Transubstanciation

[Templar81]

I'm not a Papist but I am an Anglo-Catholci and Transubstanciation is omething I sahre with my Romish brethren (even thoug I can't commune with them). I've always believed that when Jeus said, this is my body (hoc est corpus meum) and this is my blood 9hic est sanguinus meus), that he was not messing about and really meant it. Therefore when the elements are consecrated by the priest, what the congregation recieves isn't just asymbol but the actualy body and blood of Jesus. Our lord alwasy said what he meant and I believe that if he said the bread was his body then surely it was and if the wine was his blood then surely it was. he also said that only those who ate the body and blood of the son of man could ahve ternal life and St paul atests to this in 1st Corinthians chapter 11 where all thsoe who did not discern the body of Christin the sacrament sinned against the body of Christ and that is why they got ill and died.

I'd like to know why this is so often recjected in favour of the Eucharist being asymbol. Why would Jeus want us to recieve a symbol? He gave us his body and blood and by it we are saved.

 

[JarBreaker]

The emblems of breaking bread and the cup were instituted as a memorial ... do this in remembrance of Me.

Once a year, the even before passover ... the memorial to His sacrifice.

There's been a fair bit added to that since then.

 

[Templar81]

We do in it rememberane of what Jesus di for us, but what we recive is surely his real body and blood.

 

[fivesense]

I am familiar with Catholic teaching on transubstantiation. I was raised Roman Catholic, but never was a devotee. I always admired the paegentry and programs, especially the frankincense, which is no longer used in many circles as it is too costly.

Let's look at some verses:
Jn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

It is apparent that Jesus did not appear as a piece of bread. He was made flesh and fashioned as a man. It is a figure of speech, that He is the living bread, not bread that is alive.

and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Here the figure is broken down even more, with a literal counterpart given, His flesh.

Jn 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.Jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Jn 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. Jn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

All these terms were spoken in figurative speech. My flesh "is like" is what is meant, it is a figure of speech

Jn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

AV 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart


How can something invisible have attributes like quick and powerful and sharp? It cannot. Yet they describe the action of the Word on our spirits and souls. It is a figure of speech, used to describe likeness with something.

The new and everlasting covenant the Lord spoke of in Jeremiah was inaugerated with Israel at the "Last Supper". It belongs to the Jews alone, and finds its fulfillment with the Lord sitting on His throne as the Son of David. This has not yet happened.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah

He is coming back to ensure completely what Israel as a whole failed to do--accept Christs' rule.

Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Believe God when He says it is Israel alone who is being spoken to. It is not to the Gentiles He is speaking. It does not include us.

Neither does the Eucharistic feast supply what God intented as a figure of speech, His body. If God did not provide it, how is it that mere mortals can conjure up such a feat? The Scriptures supply no record of men being allowed the power or glory of this display, it is Christ alone Who can descend from above as a man of flesh again, to rule and reign in Jerusalem as meant to be.

Transubstantiation proscribes to men what belongs to God alone, the power to make alive and deathless the ones at His choosing and advent. It is sovereign and will not be shared with anyone. To believe it is in the hands of men to perform this, even with the supposed cooperation of God, is contrary to the Truth found in the Holy Writings.

It is an issue of believing God.
fivesense

 

[Selene]

Hello Fivesense,

Christ was speaking literally. Look closely at the Scriptures:

John 6:51-52 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

As you can see in this verse, the Jews who heard Jesus speaking took His words literally because they were quarreling among themselves asking how He can give his flesh to them to eat. As you read further in the verse, these same Jews who didn't want to eat his flesh left (John 6:66). They no longer wanted to accompany him. If Jesus only meant to say this figuratively, then why did many of his followers left after He told them to eat His flesh? They left because Jesus spoke to them literally.

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites were instructed by God to eat the sacrificial lamb. In the Old Testament, after the Israelites sacrificed the lamb, they are instructed to eat it (Leviticus 10:11-12). Eating the sacrificial lamb completes the Passover meal. In the Old Testament, it was a REAL lamb that they sacrificed and it was a REAL lamb that they ate. They were not eating a symbolic lamb. The Old Testament is a foreshadow of things to come in the New Testament. Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and it was Christ who instructed His Apostles to eat His body and drink His blood. To complete the Passover meal, one must eat the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Old Testament is a foreshadow of things in the New Testament.

Also, St. Paul as well as the rest of the Apostles took Jesus' words literally (1 Corinthians 10:16). St. Paul also warned the Corinthians that they should not eat or drink the body and blood of Christ unworthily or else they would bring judgement on themselves. If it was only bread and wine that they are eating and drinking, why would any judgement come upon them?

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[evanom]

Hello Fivesense,

Christ was speaking literally. Look closely at the Scriptures:

Guess what: Jesus and/or the New Testament also said he was a door, a rock, water, a shepherd, a tree branch, a star, and thats just what i can remember off the top of my head. So are we to actually think he was a real door, place a door on the altars and worship it? Should we do the same with a rock?? How about a tub full of water? Tree branches at church anyone??? Was Jesus a shepard before his calling considering Joseph was not in the agriculture business but was a carpenter?

NONE of this is speaking literally. All of these elements are used as fivesense said, they are simply a figure of speech. Each element symbolically represents a characteristic that CHrist has; as are the bread and wine.

Eating Jesus for dinner is cannibalism! Drinking blood is a sin onto death!!! (Leviticus 17:14). So no, not in a million years was Jesus inviting us to do such strange, anti-biblical acts.

Jesus was not pioneering a first Eucharist nor establishing a new ritual, it wasn;t even a last supper (He had plenty suppers with His disciples after resurrection). All of that is simply man-made religion. Jesus was simply teaching what the (Jewish) Sedar was really all about. For 800 years the jews had been eating lamb and drinking wine at passover without understanding what it really all represented. Jesus finally told them that the supper was all about Him and that the very first passover (in Egypt) was but a shadow of what He was doing. It was a brand new revelation, not anything new in and of itself.

Religion eucharist is suspiciously different from what Jesus did with his disciples: Jesus broke the bread, the eucharist has these perfectly disk-shaped waffles passed out. Jesus drank wine with His disciples, eucharist priest drink wine but don't let anybody else drink it. Jesus followed Torah and abstained from drinking blood, eucharist invites this practice! (for the priest, at least). Bible says His sacrifice was a one-time only event, eucharist is the repetition over and over and over again of the sacrifice.

 

[fivesense]

Hello Fivesense,

Christ was speaking literally. Look closely at the Scriptures:

John 6:51-52 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

As you can see in this verse, the Jews who heard Jesus speaking took His words literally because they were quarreling among themselves asking how He can give his flesh to them to eat. As you read further in the verse, these same Jews who didn't want to eat his flesh left (John 6:66). They no longer wanted to accompany him. If Jesus only meant to say this figuratively, then why did many of his followers left after He told them to eat His flesh? They left because Jesus spoke to them literally.

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites were instructed by God to eat the sacrificial lamb. In the Old Testament, after the Israelites sacrificed the lamb, they are instructed to eat it (Leviticus 10:11-12). Eating the sacrificial lamb completes the Passover meal. In the Old Testament, it was a REAL lamb that they sacrificed and it was a REAL lamb that they ate. They were not eating a symbolic lamb. The Old Testament is a foreshadow of things to come in the New Testament. Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and it was Christ who instructed His Apostles to eat His body and drink His blood. To complete the Passover meal, one must eat the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Old Testament is a foreshadow of things in the New Testament.


Also, St. Paul as well as the rest of the Apostles took Jesus' words literally (1 Corinthians 10:16). St. Paul also warned the Corinthians that they should not eat or drink the body and blood of Christ unworthily or else they would bring judgement on themselves. If it was only bread and wine that they are eating and drinking, why would any judgement come upon them?
In Christ,
Selene

Hello Selene, who is in Christ:
It is clear from the Scriptures that the Lord spoke in parables to the multitudes, and to His disciples He spoke plainly He spoke this way to the multitudes who were not of His choosing, but were following for various personal reasons.

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Mt 13:34

Now, read this outloud with a group of people and ask their opinion and interpretation of this passage in Matthew. How many will continue to believe the Lord spoke literally and plainly to anyone but His disciples? This is a very good test of our belief in the word of God. Some refuse to accept it, and ignore the Divine Record. .

No one has ever successfully assured anyone of faith that the flesh rites and sacrifices were meant to persist and remain beyond Calvary. The Holy Spirit does not bear witness to such things in the Greek Writings. A shadow is not the object. A shadow has no substance, and the sacrificial lamb of the OT was merely a type of Christ.

For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you?
shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. 1C 11:21,22,34

I cannot imagine any person in the world wanting to assuage their hunger with human flesh and human blood. It is explicitly condemned by God in His ordinances to Israel. Now, you would have me believe that this is all turned around and God indeed wants us to partake of what He once condemned as an abomination.

Christ shed His blood at the Cross. It is in the earth, better witness than that of Abel, whose blood only cried out from the ground for vengence. Our Lords' blood pleads for the salvation of all. What a contrast. His resurrected body had flesh and bone, but the blood was no longer needed as He was empowered one hundred percnt by the Fathers' spirit. His wounds were seen by Thomas for certain, and yet without blood. If transubstantiation exists, it would need to extract the Lord's blood from the earth, where it will stay as a testimony to Christs' sacrifice for all mankind.

There is no mention anywhere in Paul's writings that the physical surpasses the spiritual in any sphere. It cannot, for that would make the spiritual subject to the flesh, and such is an impossibility with God. It is sown a natural body, and raised a spiritual body. It is the law of the Spirit. Those that are in the flesh cannot please God, and whoever would worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.
fivesense

 

[Templar81]

Transubstaciation is not caibalism because A; Christ instructed us to recieve it and B; because even though it is Christ's body and blood, it still retains the "accidents" or appearance of bread and wine because that is pallatable for us and that is a form in which we can recive it/

 

[Selene]

Hello Selene, who is in Christ:
It is clear from the Scriptures that the Lord spoke in parables to the multitudes, and to His disciples He spoke plainly He spoke this way to the multitudes who were not of His choosing, but were following for various personal reasons.

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Mt 13:34

Hello Fivesense,

In Matthew 13:34 when Jesus said that he spoke in parables, he wasn't referring to "eating His body and drinking His blood." Do not take the Scripture out of context. In Matthew Chapter 13, Jesus spoke about the parable of the Sower, the parable of the weeds, and the parable of the mustard seed.....and then after speaking about those parables, that's when He said that he spoke in parables. Matthew Chapter 13 doesn't say anything about a parable of drinking His blood or eating His body. Therefore, the verse you quoted above has nothing to do with "eating His body and drinking His blood."

In Christ,
Selene

Guess what: Jesus and/or the New Testament also said he was a door, a rock, water, a shepherd, a tree branch, a star, and thats just what i can remember off the top of my head. So are we to actually think he was a real door, place a door on the altars and worship it? Should we do the same with a rock?? How about a tub full of water? Tree branches at church anyone??? Was Jesus a shepard before his calling considering Joseph was not in the agriculture business but was a carpenter?

NONE of this is speaking literally. All of these elements are used as fivesense said, they are simply a figure of speech. Each element symbolically represents a characteristic that CHrist has; as are the bread and wine.

Eating Jesus for dinner is cannibalism! Drinking blood is a sin onto death!!! (Leviticus 17:14). So no, not in a million years was Jesus inviting us to do such strange, anti-biblical acts.

Hello Evanom,

First of all, when Christ said that He was a door, a Shepherd, a rock, etc., no one walked out.

Secondly and finally, yes, it does sound like cannibalism doesn't it? So now, do you understand why in the Scripture it says that many of His followers left Christ after He said that? It was because Christ meant it literally. Now, do you understand why they walked out?

John 6:55-66 For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him............Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?........As a result of this many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[JarBreaker]

Religion eucharist is suspiciously different from what Jesus did with his disciples: Jesus broke the bread, the eucharist has these perfectly disk-shaped waffles passed out. Jesus drank wine with His disciples, eucharist priest drink wine but don't let anybody else drink it. Jesus followed Torah and abstained from drinking blood, eucharist invites this practice! (for the priest, at least). Bible says His sacrifice was a one-time only event, eucharist is the repetition over and over and over again of the sacrifice.

This paragraph is LOADED : -)

 

[Selene]

This paragraph is LOADED : -)

I don't think so. First of all, when Jesus broke the bread, He DID say "Take for this is my body." Jesus is Truth. Whatever He says is Truth. He doesn't lie. So, when He said, "Take, for this is my body," then we are to believe what He says because we knows that He doesn't lie. When He took the cup, He said, "Drink for this is the cup of my blood." Again, Jesus is Truth. Whatever He says is Truth. So, when He said, "Drink, for this is the cup of my blood," then we are to believe what He says because we know that He doesn't lie.

The Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice of Jesus being done over and over and over. Jesus sacrificed Himself only once. The Holy Eucharist is a communion. Jesus prayed that we become one with Him just as He is one with the Father. Despite that He is God, Christ became one with us in the most intimate way when He came down incarnated as a man. Through His incarnation, He intimately became one with us in the flesh. In the same way, Christ wanted us to also become one with Him. By eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we become intimately one with Him physically and spiritually. The Holy Spirit lives within us and in every Mass, we become in communion with God physically and spiritually. By drinking from the cup at Holy Eucharist, His blood flows in our veins......just as our blood flowed in His veins when He became incarnated as man. His flesh became one with us just as our flesh became one with His when He became incarnated in the flesh as man.

In this way, I become one with God not just spiritually, but also physically. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, God dwells in me physically and spiritually.....just as my brother Jesus was also in communion with me as He shared in my humanity and my spirit.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Doppleganger]

This covenant began long ago. Its not based on pagan myth. It does connect with the promised seed though.
Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

EW Bullinger
Melchizedek. king of righteousness, or by Fig.righteous king. In History, Gen. 14. In Prophecy, Ps. 110. In Fulfilment, Heb. 7. This might be Shem in type, Christ in antitype. Salem. Called, on the bricks of the ruins of an ancient city in S.of Palestine, Uru-Salim = the city of Salin. TheTablets show that Palestine was at this time in possession of Egypt, and the Tablets are letters to the Pharaohs Amenophis III and IV. One is from Ebed-Tob, the successor of Melchizedek. Three times he says “not my father, not my mother installed me in this place but the Mighty King”(cp. Heb. 7:1-4), i.e. he did not inherit by succession, but by gift and “the arm of the Mighty King” (the deity).

wine. ​

​

​

​

Same as 9:20-24 [fermented wine].
​

priest.​

​

​

Yet no sacrifices. Hence a type of Him toWhom all shall bow (Ps. 110:4), and pay their tithes and bring their gifts (Ps. 72). ​

​

​

Genesis 14:12 & 17-18 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him ... And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

EW Bullinger
12 Abram. Put to sleep so that he should have no part in it, and that the Covenant should be unconditional, in which “God was the one” and only contracting party (Gal. 3:20).​

17 ​

​

​

furnace. ​

Symbolic of the affliction of Israel (Deut. 4:20. 1 Kings 8:51. Isa. 31:9. Ezek. 22:18-22. Jer. 11:4).
17 lamp. Symbolic of Israel’s deliverance (I Kings 11:36; 15:4.Isa. 62:1. 2 Sam. 21:17).​

|​

Genesis 15:5-6 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look steadfastly toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed what he heard from Jehovah; and He imputed it to him as righteousness.

6 as righteousness. No art. This was positive imputed righteousness (because he believed concerning Christ). It was more than forensic righteousness, which was negative or non-imputation of sin (Ps. 32:1, 2). This was the consequence of the Gospel preached to Abram.(Cp. Gal. 3:8, and read Rom. 4 and Gal. 3).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Selene]

Even during Abraham's time, we see the bread and wine, which was a foreshadow of things to come in the New Testament. Later, God told the Israelites that the lamb they are to sacrifice must be an unblemished lamb. In the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites were not only told to sacrifice a lamb but also to eat that lamb to complete the Passover meal. It was a REAL lamb that the ancient Israelites sacrificed and a REAL lamb that they ate. They didn't eat a symbolic lamb. In the same way, Christ was both the Lamb of God and the High priest. Thus, when Christ said "Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life," he meant it literally, and that is why many of his disciples left Him after that. If they thought that He was speaking symbolically, they would not have left Him.

 

[fivesense]

Hello Fivesense,

In Matthew 13:34 when Jesus said that he spoke in parables, he wasn't referring to "eating His body and drinking His blood." Do not take the Scripture out of context. In Matthew Chapter 13, Jesus spoke about the parable of the Sower, the parable of the weeds, and the parable of the mustard seed.....and then after speaking about those parables, that's when He said that he spoke in parables. Matthew Chapter 13 doesn't say anything about a parable of drinking His blood or eating His body. Therefore, the verse you quoted above has nothing to do with "eating His body and drinking His blood."

In Christ,
Selene



Hello Evanom,

First of all, when Christ said that He was a door, a Shepherd, a rock, etc., no one walked out.

Secondly and finally, yes, it does sound like cannibalism doesn't it? So now, do you understand why in the Scripture it says that many of His followers left Christ after He said that? It was because Christ meant it literally. Now, do you understand why they walked out?

John 6:55-66 For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him............Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?........As a result of this many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

In Christ,
Selene

You are correct Selene, in when the discussion of the subject of parables took place, it was not during His declarations in John 6.

However, my point is the Lord did not speak openly concerning much, and used figures frequently to disguise truth from all but those whom the Father was drawing. If I used the parable example to your disfavor, and you object based upon context versus general truth, I understand. But the ground I seek to stand upon is His usage of figures and parables as a means to an end, not the scholastic imperative of contextual criticism. In this respect, my comment of the parable issue pertains to His actions, not the correctness of what goes where in the Book.

All of the descendent Israel claimed blessing from the Messiah based upon bloodline and flesh. The Lord was emphasizing the truth that the spiritual blessing of a spiritual life with a spirit God was the only thing acceptable to the Father. It was only by eating His words and drinking of the Spirit of God, that they would ever truly be blessed, for the physical promises made to them would never satisfy God.

Jn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jn 6:35 And 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.

His declaration was that by coming to and believing on Him was the only way to true blessing and promise. It was no longer based upon works of the flesh, and bloodlines. Baptism, repentance and belief in Him was the only entrance for the Jew while the Kingdom Gospel was being preached.

Transubstantiation is reformulated and mysticized Legalism. It has no quality to it other than what it derives, the curse of the Law.
The ecclesia has no priest, but One, no organization since it is a spiritual organism, and offers divine service unto God, not works of flesh which cannot possibly surpass the ultimate Sacrifice of Calvary. Such thinking as is involved in that mundane act does not stem from the sacred, but sacrilegious against the revealed intents and purposes of God.

fivesense

 

[brionne]

I'd like to know why this is so often recjected in favour of the Eucharist being asymbol. Why would Jeus want us to recieve a symbol? He gave us his body and blood and by it we are saved.

i think Jesus himself showed that the wine and bread were only symbols of his body and blood at the last supper when he passed them around to his 11 apostles and said:

"Take, eat, this MEANS my blood which is to be poured out on your behalf"

He didnt give his apostles his blood to drink or a part of his body to eat on that night. He gave them bread and wine and said they 'mean' my body and blood. So if they were not literally his real blood and body on the night he handed out the last supper, surely the bread and wine that is partaken of today could not be considered his blood and body.

 

[Templar81]

Pegg
At the last supper jesus hadn't died, been ressurected or ascended into Heaven, so there is some debate as to wether what the dsiciples recieved at the Last Supper was in fact his body and blood because his body had not yet been broken and his blood not yet spilled, however Jesus performed many miracles like turning water into wine and miracles often don't make sense, that is why they are miracles. If Jesus meant his disciplse to recieve his body and blood on the night of the Last Supper then they would have.

 

[JarBreaker]

This paragraph is LOADED : -)

.

I don't think so. First of all, when Jesus broke the bread, He DID say "Take for this is my body." Jesus is Truth. Whatever He says is Truth. He doesn't lie. So, when He said, "Take, for this is my body," then we are to believe what He says because we knows that He doesn't lie. When He took the cup, He said, "Drink for this is the cup of my blood." Again, Jesus is Truth. Whatever He says is Truth. So, when He said, "Drink, for this is the cup of my blood," then we are to believe what He says because we know that He doesn't lie.

The Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice of Jesus being done over and over and over.

Rev. 2:6
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.


from wiki,
Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy whose adherents are called Nicolaitans, Nicolaitanes, or Nicolaites. Nico means "conquer" in Greek, and laitan refers to lay people, or laity; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people". However, "Nicolaitan" is the name ostensibly given to followers of the heretic Nicolas (Greek: Nikolaos)—the name itself meaning "victorious over people," or "victory of the people," which he would have been given at birth.[sup][1][/sup]




from wiki,

http://en.wikipedia....%28mythology%29




In Greek mythology, Nike (Greek: Νίκη, "Victory", pronounced [níːkɛː]) was a goddess who personified victory throughout the ages of the ancient Greek culture.




[media]http://en.wikipedia....Nike_at_Ephesus,_Turkey.JPG[/media]




Here we have a pagan g-ddess, whose names means VICTORY.

Let's put things together here a bit.


Rev. 2:6
... hat thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.


The DEEDS of the nicolaitans, which He also HATES.


Nico- this is referring to the pagan g-ddess whose name means victory ... laitans- this is referring to the LAITY or the PEOPLE ... above you can see this plain definition from wiki.


Why did I say that paragraph was loaded ?

" ... Bible says His sacrifice was a one-time only event, eucharist is the repetition over and over and over again of the sacrifice." also, "Jesus drank wine with His disciples, eucharist priest drink wine but don't let anybody else drink it." .... showing here, they "receive the spirit" to themselves but in thier beliefs, it isnt for the common people, or laity.


Scripture was outlawed for the common people, it was restricted to the priesthood, who DISPENSED GRACE through the seven sacraments which we do not find in scripture ... these were ADDED.


This repetition is a MEANS OF CONTROL ... "victory over the people".


If I wasnt tech-illiterate and actually linked that picture correctly, you could see that pagan state of nike is actually at EPHESUS.


[media]http://http://en.wik...Nike_at_Ephesus,_Turkey.JPG[/media]

 

[Selene]

You are correct Selene, in when the discussion of the subject of parables took place, it was not during His declarations in John 6.

However, my point is the Lord did not speak openly concerning much, and used figures frequently to disguise truth from all but those whom the Father was drawing. If I used the parable example to your disfavor, and you object based upon context versus general truth, I understand. But the ground I seek to stand upon is His usage of figures and parables as a means to an end, not the scholastic imperative of contextual criticism. In this respect, my comment of the parable issue pertains to His actions, not the correctness of what goes where in the Book.

Hello Fivesense,

As I said in my previous post, if Jesus meant to speak figuratively, then His disciples would not have left Him. The fact that He lost a vast majority of His disciples showed that He was speaking literally, and those who were there and heard Him knew that Jesus was speaking literally. You have not addressed this issue at all.

All of the descendent Israel claimed blessing from the Messiah based upon bloodline and flesh. . The Lord was emphasizing the truth that the spiritual blessing of a spiritual life with a spirit God was the only thing acceptable to the Father. It was only by eating His words and drinking of the Spirit of God, that they would ever truly be blessed, for the physical promises made to them would never satisfy God.

Because Christ came from the bloodline and flesh of Israel, that is indeed a tremendous blessing. Why do you downgrade God's blessing? Why downplay their bloodline.....the very bloodline that our Lord Jesus Christ came from? To downgrade the humanity of Christ is to downgrade His birth and our Lord Jesus Himself.

Do you honestly believe that only a spiritual blessing of a spiritual life with the spirit of God is the only thing acceptable to God? My brother, I am called to worship God my Father in BOTH BODY AND SPIRIT (Ephesians 4:4) just as it says in Scripture. I am called to glorify and bear God in my body (1 Corinthians 6:20) and not just in my spirit. I am called to love God with my whole heart, mind, soul, and strength (Luke 10:27). In other words, I am to love Him with my whole being....body and soul.

Christ loved us so much that He came down incarnated in the flesh of humans to be one with us. He also desires us to be one with Him (John 17:21). This is what the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is about - communion with Him.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[JarBreaker]

Even during Abraham's time, we see the bread and wine, which was a foreshadow of things to come in the New Testament.

And this goes back even further, to the dreams Joseph interpreted while he was imprisoned.

The BAKER = bread, His body which was broken for us .... the baker died.

The cup-bearer = wine or The Spirit ... the cupbearer lived.

 

[Selene]

.
" ... Bible says His sacrifice was a one-time only event, eucharist is the repetition over and over and over again of the sacrifice." also, "Jesus drank wine with His disciples, eucharist priest drink wine but don't let anybody else drink it." .... showing here, they "receive the spirit" to themselves but in thier beliefs, it isnt for the common people, or laity.

Hello JarBreaker,

If you had read my post, I DID say that Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross only once. I also said that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist means "communion." Furthermore, I can honestly say that in my church, it is not just the priest who drank the blood of Christ, but also the people who were present in the Mass.

In Christ,
Selene