Protestant. That's just a fact. Unfortunate for some people but a fact nevertheless.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:20:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There are a couple of issues here.

1) on whose authority is the Bible itself declared the word of God vs. just a work of human writers?
2) on whose authority is the Bible which has been declared the word of God to be properly interpreted when conflicts arise?
3) what has this historic authority said in the past, across centuries and cultures, from the start down to our time?
4) Jesus, as recorded in this Bible which this authority has declared genuinely inspired by God, said that either we are to accept his teaching for the words he said or because of the works, signs, that he did. Now...of the two interpretations of Jn 6, and the two communities that arise from these various interpretations, what signs do we see that might reflect a Christian spirit? Both are historic communities of men, both thus are made entirely of sinners who yet are sincere believers seeking to be disciples of this Jesus whom the book (which was approved by a historic authority as the word of God) states is the very Incarnate Word through whom the universe was created and sustained in being.

One group of believers numbers about 1.2 billion. The other another 1 billion or so. The works of the Holy Spirit are evident in each community in various ways. Healings and exorcisms in both. But what else could an unbiased 3rd party go on to tease out which is following the master's will and which is simply sincerely mistaken?

It's a tautology to declare one stands on the authority of the bible alone...when the very bible itself is held to be authoritative on account of some other group of men. Surely there must be an objective way to settle this dispute, no?
View Quote


The One through the Holy Spirit's authority is who breaks all ties and bets here according to these things.
If not, you will encounter  many situations such as you might find in many of these threads.
The Bible clearly states that there is only One Holy Spirit who dwells in whoever He wants.
Not two, four, eight, sixteen, and so on.......
If there be a discrepancy here it is because someone is operating out and away from the kingdom authority of God.
Which means, that someone is spreading false doctrine.
Which means if someone practices this false doctrine long enough and without repentance,
then someone will not be inheriting the kingdom of God.
Which means someone will be going to hell to pay for their heinous and wanton errors which are unjust.
This is Scriptural and Biblically sound.
Believe this or believe nothing at all.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:36:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Every Mass.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it was literal, did anybody ever actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Every Mass.

No, I mean Christ's actual flesh and blood, not the symbolic wafer and wine used in Mass.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:38:46 PM EDT
[#43]
There are no communities here.
Only the One.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:44:39 PM EDT
[#44]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:







Quiz time! Anybody know who said this??





View Quote
















"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.







Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance,  that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”






hand raised... sitting straight in chair... nerd glasses adjusted.. looking around for other hands....







 
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 8:57:03 PM EDT
[#45]
The LORD spoke to Moses: "Say to the Israelites: Any Israelite of foreigner living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech (or Molech;  to have his children passed through the fire and then eaten by men) must be put to death; the people of the country are to stone him.

I will turn against that man and cut him off from the people, because he gave his offspring to Molech, thus defiling My sanctuary (or the human body) and profaning My Holy Name.[This is the LORD's Declaration]

Leviticus 20: 1-3
Molech Worship and Spiritism
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:12:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Most Christians accept that the doctrine that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us means that Jesus was truly man....but also truly God.

Now..... with respect to the mystery of the Eucharist and how 'real food and real drink can simultaneously and also be flesh and blood" we touch on the same question as to how Jesus can be truly man and yet truly God.

The answer to "how" of the one is the same answer to the "how" of the other and both involve the word and concept of "person" and "substance" as opposed to the concept of 'accidents'.

Jesus had a human body and a human mind and a human soul...but his spirit, his person was divine. The bread and wine that are consecrated in Mass, 'blessed' by invoking the Holy Spirit to come down upon them, are raised up and no longer are bread and wine but substantially Jesus.

It's the spirit that gives life, right? But what IS life? animated matter. The matter and energy are not life. Life is the animation of matter and energy. Spirit thus is an organizing principle, an agent (active), intelligent and free vs an impersonal, chaotic force.

When spirit is active in matter it is alive. When spirit is inactive the thing decays and dies.

When the Holy Spirit came over Mary she conceived and bore a son, the Incarnate Word. Jesus was man - he could suffer, bleed, hunger, thirst, and die....but he was also God.

The Eucharistic bread and wine has gluten, has alcoholic content....and yet is Body and Blood.

How? That's the mystery. I don't know. But neither do I know "how" God can become Man. And yet all Christians believe it.

How did God create all from nothing? Again, a mystery.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:22:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The Eucharistic bread and wine has gluten, has alcoholic content....and yet is Body and Blood.

How? That's the mystery. I don't know. But neither do I know "how" God can become Man. And yet all Christians believe it.
View Quote

People who operate on faith will believe anything they want to believe.

Where is the chemical analysis that shows the bread is actually flesh and the wine is actually blood?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:30:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Laity does NOT drink from the cup, laity does NOT drink the wine. ROMAN CATHOLICS THEMSELVES DO NOT TAKE THE PASSAGE LITERALLY.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Laity partakes of both species.
 


Laity does NOT drink from the cup, laity does NOT drink the wine. ROMAN CATHOLICS THEMSELVES DO NOT TAKE THE PASSAGE LITERALLY.





Uh, dude? You're utterly wrong. I drank just this past week.
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:40:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Most Christians accept that the doctrine that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us means that Jesus was truly man....but also truly God.

Now..... with respect to the mystery of the Eucharist and how 'real food and real drink can simultaneously and also be flesh and blood" we touch on the same question as to how Jesus can be truly man and yet truly God.

The answer to "how" of the one is the same answer to the "how" of the other and both involve the word and concept of "person" and "substance" as opposed to the concept of 'accidents'.

Jesus had a human body and a human mind and a human soul...but his spirit, his person was divine. The bread and wine that are consecrated in Mass, 'blessed' by invoking the Holy Spirit to come down upon them, are raised up and no longer are bread and wine but substantially Jesus.

It's the spirit that gives life, right? But what IS life? animated matter. The matter and energy are not life. Life is the animation of matter and energy. Spirit thus is an organizing principle, an agent (active), intelligent and free vs an impersonal, chaotic force.

When spirit is active in matter it is alive. When spirit is inactive the thing decays and dies.

When the Holy Spirit came over Mary she conceived and bore a son, the Incarnate Word. Jesus was man - he could suffer, bleed, hunger, thirst, and die....but he was also God.

The Eucharistic bread and wine has gluten, has alcoholic content....and yet is Body and Blood.

How? That's the mystery. I don't know. But neither do I know "how" God can become Man. And yet all Christians believe it.

How did God create all from nothing? Again, a mystery.
View Quote

The Holy Spirit brings everlasting (eternal) life, it has nothing to do with matter or temporary life here on earth. There are certainly people alive on this earth without the Holy Spirit and they are as physically alive as you and I. Spiritually alive is a different story.

I have a hard time understanding why one would need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. I assume that we agree that his physical flesh and blood was like ours, if not then how could he have been fully God and fully man, right?  Well, was it his physical body or his Holy Spirit that performed miracles?  Wasn't it his Holy Spirit that brought him back to life?  I mean, his physical fleshly body was still in the tomb, so how could it have given itself life again?  If it was the Holy Spirit that brought him life, and we have been given the Holy Spirit as believers, then why would we need the flesh that died?
Link Posted: 9/18/2014 9:49:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Uh, dude? You're utterly wrong. I drank just this past week.
View Quote


http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=356420
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top