|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 2, 2009 9:52:50 GMT -5
Yes, the Word is Jesus. The Words of the Bible are Jesus's thoughts and Words...I take all of them very seriously. Show me where it only forbids animal blood...not just blood in general. It doesn't matter what spiritual means to me. There are two "realms" spirital and physical...Jesus meant spiritually eat of Him.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 2, 2009 9:56:00 GMT -5
The Word is the mind of Jesus...therefore I will obey all of it. The Bible forbids drinking blood. Jesus explains that what He was talking about is spiritual. I am not a canibal, I will eat and drink to remember Christ...not to actually eat Him. Emily, Jesus didn't say it was ONLY spiritual. It is spiritual because it doesn't follow human logic. It is not a worldly teaching(In the Bible, "flesh", "carnal" and "worldly" are synonymous) But Jesus' flesh is not just flesh, it is the flesh of God. Emily, how can it be only a Symbol if the Bible explicitly says that anyone who eats the Lord's Supper without discerning the body and blood of the Lord eats and drinks JUDGEMENT on himself? Do you really think the Lord would be so cruel as to Judge someone for eating mere bread and wine? Does God judge us for eating a symbol in an "unworthy" manner? And you didn't answer my question--why would Jesus let MANY of his followers turn away from him because of this teaching. THEY took him literally, but Jesus never tried to correct them or to clear up the misunderstanding, instead he became even more emphatic about it. 51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." 52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" 53So 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 yourselves. 54" He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." Words to the Disciples 59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Peter's Confession of Faith 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" 68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. John 6 |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:02:28 GMT -5
Yes, the Word is Jesus. The Words of the Bible are Jesus's thoughts and Words...I take all of them very seriously. Show me where it only forbids animal blood...not just blood in general. It doesn't matter what spiritual means to me. There are two "realms" spirital and physical...Jesus meant spiritually eat of Him. Alfie posted it (Leviticus something). It's just a few posts behind this one. It only states that animal blood is forbidden (never mentions human blood in the quote she posted). But Jesus didn't say "spiritually my flesh". He said "truly" my flesh. Flesh is literally "physical" right? So that puts his physical flesh in the realm of the physical meaning you eat His flesh physically (not spiritually). You agree with those Jews who didn't believe that Jesus was talking about His actual flesh, right? You are like them, right? You don't believe that Jesus literally meant His flesh when He said that He "indeed" meant His flesh, right? This is why you could never be a Catholic. We believe what Jesus said as written with the words that are actually there in the text. No where does Jesus say that His words were sybollic or spiritual. There is no quote in The Bible that states either of those two words, but with regards to The Eucharist (The Thanksgiving Meal), He used the word "indeed" which mean "truly". |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 2, 2009 10:08:12 GMT -5
Cepha says that "Catholics eat His flesh and drink His blood".
But this is the only miracle in the Bible where you don't see a miracle. Why is that?
There have been reports of priests becoming alcoholics from drinkning the blood. Why is that?
Remember the little, Catholic, girl in the news, who couldn't eat the flesh because she was allergic to it? Why is that? If it truly was the flesh of Jesus she would have been able to eat it without having a reaction.
The Bible says there is power in th blood but the laity doesn't drink the blood they only eat the host. Why is that? Why couldn't the little, Catholic, girl who couldn't eat the host be given the wine instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 2, 2009 10:12:31 GMT -5
Emily, I think I see what is confusing you.
You are trying to divide spiritual and physical as if they are mutually exclusive.
The problem with this is the Incarnation of Christ contradicts your theory.
If the Lord's supper is only "spiritually" eating of Him, then it would be basically idolatry to say what most of the communion servers say when people come up to receive it "The body of Christ".
How insulting, how horrible to tell people that crackers and juice is the body of Christ.
Nothing except the body and blood of Christ can be the body and blood of Christ. Otherwise, you are worshipping crackers, or else flat out lying to people.
Jesus is not just "spiritual" and He is not just "physical". You can't divide Him in 2 and say He is only Spiritually Present in the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit could be present, but that is not what Jesus said, He said "This is my body", not "this is a SYMBOL of my body" nor "This is a representation of my body"
You know that when Jesus was telling a parable (something that symbolized a spiritual truth) He always explained the real meaning at least to the apostles--besides that the people knew that it was a parable and never would have taken them literally.
Not so with the Lord's Supper. He never explained a different meaning and knew people were taking Him literally and never tried to tell them it was only a symbol.
On top of all this, Emily, you need to know that until the Protestant "reformation" ALL the Church believed that it was truly the body and blood of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:20:30 GMT -5
Cepha says that "Catholics eat His flesh and drink His blood". But this is the only miracle in the Bible where you don't see a miracle. Why is that? There have been reports of priests becoming alcoholics from drinkning the blood. Why is that? That is an excellent question Alfie. Jesus told us to do that in rememberance of Him (which means, to repeat what was done there eternally). You think that to take that verse literally is to believe that the bread becomes human flesh and human blood because you cannot (and neither could the unbelieving Jews or Protestants or Muslims or Atheists) bend your mind to the scripture. Jesus, as He through which all things were made, has the power to define what a thing is or isnt' in the world. Therefore, if He redefines consecrated unleavened bread as His flesh, just believe that the unconsecrated bread has a new definition. It is still "bread", but by being "consecrated", it becomes what Jesus called His flesh. In other words, consecrated bread is not the same as non-consecrated bread. Both are physically bread, but only one bread has The Holy Spirit "in" The Bread, this is why Jesus said that when you consume the consecrated bread, you are consuming "Him" in you. It is impossible for non-Universal Christians to understand, but for Universal Christians, it makes all the sense in the world. For example: Protestants and non-believers are like the Jews who didn't believe what Jesus said in John 6. You have to admit that you are aligned with non-believers when it comes to what Catholics believe (that Jesus literally meant that consecrated bread is now something else that can be called Jesus' flesh besides His earthly body). Right? Catholics are like those first Christians who sat down with Jesus after The Ressurection when He (again) consecrated The Bread and ate with them and when He did this, their eyes (The Christians there) were opened to Him and He body dissappeared. Why? Because now, the bread was His body and they were going to consume Him. They weren't eating Jesus' arms and legs. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 2, 2009 10:21:39 GMT -5
Heather, Jesus explained that He was speaking about feeding of Him spiritually when questioned. Many people walked away because they simply wanted food (they started following Him after the fish and loaves of bread)...and once they learned it was spiritual, they didn't want anything to do with Christ...they had no more need for Him because they couldn't fill their bellies.
Does the wine/juice taste like blood? Just wondering.
Steven- who ever said I wanted to be Catholic? Never being able to become Catholic is just fine with me....and I have a feeling it goes beyond the Lords Supper.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 2, 2009 10:21:45 GMT -5
A while back I watched a Mass on T.V, and I noticed the priest left out the word "rememberance".
Wonder why he did that?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 2, 2009 10:25:49 GMT -5
Heather, Jesus explained that He was speaking about feeding of Him spiritually when questioned. Many people walked away because they simply wanted food (they started following Him after the fish and loaves of bread)...and once they learned it was spiritual, they didn't want anything to do with Christ...they had no more need for Him because they couldn't fill their bellies. Does the wine/juice taste like blood? Just wondering. Steven- who ever said I wanted to be Catholic? Never being able to become Catholic is just fine with me....and I have a feeling it goes beyond the Lords Supper. Very good points Emily. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:26:04 GMT -5
Luke 24: 30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them.
Here, you have Jesus repeating the same ritual He performed at the Last Supper.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Here, Jesus is revealed to them in The Eucharist.
Then, because He is there in The Bread, they can consume Him and His flesh becomes their flesh as they become members of His Body. Now, they can literally have Jesus in complete fullfillment (both spiritually and physically).
32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Now they realize that He was always there, but they just couldn't see Him (that was, until He consecrated the bread). Catholics have Jesus both physically and spiriturally (not just spiritually alone) because we beleive that the consecrated bread that we consume is His flesh which becomes one with our flesh. 
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 2, 2009 10:29:57 GMT -5
Cepha says that "Catholics eat His flesh and drink His blood". But this is the only miracle in the Bible where you don't see a miracle. Why is that? There have been reports of priests becoming alcoholics from drinkning the blood. Why is that? Remember the little, Catholic, girl in the news, who couldn't eat the flesh because she was allergic to it? Why is that? If it truly was the flesh of Jesus she would have been able to eat it without having a reaction. The Bible says there is power in th blood but the laity doesn't drink the blood they only eat the host. Why is that? Why couldn't the little, Catholic, girl who couldn't eat the host be given the wine instead? You don't think that people having Faith in Jesus or having their sins forgiven is a miracle?? Yeah, that seemed to happen a lot where ever Jesus went, and you really couldn't see this happening which is why some of the Pharisees mocked Jesus and said "who can forgive sins but God alone?" After that, he then gave the less miraculous sign of healing the leper. Go ahead and search for miraculous signs, we already have the sign of Jonah--Christ died for us and rose again. I don't know about priests becoming alcoholic. I thought that most people who are alcoholic were sort of born that way (or at least prone to it) Yes, and a girl allergic. Ok, so it is rather timely to talk about the theology of the Eucharist right now, but basically there is a difference between the SUBSTANCE of something and the ACCIDENTS of something. The substance is what that thing actually is, it's being. Like I am Heather, that is the substance of me, I'm a person, a human etc. But the accidents are those things which are discernible to the senses but can change and do not alter the actually substance of something. So things like the way I look, the color of my skin, the way I smell (hopefully good) etc. are the "accidents" those physical elements that are there but do not necessarily make me who I am. I could totally change my skin color (by getting spray on tan or something) but I'm still "Heather". So, with the Eucharist, it is not the accidents that change (the taste of wine, the color, the smell, the texture of the bread etc) it is the Actually SUBSTANCE that changes. It becomes no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. The accidents remain. No one call fully explain something that is a mystery, that is a miracle, but it is better to grasp at a rugged explanation than to accuse Jesus of lying! And the laity is able to partake of the blood, even if they didn't, the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is present in the "bread" (and vice versa) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:31:13 GMT -5
Emily, I think I see what is confusing you. You are trying to divide spiritual and physical as if they are mutually exclusive. The problem with this is the Incarnation of Christ contradicts your theory. If the Lord's supper is only "spiritually" eating of Him, then it would be basically idolatry to say what most of the communion servers say when people come up to receive it "The body of Christ". How insulting, how horrible to tell people that crackers and juice is the body of Christ. Nothing except the body and blood of Christ can be the body and blood of Christ. Otherwise, you are worshipping crackers, or else flat out lying to people. Jesus is not just "spiritual" and He is not just "physical". You can't divide Him in 2 and say He is only Spiritually Present in the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit could be present, but that is not what Jesus said, He said "This is my body", not "this is a SYMBOL of my body" nor "This is a representation of my body" You know that when Jesus was telling a parable (something that symbolized a spiritual truth) He always explained the real meaning at least to the apostles--besides that the people knew that it was a parable and never would have taken them literally. Not so with the Lord's Supper. He never explained a different meaning and knew people were taking Him literally and never tried to tell them it was only a symbol. On top of all this, Emily, you need to know that until the Protestant "reformation" ALL the Church believed that it was truly the body and blood of Christ. Jesus didn't use crackers and juice. He used unleavened Passover bread and wine. Literally. Catholics are the only ones who use what The Bible says He used. NCC's use what they want, not what The Bible says Jesus used. How is that following Jesus when they dont' use what Jesus used? He didn't say "do this in rememberance of me sort of". He said "do this in rememberance of me" period. What did He used when He said that? Unleavened bread and wine. And thou art correct Teresa...Jesus explained parables, but not only did He not say that the eating of His flesh was symbollic, He literally cleared it up so that there'd be no confusion as to what He meant by further stating that it was "indeed" (factually, truthfully, etc...) His flesh and blood. There is no room for personal interpretation when Jesus says "indeed". Indeed does not mean symbollically. In fact, it means the opposite of symbollically. It means literally as stated. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:33:00 GMT -5
A while back I watched a Mass on T.V, and I noticed the priest left out the word "rememberance". Wonder why he did that? Was it a Catholic Mass or an Episcoplian Mass or a Lutheran Mass? Either 3 of the Priests could've left the word out by mistake. What did he say? "Do this in of me?"Is that what you're saying he said? |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 2, 2009 10:39:30 GMT -5
Luke 24: 30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them.
Here, you have Jesus repeating the same ritual He performed at the Last Supper.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Here, Jesus is revealed to them in The Eucharist.
Then, because He is there in The Bread, they can consume Him and His flesh becomes their flesh as they become members of His Body. Now, they can literally have Jesus in complete fullfillment (both spiritually and physically).
32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Now they realize that He was always there, but they just couldn't see Him (that was, until He consecrated the bread). Catholics have Jesus both physically and spiriturally (not just spiritually alone) because we beleive that the consecrated bread that we consume is His flesh which becomes one with our flesh. Jesus said that after he ascended to heaven he would be seated at the right hand of God. He also said he wouldn't eat bread and drink wine with the disciples again until they were in heaven. He also said that He would leave a Helper (the Holy Spirit) for them after he died. The Mass is in violation of what the Church proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon. The Church said that Jesus was not omnipresent or omniscient like God the Father. Therefore Jesus couldn't be in thousands of Masses at the same time, eveywhere. The diciples all desertedJesus just before He was crucified. At pentecoust the Holy Spirit was given to believers. We now have the Holy Spirit who indwells us. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:39:59 GMT -5
Heather, Jesus explained that He was speaking about feeding of Him spiritually when questioned. Is this to me? Because if it is, I dont' know what point you are addressing. Where did you get this from? That's not in the scripture. What the scripture says is that they didn't couldn't accept his teaching on this, not that they only wanted to eat. Those who walked away did so because they couldn't accept what He was saying; meaning that even they beleived he meant that this was His actual flesh that He was talking about. Jesus didn't say "No wait! Come back! I didn't mean it literally, I meant it symbollically!". Jesus allowed them to walk away believing that He meant what He said literally. This would be deception on Jesus part to allow them to believe that they were right if He was in the middle of teaching them. No. The matter isn't transformed into human flesh and blood, but like I explained is redefined by Jesus to be His flesh and blood. Jesus could do this because the creation of all matter came through Him. He is the author of creation, thus can redefine anything. If Jesus came to you as a pencil, would you deny Him just because He came to you in the form of a pencil? Yes? No? Not me. I'm sure you could never be like those Disciples that stayed by Jesus when the non-believing disciples walked away because you like the non-believing disciples only accept what you can fully understand where as those who stayed by Him didn't have to fully be able to understand or be able to fully accept everything He taught. Catholics are like those who didn't leave Him...we believe what the abandoners found hard to accept...we believe that the consecrated bread is His flesh and blood. It's fine with God too (in my opinion although I can't speak for Him and can be wrong...I want to believe that He'll look past your unbelief in Jesus' words literally). As for it going beyond the Last Supper, nothing is unimportant or of lesser value in my opinion when it comes to what Jesus instituted. All is equally important. Nothing that Jesus teaches is "less than". The Last Supper was the first mass. Once Jesus instituted that, Christians continued to do it until today...2,000 years later. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 2, 2009 10:42:49 GMT -5
Steven, not that was towards Heather.
I believe earlier in that chapter is the story about the fish and loaves of bread. Since the crowd was fed, they followed Jesus in hopes to be fed again. So when they learned He was speaking about spiritually eating of Him and not physically (filling their stomachs) they left.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 2, 2009 10:45:08 GMT -5
Perhaps that's what they were looking for in the beginning.
But you don't know why they walked away Emily. Most likely they were making the same kinds of objections you made, thinking to themselves "This man must be out of His mind, because God forbade us to drink blood".
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:51:57 GMT -5
Remember the little, Catholic, girl in the news, who couldn't eat the flesh because she was allergic to it? Why is that? If it truly was the flesh of Jesus she would have been able to eat it without having a reaction. Again, your understanding of what Jesus said is worldly. That's why you can't grasp it and could never have understood it until I explained it to you. Jesus redefined what The Bread was (He didn't convert the matter). The little girl could still be allergic to unleavened bread because it was still unleavened bread. It never became human flesh. Several questions there: 1. The Laity drinks the blood, but don't have to drink the blood everytime. There wasn't always wine available in the Primitive Church (especially while they were being persecuted), but bread, there always was available. 2. As for the littel girl, I dont' know enough about the story to answer it. Do you know for a fact that she wasn't given wine instead? Did the story say that?  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 2, 2009 10:52:40 GMT -5
I just skimmed over John 6. If someone can't see that it is talking about spiritually eating of Christ everyday (reading the Word, praying, etc) then s/he is blind.
Heather- it says earlier in the chapter that the crowd wanted Jesus becuase they were fed...when they figured out they weren't going to be fed and He was talking about spiritual things...they left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 2, 2009 10:53:13 GMT -5
LOL!
I've never heard of that!
LOL!
Plus, a Priest could just be an alcholic because he's a human being!
LOL!
I know a lot of Priests that drink (never met an alcholic Priest though).
|
|
