Christian Superstition

[Marymog]

Since I believe that the bread and wine remain bread and wine (no transubstantiation), it sounds like magic to say that at the words of consecration the bread and wine are no longer the object they seem to be, but become the eternal God, a physical object of worship.

So yes, Catholics are to believe the Eucharist is God Himself, physically also.

Thank you TT. Your statement makes sense.

So you don't think when Jesus took the bread and said, “Take, eat; this is my body" he really meant "this (the bread) IS my body"?

What do you believe he meant?

Mary

 

[tabletalk]

Thank you TT. Your statement makes sense.

So you don't think when Jesus took the bread and said, “Take, eat; this is my body" he really meant "this (the bread) IS my body"?

What do you believe he meant?

Mary

I think He meant that 'eating His flesh' means 'coming to Him', and 'drinking His blood' means 'believing in Him'.
And the Apostle Paul says 'do this in remembrance of Me'.

From John 6: 29. Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
: 35. And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (emphasis mine)

: 53. Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
: 55. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

From 1Corinthians 11: 24. and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25. In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

 

[bbyrd009]

And that's why we celebrate the Holy Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

that's why you should not be allowed to post on a Christian board, with all due respect

i got no problem with Catholic dogma, but it is not and will never be Christian

 

[bbyrd009]

So yes, Catholics are to believe the Eucharist is God Himself, physically also.

sorry for them, but it should be taken somewhere else wadr

it is not right to put decent Catholics on the defense, and the Book can only do this to those who cannot face It imo

 

[Marymog]

I think He meant that 'eating His flesh' means 'coming to Him', and 'drinking His blood' means 'believing in Him'.
And the Apostle Paul says 'do this in remembrance of Me'.

From John 6: 29. Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
: 35. And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (emphasis mine)

: 53. Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
: 55. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

From 1Corinthians 11: 24. and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25. In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Hi TT,

I don't think it is fair to jump from John 6:29 to 35 and then to 53 and then to 55 to make your point. You left everything out that weakens your argument. In all fairness you should put ALL of John 6 in context. However, I will move on.

What do you think Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 when he said if you eat the body/blood in an unworthy manner YOU will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord further saying if you eat the body/blood without discerning the body they eat and drink judgment against themselves? Further saying For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

How does what Paul said translate or match up to what you believe "coming to him" and "believing in him"? I can't see the connection.

BTW....Paul was repeating the words of Jesus when he said "do this in remembrance of me". It wasn't an original statement from Paul;)

IHS...Mary

 

[tabletalk]

Hi TT,

I don't think it is fair to jump from John 6:29 to 35 and then to 53 and then to 55 to make your point. You left everything out that weakens your argument. In all fairness you should put ALL of John 6 in context. However, I will move on.

What do you think Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 when he said if you eat the body/blood in an unworthy manner YOU will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord further saying if you eat the body/blood without discerning the body they eat and drink judgment against themselves? Further saying For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

How does what Paul said translate or match up to what you believe "coming to him" and "believing in him"? I can't see the connection.

BTW....Paul was repeating the words of Jesus when he said "do this in remembrance of me". It wasn't an original statement from Paul;)

IHS...Mary

Discerning the body could simply mean that members of the church in Corinth were all the body of Christ, in contrast to the divisions in the body that Paul was warning them about earlier: 1Cor.4:6"....that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7. For who makes you differ from another?"

I don't know how to explain the connection between "coming to him" and "believing in him" .

 

[Marymog]

Discerning the body could simply mean that members of the church in Corinth were all the body of Christ, in contrast to the divisions in the body that Paul was warning them about earlier: 1Cor.4:6"....that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7. For who makes you differ from another?"

I don't know how to explain the connection between "coming to him" and "believing in him" .

Hi TT,

Thank you for your honest response. I really wish you could have articulated or explained your belief on the connection between "coming to him" and "believing in him". I really enjoy seeing how others come to different conclusion than I do.

I believe your "Discerning the body could simply mean that members of the church in Corinth were all the body of Christ..." interpretation would be plausible if you leave out 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 where Paul told the story of how on the night Jesus was betrayed he took bread etc. etc. (Last Supper discourse). IN CONTEXT when Paul was speaking of "discerning the body" we see that he was actually talking about what Jesus said and did at The Last Supper.

We have writings from 1st and 2nd Century Christians who treated the bread and wine as "holy" and they were accused of being cannibals by the Roman authorities. Do you believe the 1st century Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles misunderstood what was being taught about the bread and wine? Historically we know they took it literally.



IHS....Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

historically we realize they could not have, or they would have left too.
The ones who took Him literally, literally left.

 

[Truth]

Wrong.

It is the same since the Last supper - and hasn't changed since. Certainly not during MY lifetime.
The elements of bread and wine have been used from the beginning because that's the way it was instituted by Christ himself.

Now, if you're not willing to discuss your interpretation of these passages - it is because you don't have a case.

I am not sure if you are saying that Christ instituted the bread and wine at that time, because It was Instituted with Abram, when He recovered Lot and the others and the Priest of the most High, Melchizedek came forth with Bread and Wine, which would be more from the Beginning as far as the Institution of said Practice!

 

[Truth]

I do not know. I used the imagery to communicate my experience as a Protestant, which often included invitations by ministers to start my relationship with Jesus all over again - as if, the longer the relationship the more likely it may get stale or go bad......there was always a revival necessary in order to recommit my life to Jesus. i attended a conservative, Protestant Christian primary school and i remember being lead in prayer by my first grade teacher to accept Jesus inot my heart everyday after lunch. I just figured Jesus was some old deaf guy that had a bad memory. The trend continue as I got older - revival rallies, altercalls, etc - I compare it to a similar desire propogated by the media and Holllywood to recapture the exciting ‘honeymoon’ feelings that naturally wane in all lasting relationships.

Yes, after the Fundamentals of Salvation have been done, we must move on to the Maturing of our Faith! Why they have to preach salvation every week, in hopes of a new person coming in, When if they teach the Meat of the word new people will be drawn to God, for His word will not return to Him Void! I Agree with your Statement!!

 

[bbyrd009]

When if they teach the Meat of the word new people will be drawn to God

ha, you think? i'm not sure how "hate your life" and "leave everything that you like the most" can be made to be very appealing tbh

 

[BreadOfLife]

that's why you should not be allowed to post on a Christian board, with all due respect

i got no problem with Catholic dogma, but it is not and will never be Christian

That's because you've embraced all sorts of heresy and man made doctrine.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Discerning the body could simply mean that members of the church in Corinth were all the body of Christ, in contrast to the divisions in the body that Paul was warning them about earlier: 1Cor.4:6"....that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7. For who makes you differ from another?"

I don't know how to explain the connection between "coming to him" and "believing in him" .

Wrong - and I'll show you from your own Protestant Bible (KJV) just 1 chapter earlier:

1 Cor. 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?


2 verses later, Paul refers to it as a "SACRIFICE" from the "ALTAR".

1 Cor 10:18
Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the SACRIFICES participate in the ALTAR?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not sure if you are saying that Christ instituted the bread and wine at that time, because It was Instituted with Abram, when He recovered Lot and the others and the Priest of the most High, Melchizedek came forth with Bread and Wine, which would be more from the Beginning as far as the Institution of said Practice!

Yes, Melchizedek offered bread and wine, which was a foreshadowing of Christs's sacrifice.
However, in fulfilling this OT type - Jesus transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

 

[BreadOfLife]

historically we realize they could not have, or they would have left too.
The ones who took Him literally, literally left.

And Jesus didn't explain it as "symbolic" like He did every other time somebody asked about one of His teachings.
He simply turned to the Twelve and asked, "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

He meant what He said and they - just like YOU - couldn't handle it.

 

[bbyrd009]

And Jesus didn't explain it as "symbolic" like He did every other time somebody asked about one of His teachings.

well, that is mildly humorous given the details, but really not being very observant at all, in a sense anyway. It's only funny because it is so one-dimensional, imo. i mean wadr it is obvious that you are beginning from a conclusion and working backwards there; not that i am interested in disabusing you of any beliefs, ok, what one believes is essentially absolute truth, for them anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

the whole passage strikes me as a master stroke of the illustration of literal v spiritual thinking,
and transubstantiation becomes a clue as to how far a human will go to justify a belief

 

[Truth]

ha, you think? i'm not sure how "hate your life" and "leave everything that you like the most" can be made to be very appealing tbh

You know!!! I truly can say that I love you, there are times that you make me upside down with how you relate to things, and sometimes I think you are anti- Semitic, which I do not rely believe, BUT what you said in this post is very true! Here I believe this way and if I believe that way< I must deny myself, and turn to anther direction which would deny me the way I would like to live!!! Again I hope that I have reasoned what you said rightly, or am I upside Down again LOL ? I don't recall saying hate your life, BUT! As I was drawn during a service, had nothing to do with what was the topic, only that I believe that I was drawn by the Spirit, thus the word did not return to god Void!

 

[Truth]

Yes, Melchizedek offered bread and wine, which was a foreshadowing of Christs's sacrifice.
However, in fulfilling this OT type - Jesus transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

• Do you understand that bread is a Life Sustain-er, And that Wine is synonymous with blood in the Hebrew culture, But why would you try to understand the Hebrew Culture, which was in existence during Our Saviors Ministry! The early Church Fathers made it clear that no one would any longer keep the Sabbath's of the Jews, and that anyone who kept the Jewish Sabbath's would cut of from Christ. I keep the Sabbath Instituted from the Beginning, And I break Bread every Sabbath at Sundown, as I bless God for the Bread of Life, and I also take a cup Of Wine and Bless God for Our Savior, who by His blood brought Joy to the Soul of the believes, because through Him we Have Life, and the Life is in the blood, Synonymous, not actual. No right minded Jew would except any form of Cannibalism, we were to not eat the blood of animals let alone that of any man, so when those departed as His saying, eat my flesh and drink my blood they were not aware of the context of his statement! and the few that remained said only, that only Our Savior Had the Words of Truth, which they were willing to follow!

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, that is mildly humorous given the details, but really not being very observant at all, in a sense anyway. It's only funny because it is so one-dimensional, imo. i mean wadr it is obvious that you are beginning from a conclusion and working backwards there; not that i am interested in disabusing you of any beliefs, ok, what one believes is essentially absolute truth, for them anyway.

Only if you're a moral relativist.
Truth is truth - there is NO substitute.