|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 14:55:41 GMT
Scripture affirms that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus Himself spoke of the time when the Apostles would eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-55, which says: “Jesus said to them, ‘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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’ “ 1 Corinthians 10:16 confirms that the words spoken by Jesus in John 6 apply to the Eucharist as St. Paul said: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” The early Church Fathers also teach that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, as the following quotes from the second century demonstrate: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2″7:1 [A.D. 110]). “”We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33″32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life”flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 15:48:35 GMT
If John 6:53-55 is meant to be taken literally then He would be guilty of cannibalism. Where in the last supper does Jesus say that by eating it one gains eternal life as 6:51 says?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 16:11:53 GMT
Jay, There is a difference between literally and literalistically. Also, one would only be guilty of cannibalism if the Eucharist weren't a sacrament and if it weren't under the appearances of bread and wine. See here for more on your objection: www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 16:53:01 GMT
This is why the metaphorical view is the best. Jesus was not speaking literally but figuratively. He was not speaking about the Lord's supper in John 6 because the facts of it don't fit with the supper accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 17:20:57 GMT
I think it is more likely he is speaking sacramentally rather than metaphorically, especially since the word he uses in John 6:54-58 for "eat" means to "gnaw" or "chew". See here fore more matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.htmlI don't see anything in John 6 which can't be squared with the Last Supper accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 20:16:52 GMT
There is no mention of a sacrament in John 6. Jesus says in John 6:51...."if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever"...Where in any of the supper accounts does Jesus mention eternal life to those who eat of the bread He has before the apostles?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 21:15:29 GMT
Just because Jesus didn't speak about eternal life in the Last Supper doesn't mean John 6 does apply to the Last Supper. This is simply poor logic.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 23:19:17 GMT
You claimed--"I don't see anything in John 6 which can't be squared with the Last Supper accounts." I pointed out here that this is not true. The context of John 6 is also different from the supper accounts. In John 6 Jesus is explaining why He is greater than Moses and He is the true manna that sustains a person in this life and in the life to come. In supper accounts the background is the Passover where He will lead His people out of the bondage of sin by His death and resurrection. The meal is meant to remind Christians what He did for them.
|
|
|
Post by Samson on Jan 13, 2015 0:48:01 GMT
M.L…. Scripture affirms that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Sam: That’s easy for you to say if you were having a one-sided debate. I emphatically deny any such thing. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.”
M.L….Jesus Himself spoke of the time when the Apostles would eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-55
First of all, there are no other “apostles” other than the ones that lived way back then and so He was certainly not referring to any "future" apostles who would partake of the Eucharist, neither was He referring to the Last Supper where the 12 apostles would be doing what you think, if that's what you meant. Second, the simple fact that we are told that the flesh profits nothing in the midst of this discussion makes it readily apparent that a merely physical understanding of His words would be utterly mistaken. This is precisely the error of Catholicism. Third, you say Jesus “spoke of a [future] time! Huh? What Scripture scholar indicates that Jesus was speaking of a future event??? He was holding them responsible for His words “NOW”. The Jews said, “give us this bread…”NOW”. What Jesus was proposing was something that could be had right then and there; and most true Christians see His words metaphorically stated as relating to BELIEF IN HIM. “What do we have to do…”NOW”…to get this bread? they asked Him, just as the woman at the well wanted that “living water”… NOW, so she would not have to keep coming to the well. “Believe on me” came the reply, and the apostles then proved they understood very well the discourse going on in chapter 6 after His fair-weather followers left Him: “To whom shall we go? We have come to BELIEVE that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (6:68)….which was the main point of the entire gospel of John. Hence, because chapter 6 occurred before the eucharist came into existence, it is unreasonable to believe that He was referring to and holding them accountable then and there, for participating in some transubstantiated wafer LATER ON. Ridiculous! Again: The operatiing factor of the entire gospel of John is “faith in Christ”, and it is no different in chapter 6 (verses 29, 35, 40, 47, 63). Notice that we are told 4 times in John’s gospel that believing in Him results in everlasting life. Yet at one and the same time, we are also told in 6:54 that eating His flesh and drinking His blood ALSO brings eternal life. The only sane conclusion therefore, is that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is very SIMPLY another way of saying what it is to believe on Him. The “last day” passages prove it:
” . . .everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (6:40).
“whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:54).
M.L…The early Church Fathers also teach that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, as the following quotes from the second century demonstrate: 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2″7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Sam: However, earlier Iggy said…
“Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.”
Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus’ passion is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus’ passion? Let’s be serious. There’s really nothing in Ignatius that tells us much about his view of the eucharist and thus, Catholics can’t claim to know that Ignatius agreed with their view on this issue. It is a weak apologetic. The same goes for Justin Martyr: “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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”
This statement is contemptible, for it insinuates that that our Creator is digested like a typical ham sandwich. While it is true that the nutrients in our food are dispersed into our blood stream via the small intestines, which then “change and nourish our flesh”, as Justin indicates, he wrongly consigns the same fate to the “body of Christ” contained in the wafer. But this isn’t even official RC doctrine….which says that the RC “jesus” does not even make its way to the digestive tract, but rather, he makes a fast GETAWAY when the stomach acids begin their attack! (CCC #1377). Consequently, the most any Catholic can count on is their Messiah residing in their tummy for 60 seconds at best (doing who knows what) and leaving until the next Mass when they open their mouths once again. True Christians on the other hand, may rely on the presence of Christ, through His Spirit which is promised by FAITH, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Samson on Jan 13, 2015 0:59:11 GMT
Just because Jesus didn't speak about eternal life in the Last Supper doesn't mean John 6 does apply to the Last Supper. This is simply poor logic. I am amused how you can detect "poor logic" in others, but not your own. For example, you think it is the most logical thing in the world that Jesus offered Himself in sacrifice at the Last Supper PRIOR to His going to the cross. The entire Christian world (except Rome) considers that claim to be illogical to the extreme, void of any biblical evidence, but summoned into service only because the bigwigs realize that if Jesus wasn't offering Himself in sacrifice at the Last Supper, then the doctrine of the Mass falls to pieces. Absolutely NO ONE believed it before Trent decided to infallibly declare it, and so I submit you do greatly err.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 16:18:29 GMT
Jay,
You say "In John 6 Jesus is explaining why He is greater than Moses and He is the true manna that sustains a person in this life and in the life to come. In supper accounts the background is the Passover where He will lead His people out of the bondage of sin by His death and resurrection" as if this somehow demonstrates that John 6 and the Last Supper are not about the same thing. This is just poor argumentation. Just because the two may have different contexts and backgrounds, doesn't mean that they are not speaking about the same doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 16:39:55 GMT
Samson, You said Right. I never said there were future Apostles after the original Apostles. You say Sure, the flesh profits nothing. You have to have the Spirit in order to understand this doctrine. www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharistYou say Right. The Jews were being held accountable for receiving the doctrine of the Eucharist then and there. You say They were thinking that he would give them bread then and there like he previously did with the multiplication of bread. You say I don't see how this contradicts what I said. You say He was holding them accountable then and there for receiving the teaching that they would have to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. You say Sure, and one of the ways you believe in Him is by receiving Him in the Eucharist. You quote of Ignatius of Antioch You say that Ignatius doesn't demonstrate the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Read it again "they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins". If he believed the Eucharist is just a piece of bread, how can someone say that a piece of bread is the flesh that suffered for our sins? You were offended by St. Justin Martyrs quote that said Well, the Jews who didn't believe Jesus were also offended by His teaching on the Eucharist in John 6 and they ended up leaving Jesus. You say I rely on His presence 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, I just also believed He is especially present in the Eucharist. The two are compatible. Are you saying that Catholics are not "true Christians?" If so, please explain why here: consolamini.freeforums.net/thread/17/protestant-view-catholics-christiansYou say The Eucharist is a timeless participation in the work of Christ on the cross. Thus, it can be useful both before and after His crucifixion. You say Are you aware of the Orthodox who also believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Are you aware of the Lutherans who also believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? In fact, those who believe this greatly outnumber those Christians who do not believe in the real presence. You say no one believed it before Trent. Here is just one quote from St. Augustine: You say LOL. Okay, good sir (in my best KJV/Elizabethan accent).
|
|
|
Post by Samson on Jan 13, 2015 22:01:29 GMT
M. I never said there were future Apostles after the original Apostles.
S. You said: "Jesus Himself spoke of the time when the Apostles would eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-55"
Having now established you were not referring to any future apostles in the coming centuries, I understand that you were referring exclusively to the 12. However, I'm sure no one in the history of Christianity ever thought Jesus was referring exclusively to the 12 in those verses, neither did the 12 understand him to be referring to a "future time" where they would be invited to partake of the "physique" of the Lord in an on-going sacrifice to be perpetuated down through time. I already told you how Peter responded after the crowd had had enough of Him, and it was NOT, "We have come to believe that we will sacramentally eat your body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine via transubstantiation." The problem with your type of argumentation is that it is forever going outside the Text, "thinking about men beyond that which is written,"...which is forbidden (1 Cor 4:6).
M. "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."
S. 6:63 is certainly not the capstone of the Evangelical argument, but is rather, only a part of the puzzle which consists of far too many evidences to list in one paragraph.
M. Sure, the flesh profits nothing. You have to have the Spirit in order to understand this doctrine.
S. What you say logically necessitates that only Catholics have the Spirit (which we repudiate). Worse still, since you imply that those who don't understand RC doctrine are without the Spirit, you must believe they are LOST according to Romans 8:9... "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9). This militates against your "outside the church, Protestants mayyy be saved", but that's another issue. I do indeed tire of being told "you don't understand", the typical escape hatch to justify Rome's superiority. Evidently you don't think its possible that we DO understand your doctrine, and we simply REJECT it, simple as that! After all, the Pope says on p. 6 of the paperback CCC, that the catechism was written for those who want to know what the Catholic Church teaches! And thus, it izzzz possible for one to understand your doctrine, and to consequently throw it under the bus.
M. Are you saying that Catholics are not "true Christians?"
S. Yes. Does that bother you? I hope it does because there are MANY of us, despite ecumenical Tinkerbells like Kenneth Copeland. Why? Well for one thing, Jesus tells us that worship under the New Covenant would not be characterized by locality and materiality: He said a time is coming "when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem" (Jn 4:21); thus, He would never be in favor of the physical, localized and material worship contained in the Mass. "A time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks" (4:23-24).
The theatrical presentation of the Mass and all the claims of what actually happens in one, proves Catholics are not the type of worshippers the Father seeks, and are therefore, not Christian.
Another reason would be that Trent "infallibly" tells us that Jesus initiated the Eucharist "FOR" our salvation, but we emphatically deny any such thing! You will recall that Paul condemned the Judaizers for adding just ONE item to the gospel. Catholicsm has added FAR MORE, failing to realize that SALVATION IS IN A PERSON, not an ordinance. "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee...having SALVATION... riding upon a colt" (Zech 9:9). If salvation comes to us at all, it MUST come from a source outside of ourselves, not anything we ingest, because, "HE is mighty to save" (Isa 63:1). We are not told that the church is mighty to save, or that good works are MTS, or the Pope is MTS, or that baptism is MTS, or the eucharist is MTS, or anything else is MTS. Simeon picked up the babe and said, "Now let me depart in peace for I have SEEN thy salvation."
M. "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.
S. I completely disagree that the flesh profiting nothing in the context of chapter 6, must be according to your definition. In light of Jesus making such a BIG deal about "eating His flesh", and His hearers wondering how they were going to fit Him in their mouth, it is impossible to believe that He could distance Himself from that FLESHLY topic of discussion, and then use that word to mean "man's inclination." His meaning is clear AS IS; i.e., He never intended them to eat His literal flesh, and SAYS SO, not only there, but also in 6:57: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so He that EATETH me, even he shall live by me." No one on this planet, not even Catholics, believe Jesus has any interest in "eating" the Father. But that is exactly which would have to be true in some way due to the 1 to 1 comparison. Ergo, since the second part of His sentence does NOT have to do with any sort of oral fixation, then neither does the first!
M...."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.
S. I never said that it did.
M. 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
S. Apparently Protestants not only lack the Spirit, but now you add "faith" as well. No it does not mean that what Christ said concerning the Eucharist (not even instituted yet) "can only be understood by the Spirit." He said His words are spirit and are life, and THAT means the words are not DEAD, but are alive ("living and active" per Hebrews 4:12) and have the potential of producing life which is founded on believing in HIM, the mighty Savior, NOT the Eucharist! This is proved 10 seconds later in 6:64-65 referring to those who "believed not"... "IN HIM", not the Eucharist, as a direct result of the Father's choice not to draw them to Christ!
M. The Jews were being held accountable for receiving the doctrine of the Eucharist then and there.
S. That is quite impossible. No Scripture scholar would ever agree that they were being obligated to believe in a doctrine that was not even invented yet. They were being required to believe in ***HIM***, as He explicity states after they asked Him what they needed to "DO" (6:29).
M. I don't see how [believing in Him] contradicts what I said.
S. It contradicts because as I've been saying all along, being the object of our faith, JESUS is the fount, source and summit of the Christian life, and NOT the Eucharist, as the RCC continually alleges.
M. one of the ways you believe in Him is by ***receiving*** Him in the Eucharist.
S. Your apologetics are ever trying to cover all the bases! Kind of like betting on every horse at the race track. Well I've got news for you. What you say will not stand under the magnifying glass of Holy Writ. Believing in Christ has absolutely nothing to do with swallowing Him in "disguise" in the form of a half dollar. In Galatians 3:2 we read, "Did you ***receive*** the Spirit by works of the law or by the hearing of faith?" No mention is made of ***receiving*** Christ in the wafer, and hence, you are refuted.
M. I rely on His presence 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. I just also believe He is especially present in the Eucharist. The two are compatible.
S. The two are not compatible because the RCC has turned the Eucharist into a requirement, (quote!) "FOR" salvation. Count on it: our entry into heaven is not based on any oral fixations, but on FAITH in the horizon-filling grandeur of what Christ has done FOR us, not whatever you think He does IN you through swallowing Him "whole and entire, body, soul and divinity." Moreover, your claim that Jesus is ***especially present*** is merely a religious sound-bite that sounds oh so pious to the Catholic, but to a Christ-follower, a clanking symbol. The non-Catholic who believes in the promise of the Holy Spirit, does not lack a blessed thing, contrary to Rome's belittlement. Claims of being more "close" to Christ is a mere fantasy, especially in light of your "jesus" making a fast EXIT after the wafer begins to disintegrate; his "real" presence can arguably be said to be less than 15 seconds, since as we all know, digestion does begin in the mouth. Furthermore, nonsense reasons saying that the Eucharist commits us to the poor {CCC #1397}, brings unity {#1398}, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of life {#1419}, and strengthens our charity {#1394} are to be dismissed. Need it be said that ALLLLL of these virtues are already promised by the indwelling Holy Spirit, thus rendering your high view of the Eucharist null and void.... useless as either a compliment TO or a necessity FOR salvation.
M. The Eucharist is a timeless participation in the work of Christ on the cross. Thus, it can be useful both before and after His crucifixion [which justifies His "sacrifice" at the Last Supper prior to Calvary, per the Council of Trent).
S. Again, we are faced with nothing but philosophical opinions to compliment your already preconceived theology. The writer of Hebrews confirms that the sacrifice was ONE in number (7 times!) , once "in time", and never to be repeated, refurbished, re-enacted, or re-presented. In spite of AMPLE opportunity to do so in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does this writer ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate "sacrifice" with the Lord's Supper in his epistles either.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:13:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 22:18:55 GMT
Jay, You say "In John 6 Jesus is explaining why He is greater than Moses and He is the true manna that sustains a person in this life and in the life to come. In supper accounts the background is the Passover where He will lead His people out of the bondage of sin by His death and resurrection" as if this somehow demonstrates that John 6 and the Last Supper are not about the same thing. This is just poor argumentation. Just because the two may have different contexts and backgrounds, doesn't mean that they are not speaking about the same doctrine. I'm just showing you that the contexts and what Jesus was teaching in John 6 is not the same thing as what He was teaching in the supper accounts. This is not poor argumentation but the way we can correctly understand what the Scripture is saying. Without a proper understanding of the context we will draw the wrong conclusions.
|
|