Calling all Law Keepers.

[tabletalk]

I know you partake of bread an wine and it' nothing more than a memorial. The Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, as indicated by the Fourth Cup. Baptism is a ritual. Wen you sit down to eat or prepare for bed you are performing mundane rituals. They are normal to human experience.

The teaching on the Eucharist has not changed in 2000 years; the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Would your church say the Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, but without blood? If so, then your Eucharist is not the same sacrifice.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was listening to a discussion where a Jewish believer was expounding on various parables. He asserted the idea of "seeing they will not see" and "hearing they will not hear" by speaking in parables was actually an example of grace exhibited by Yeshua. That more revelation requires more accountability. That by many not understanding the parables, they would not be held as accountable.

Along the lines of "to whom much has been given, much will be required".

Not sure that it is the real reason for Yeshua speaking in parables, but it is a reasoned idea that could have some validity.

Great!
There are several reasons in fact.

One is that by speaking using known things of the day --- shepherding, vineyards, farming, etc --- a person could instill into Jesus' teaching a way for them to understand it for themselves. They would get the moral application of the parable and put even MORE into it (not change it), by applying their knowledge.

Then He also spoke in parables for the reason you said. It requires some effort on our part to get to God. We must not only hear with the ears, but with our heart. It's not that God doesn't want us to hear, but that if we don't put some effort into it, we may not last long in the Kingdom.
Mathew 13:20-21
We must hear with our ears and heart, we must see the Kingdom with our "eyes" and heart. (our spiritual eyes).

And yes, To whom much is given, much will be required.
In fact James tells us not to be in a hurry to teach...because more will be demanded from us (a stricter judgement).
James 3:1

 

[GodsGrace]

I know you partake of bread an wine and it' nothing more than a memorial. The Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, as indicated by the Fourth Cup. Baptism is a ritual. Wen you sit down to eat or prepare for bed you are performing mundane rituals. They are normal to human experience.

The teaching on the Eucharist has not changed in 2000 years; the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Hi Kepha,
You mention the fourth cup and I had done a study on the cups and cannot remember too much. --- I will not drink this cup again until I drink it with you--- referring to the crucifixion, if I remember.
It would make a good thread but I don't remember enough about it.

As to the Eucharist being the same as the crucifixion...
Protestants love to say that Catholics sacrifice Jesus again at every Mass.
I know for sure that this is not true because priests themselves tell me this and if they don't know, I don't know who would!!

They've explained that it is, indeed, a memorial. Not a memory.
So it's as if, those at the Mass (which includes me many times) are at the foot of the cross. Jesus is NOT being sacrificed AGAIN. But His sacrifice does live on in time.

@amadeus and @tabletalk bring up good points.
Also, I'm unable to make the connection between the Eucharist and the Crucifixion -- hard as I've tried. I always feel like there's more there than I'm picking up.

 

[GodsGrace]

Please don't get upset as I am only trying to be honest with you. For me what you call the Eucharist would be just another ritual. The real eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood doesn't occur through the physical consumption of wafer and wine. I have no doubt that a sincere believer gets something from God through communion rituals, be they Protestant or Catholic, but I believe that those are also only types and shadows of that which is real. I am simply responding to your post. You may call me a blasphemer, but I will leave this at this unless you really want more detail of what I believe...

I usually agree with you Amadeus.
But how could you say the Eucharist, or Communion, is just a ritual?
Before Jesus went to His death He said, Do This In Memory of Me.
Which memory?
When He was alive or when He was resurrected?
If we receive Communion, at His command, does it not become something more than just a ritual?

Jesus said to eat His body and drink His blood. This sounds so serious to me.

Did you know that Luther believed in either transubstantiation or the real presence until his death? (can't remember which).

Do we Protestants not believe that Jesus is actually present at a Communion? Doesn't this make it more than a ritual?

He gave up His body for us. When the priest breaks that host in half, it's a symbol of Jesus breaking His body for us.

 

[epostle1]

Would your church say the Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, but without blood? If so, then your Eucharist is not the same sacrifice.

You are hung up on what you can see. The bread and wine are called "accidents". The substance, after consecration, changes, but the accidents appear to be the same. The "substance" of the wine is Blood.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 – these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are hung up on what you can see. The bread and wine are called "accidents". The substance, after consecration, changes, but the accidents appear to be the same. The "substance" of the wine is Blood.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 – these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

I used to teach kids about the Eucharist.
Did you ever hear this?
There is form and there is substance.

In everything the form can change but the substance always remains the same.

With the host, the form remains the same but the substance changes.

This is the ONLY time in all of nature that this happens.

 

[epostle1]

I usually agree with you Amadeus.
But how could you say the Eucharist, or Communion, is just a ritual?
Before Jesus went to His death He said, Do This In Memory of Me.
Which memory?

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 – Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

When He was alive or when He was resurrected?

Luke 24:26-35 – in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

If we receive Communion, at His command, does it not become something more than just a ritual?

That would depend on who you are in communion with.

Jesus said to eat His body and drink His blood. This sounds so serious to me.

It is, but it is also very nourishing.

Did you know that Luther believed in either transubstantiation or the real presence until his death? (can't remember which).

He did at first, but later changed his mind.

Do we Protestants not believe that Jesus is actually present at a Communion? Doesn't this make it more than a ritual?

It should. Protestants believe that Jesus is actually present at a Communion but not in the physical sense.

He gave up His body for us. When the priest breaks that host in half, it's a symbol of Jesus breaking His body for us.

Do you miss it?

 

[bbyrd009]

Psalm 51:5;
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The Jews believed this long before the catholic church was around.

There's always someone who comes along to give it another meaning to fit their beliefs.

so, fwiw, i am being told that this might be read as a lament, like we might do even today, Surely i am good for nothing or something similar, which i guess might not be very satisfying to you, and i understand, but you might reflect upon the usage of the word we translate "behold" or "surely," one of the senses is "b. as a hypothetical particle, propounding a possibility, if"

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you miss it?

the ritual becomes much less meaningful when you have found the real thing, K.

 

[jimd]

Original post by jimd: Yes, the sin/flesh nature is passed down but that is not what I understand the doctrine of OS to be. Have I been wrong all this time? Then why did they eat the fruit? Please don't say it was the apple

The doctrine of OS in Catholicism teaches that the sin was passed to us, thus infant baptism.
Is this what you mean?

I am trying to make a clear distinction between a sinful nature, which I think would be better referred to as a fleshly nature. In other words, to have a fleshly or sinful nature is not a sin, it is not something a baby needs to be baptized for. Not until we realize we are disobeying the Lord do we need to believe in the Lord for salvation, don't you think?
I will ask the question again, if Adam and Eve did not have a fleshly/sinful nature, why did they disobey the Lord? Most people seem to think if God made us with a fleshly nature He did something wrong but how else could you make a free choice, reproductive human? Angels do not reproduce do they and we will not reproduce in heaven will we? Just thinking out loud here

 

[jimd]

so, fwiw, i am being told that this might be read as a lament, like we might do even today, Surely i am good for nothing or something similar, which i guess might not be very satisfying to you, and i understand, but you might reflect upon the usage of the word we translate "behold" or "surely," one of the senses is "b. as a hypothetical particle, propounding a possibility, if"

Or maybe a hyperbolic statement? Does the scripture as a whole teach there is anything sinful about having a child as long as we are married? Just the opposite I think. 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 

[bbyrd009]

Or maybe a hyperbolic statement? Does the scripture as a whole teach there is anything sinful about having a child as long as we are married? Just the opposite I think. 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

yes, actually i guess that is the "c" choice in the Lex for "behold."

 

[epostle1]

the ritual becomes much less meaningful when you have found the real thing, K.

I don't think Jesus meant emotionalism and sentimentalism to be the real thing over and above His Body and Blood, although I'm sure they have their place.

 

[bbyrd009]

Psalm 51:5;
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The Jews believed this long before the catholic church was around.

There's always someone who comes along to give it another meaning to fit their beliefs.
All you have to do is look at a child.
The first thing they learn to say is "NO!".

and i guess similar treatments can be found throughout Scripture; "the bed is too short, the blanket is to small," etc. Is the bed too short? Of course not, God will supply all of your needs. So what is being written there is a perspective, stated as a truth, because it is true from that perspective.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't think Jesus meant emotionalism and sentimentalism to be the real thing over and above His Body and Blood, although I'm sure they have their place.

that place strikes me more as referring to the ritual, and less about actually consuming Christ IRL, where it matters
not saying that the ritual is meaningless, either, but it is supposed to be a reminder of the real thing, only it is now in place of the real thing.

 

[bbyrd009]

I know for sure that this is not true because priests themselves tell me this and if they don't know, I don't know who would!

yikes, good luck with that!

 

[bbyrd009]

Please don't get upset as I am only trying to be honest with you. For me what you call the Eucharist would be just another ritual. The real eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood doesn't occur through the physical consumption of wafer and wine. I have no doubt that a sincere believer gets something from God through communion rituals, be they Protestant or Catholic, but I believe that those are also only types and shadows of that which is real. I am simply responding to your post. You may call me a blasphemer, but I will leave this at this unless you really want more detail of what I believe...

i agree

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus said to eat His body and drink His blood. This sounds so serious to me.

you might temper that with the understanding that we have no record of anyone actually eating any of Jesus. And we can also note that many misunderstood, even then.

 

[bbyrd009]

He gave up His body for us. When the priest breaks that host in half, it's a symbol of Jesus breaking His body for us.

as you say, yes; it is a symbol of something that needs be accomplished in truth, IRL, that a ritual cannot replace. Unless taking communion = eating and drinking Christ for real to you, which it surely might for some. Understand what they are really saying, and go from there imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

With the host, the form remains the same but the substance changes.

This is the ONLY time in all of nature that this happens.

ha, now listen to yourself, discussing a ritual one moment, and referring to "nature," or "life," the next.