bread and wine or "eucharist"

[mjrhealth]

but it is the church that claims this, not the bible.

Something to do with this bit

Heb_6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

and this bit

Rom_6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

 

[Truth]

You almost seem to think Paul and Jesus weren't in agreement. I don't see it as a thing were you have to chose between the two. If Jesus sent Paul to preach, then he is coming in Christ's stead.

YES, I Agree, I was only making the Point that Our Savior was the Ultimate Authority, as one other believer pointed out, I use Paul's writings from Thessalonians, under my reply's.

 

[DPMartin]

Surrrrrre - that's why Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of the Apostle John spoke of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch
The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

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 (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

though this is not scripture and certainly doesn't supersede scripture it really doesn't say the Presence of the Lord is in the bread and wine or Eucharist if you like. saying Jesus is where His church is doesn't mean He is in the bread and wine. it means He is with His and within His wherever they may be. also, again this dose not supersede scripture its a doctrine followed through and or adopted by the catholic church. such as who should be authorized to administer the communion and such. there are many students of the bible today that don't get it, it doesn't mater in this case.

 

[BreadOfLife]

though this is not scripture and certainly doesn't supersede scripture it really doesn't say the Presence of the Lord is in the bread and wine or Eucharist if you like. saying Jesus is where His church is doesn't mean He is in the bread and wine. it means He is with His and within His wherever they may be. also, again this dose not supersede scripture its a doctrine followed through and or adopted by the catholic church. such as who should be authorized to administer the communion and such. there are many students of the bible today that don't get it, it doesn't mater in this case.

And that is completely FALSE.

It says "...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."

He is saying that it is the SAME flesh that suffered, died and was raised up again.
Can't get more explicit than that.

This was John's student. A minor tradition teaches that Ignatius was one of the children that Jesus held in Mark 10:15-16 when He said: "Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

He was intimately familiar with the Apostles and their teachings.

 

[DPMartin]

Hey - YOU'RE the one who said that Jesus couldn't be in 2 places at ONE time.
That is YOUR lack of faith - not mine . . .

This is what I said: if your interpretation is so, when He gave the Apostles when He said this, was He present in His flesh or was He present in the bread and wine when He handed it to the Apostles? are you saying He was in both places? it has to be what you are saying you know.

Where does it say "couldn't" at? There’s no implication that Jesus says or means His presence is in the bread and the wine and His flesh. Nor does the Apostle show they think that or do they affirm the Jesus’ presence is in the communion anywhere in scripture.

You don't see it because you don't know how to properly divide Scripture.
Allow me to educate you:
Rev 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This verse states that the Lamb was sacrified BEFORE the creation of the world.
This connotes an ETERNAL sacrifice.

no it don't, you say it says, but it doesn't say that. the Lamb is the foundation of the world or didn't you get that in:

1Co_3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And this is where I said you were engaging in a petty semantic battle. "Offer" and "Bring forth" are synonymous. depending on the context. I gave you a proper context when I compared it to a guest in my house that I "offered" food and drink.

You're still arguing about this point because context is NOT your friend.

to reiterate

the "Eucharist spices" according to the catholic church is a "holy sacrifice of the Mass" hence they are saying they are sacrificing Christ again. because nothing is Holy without the Presence of God. but it is the church that claims this, not the bible.

if the Lord or the Apostles would have the church perform "holy sacrifice of the Mass" as the church does and as important as the church says it is. the Lord and His Apostles would have been clear and as admit about it, as the church has been about it.

 

[DPMartin]

And that is completely FALSE.

It says "...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."

He is saying that it is the SAME flesh that suffered, died and was raised up again.
Can't get more explicit than that.

This was John's student. A minor tradition teaches that Ignatius was one of the children that Jesus held in Mark 10:15-16 when He said: "Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

He was intimately familiar with the Apostles and their teachings.

it still doesn't mean Jesus Himself is there also, that's what you want it to mean. I reiterate these documents do not in any shape or form supersede what scripture says. also why doesn't it say plainly as do later catholic document that the presence of the Lord is in the bread and wine if that's what it means?

 

[mjrhealth]

it still doesn't mean Jesus Himself is there also, that's what you want it to mean. I reiterate these documents do not in any shape or form supersede what scripture says. also why doesn't it say plainly as to later catholic document that the presence of the Lord is in the bread and wine if that's what it means?

I guess He gets it backwards, he wants the bread to be Jesus, which it is not, Jesus is the bread of life, and when we eat of Him, we get life. But that is what religion does corrupt teh truth.

 

[DPMartin]

Something to do with this bit

Heb_6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

and this bit

Rom_6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

not sure what you're trying to say here

 

[DPMartin]

I guess He gets it backwards, he wants the bread to be Jesus, which it is not, Jesus is the bread of life, and when we eat of Him, we get life. But that is what religion does corrupt teh truth.

well you're correct about that, guys like this trust the church more than what the Lord says or what scripture says. there's a gap if you will from the (church father's documents) to the Council of Trent in this conversation where the catholic church converted to this presence in the bread and wine goes. in the Council of Trent I didn't notice any references to supporting documents as most catholic documents do. I'm curious to where it went from appropriately administered communion, of bread and wine, to "holy Sacrifice of the Mass" a "Eucharist species".

finding that may help prove the point that its a, as Breadoflife says "RE-present" + ation. and not a place God dwells.

 

[mjrhealth]

not sure what you're trying to say here

holy sacrifice of the Mass" hence they are saying they are sacrificing Christ again.

So if what you say is true than they putting Jesus to shame every time they do communion, this bit

Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

They will always do it. for to them Christ is still on the cross and they wont let Him off.

 

[epostle1]

What's throwing you is a lack of faith to accept Jesus' plain and simple words, "this is my Body" BofL posted the Early Church Fathers TWICE, and you refuse to believe them. So it won't matter how many times it's posted, you simply haven't got the required supernatural faith. You are still in the flesh.

 

[epostle1]

So if what you say is true than they putting Jesus to shame every time they do communion, this bit

Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

They will always do it. for to them Christ is still on the cross and they wont let Him off.

A stupid and insulting post, based on ignorance and blind prejudice.

 

[epostle1]

well you're correct about that, guys like this trust the church more than what the Lord says or what scripture says. there's a gap if you will from the (church father's documents) to the Council of Trent in this conversation where the catholic church converted to this presence in the bread and wine goes. in the Council of Trent I didn't notice any references to supporting documents as most catholic documents do. I'm curious to where it went from appropriately administered communion, of bread and wine, to "holy Sacrifice of the Mass" a "Eucharist species".

finding that may help prove the point that its a, as Breadoflife says "RE-present" + ation. and not a place God dwells.

Trent does not apply to Protestants, so quoting Trent is a waste of time, and a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.
You have jumbled together a variety of terms that took centuries to develop. To research each one, in chronological order, would take a very long time. Everything is in the catechism, put the terms in google, followed by "catechism catholic church". I hope that helps. btw, there's plenty of Trentian documentation on the Eucharist.

Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "THIS IS MY BODY" whereas Catholic teaching on the Eucharist has NEVER CHANGED.

 

[tabletalk]

What's throwing you is a lack of faith to accept Jesus' plain and simple words, "this is my Body" BofL posted the Early Church Fathers TWICE, and you refuse to believe them. So it won't matter how many times it's posted, you simply haven't got the required supernatural faith. You are still in the flesh.

If a person is 'still in the flesh.' as you say above, and that is because they have 'a lack of faith to accept Jesus' plain and simple words,"this is my Body" , then how can your Church call that person a "separated brethren" and a Christian?

'In the flesh' is unbelief: Romans 8:13; If you are living according to the flesh, you must die..."

Calling someone 'still in the flesh' because they won't worship the physical elements of the Communion Table is calling almost all Protestants, and other Christians, unbelievers.

I doubt that the Catholic Church would agree with your statements.

 

[epostle1]

If a person is 'still in the flesh.' as you say above, and that is because they have 'a lack of faith to accept Jesus' plain and simple words,"this is my Body" , then how can your Church call that person a "separated brethren" and a Christian?

Because you think in terms of dichotomies, either/or and not both/and. Separated brethren is a matter of degree. A store front fundamentalist has a greater degree of separation from the Church than a Lutheran. We don't like it either.

'In the flesh' is unbelief: Romans 8:13; If you are living according to the flesh, you must die..."

There you go again with extreme either/or thinking.

Calling someone 'still in the flesh' because they won't worship the physical elements of the Communion Table is calling almost all Protestants, and other Christians, unbelievers.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.” There is a big difference between calling a person an unbeliever and recognizing a degree of separation.

But there can be no Eucharist without a valid priesthood.

I doubt that the Catholic Church would agree with your statements.

The CC agrees with the Substantial Real Presence, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, which hasn't changed in 2000 years, until the Protestant Revolt.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

Have you ever been in the presence of the Eucharist?

 

[mjrhealth]

A stupid and insulting post, based on ignorance and blind prejudice.

sorry was a catholic, am not blind if i was id still be in there like you. And if you feel insulted how do you think God might feel with a religion murders people, rapes children than calls them self His church.

this bit

Luk 18:6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

did I forget

Mat 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

How dare you follow Jesus, how dare you have faith in Christ, how dare you listen to His voice, how dare you is the cry of the religious and religion.

Things wil never change

 

[DPMartin]

Trent does not apply to Protestants, so quoting Trent is a waste of time, and a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.
You have jumbled together a variety of terms that took centuries to develop. To research each one, in chronological order, would take a very long time. Everything is in the catechism, put the terms in google, followed by "catechism catholic church". I hope that helps. btw, there's plenty of Trentian documentation on the Eucharist.

Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "THIS IS MY BODY" whereas Catholic teaching on the Eucharist has NEVER CHANGED.

the OP is about the discussion of bread and wine as opposed to Catholicism on the "Eucharist" isn't it? so the term Eucharist has everything to o with Trent and other documents that would show catholic teaching from the biblical communion to "Eucharist species"

 

[DPMartin]

A stupid and insulting post, based on ignorance and blind prejudice.

nope its something you chose to be offended by, rather than realize that your church makes people who believe in Christ and believe the bible before the Catholic church see it this way. its the enraged that are blind, and your own wrath blinds you.

this is an open discussion on the matter if it offends you maybe you should stay away, this isn't Iran or something.

 

[DPMartin]

And that is completely FALSE.

It says "...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."

He is saying that it is the SAME flesh that suffered, died and was raised up again.
Can't get more explicit than that.

This was John's student. A minor tradition teaches that Ignatius was one of the children that Jesus held in Mark 10:15-16 when He said: "Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

He was intimately familiar with the Apostles and their teachings.

first the catholic church isn't the Kingdom of God, it's the religion of the Roman empire that has still survived as a church of a state now the state of the Vatican.

the manifestation of the Kingdom of God is the Holy city, not the Vatican.

and what says "...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"

is the chicken present in your chicken nuggets? no! flesh is flesh not the presence of the being.

also Eucharist is used in the bible nor the catholic theology found in scripture that supports "holy sacrifice of the Mass" and "Eucharist species"

 

[DPMartin]

So if what you say is true than they putting Jesus to shame every time they do communion, this bit

Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

They will always do it. for to them Christ is still on the cross and they wont let Him off.

basically you are correct, never went that far on it but according to Paul that's true.

if my memory serves you've posted that you were once catholic, if so, then you know there is much more in Catholicism that revolves around this kind of thinking.