Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!
Other Resources:
I’ll check it out, Bo, thanks, but my mind is already made up 🙂
Nicholas,
As long as your mind is not like concrete…thoroughly mixed up and set in stone. And as long as you are careful who washes your brain. And as long as the truth of scripture trumps history and mans ideas. OK
Shalom
Hi Bo, The following is a bit much but take what you can and leave the rest. its a little piecemeal.
Its hard to know how to frame an answer with regard to the website. I have been involved with YouTube online apologetics with some of the most virulent anti-Catholics that exist.
The website you gave has a writer who offers several ambiguous passages from a very small selection of the Church Fathers. I think these are relied in an attempt to obfuscate the reality of what was held not only by the Church Fathers in question but in fact by the whole body of Church Fathers.
Again my apologies for not organizing this better. Not enough time.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Here is a good summary of just what and apostolic tradion is.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tracts on what Catholics believe and why
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paul himeself offers this
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
“23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d
”
Could it really be that a mere metaphorical meal would bring about judgment and sickness and death? I do not believe this could be.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just last week I had someone insisting that pro Eucharist St. Augustine was against the Catholic view. Any small amount of looking at the passages will show the truth of it.
This website you offer has a veneer of scholarship with not much else going for it. Clement of Alexandria was especially chosen the website writer because he has some ambiguous metaphorical-sounding prose and yet elsewhere Clement says
“And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.”
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.”[Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos]
The Eucharist was NEVER believed, as your website writer offers, to be a ” remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.” These are just the opinions of the writer in some kind of hoped-for revisionist history that did not exist. The writing of Clement is clear – it was ” called Eucharist , renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul”. He is speaking of a sacramental meal of bread and wine that imparts REAL grace towards sanctification. This is how the Eucharist is defined in this age and also obviously in Clements age.. Fairly orthodox.
Tertullian. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
The writer goes on to say that Tertullian actually dismantles John 6 with some the old chestnut that Jesus negates his entire Real Presence insistence all of a sudden by saying ” It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing” Anyone who knows this phrase understands that Jesus is saying You must understand what I am telling you will be accomplished by the Holy Spirit and your understanding is merely carnal (of the flesh) ignorance leading to the inability to accept or fathom. Full Stop.
Anyway you can read someone who has already cleared up the this anti-Eucharistic charge against Tertullian
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.ca/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html
The main thing is that ALL the early Church believed in the Real Presence and ALL the Church believed it down to Calvin and Zwingli. This was the tradition (from traditio – to be handed down) of the Chruch by word and deed and by scripture and by writings of the early Church. And ANY who did not believe were considered heretics. Clement was not a heretic and the early Church knew what he believed and this is why he was held in high regard.
Bo, there is scholarship and then there is muddy the water “psuedo-scholarship”. I am not saying you are muddying the water but your are referring to a website that is. There is a broad phenomenom of this type of pseudo-scholarship out there within fundamentalist Protestantism. It is no-holds-barred scholarship. Lorraine Boettner may have been the most damaging of just this type of pseudo-scholarship from which a lot of erroneous and mischievous ideas about Catholicism arose. His errors in truth are widely disseminated now and widely held.
John MacCarthy is ludicrous in his anti-Catholic diatribes. Notoriusly smearing with wilfull distortions of Catholic teachings.
#######################
MANY protestant non-fundamentalist scholars admit and endorse the Real Presence reality of the early Church belief.
More people (many ex-prostentant pastors) point to the Church fathers as the key reasons for coming back to a Eucharistic Church.
Here are the clear quotes of those fathers relied on in this website that point to their real belief.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#justin
I have spoken out against this phenomenon amongst bible-only fundamentalism as a form of false witness. While this website you offer may have elements of scholarship I think it has more of obfuscation than scholarship.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I acknowledge that Jesus himeself in John 6 sounds metaphorical in nature before he ramps up his dialogue to dispel this sense. And it works – His disciples leave him when they realized he is NOT being symbolic.
And further more John the apostle indicts Judas in John 6 for being of that group and leaves Jesus at the same place they left him John6:66
###############################################################
SELECTED PROTESTANT (NON-FUNDAMENTALIS SCHOLARS
Eight reputable Protestant scholarly sources to back up that there was virtual unanimity of belief in the Real Presence all through that early period.
If you read nothing else please not that famed protestant scholare wrote this:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood AT THE OUTSET, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1) Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:
The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.
2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:
By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.
3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:
The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .
In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim……
[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.
Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp.498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence “at the same time.” Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the “symbolic” utterances, which are able to be harmonized with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.
Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]
4) J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:
The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.
5) F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:
That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .
It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .
From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.
6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:
By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .
The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .
. . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .
Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .
The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .
Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . .
Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . ‘At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.’ [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.
7) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine’s Ennar 98:
One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood AT THE OUTSET, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
8) Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:
Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
rockypath1,
The development of Eucharistic theology parallels the development of Trinitarian theology. The belief in the real presence goes back to the Apostles, but it took time before the Church was able to articulate her understanding of the change which occurs during consecration. Similarly, the Apostles believed in the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit, but the terms “substance” and “person,” which come from Hellenistic philosophy, were employed later, when the Church deliberated upon and clarified her comprehension of the nature of God.
The three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in scripture, but their precise relationship is not discussed in depth. Moreover, the personality of the Holy Spirit is only implicit in the Bible. As Catholics, we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a revelation which God gave to the Church through her councils.
I always find it ironic that James White, when he debates Muslims, cites St. Ignatius of Antioch to defend the deity of Christ, yet that same Church Father believed in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. I mentioned this before but it is worth bringing up again.
Interesting, the early Reformers did not deny the real presence. Luther had a skewed view of it but the Evangelical notion of mere bread and wine is quite devolved from his. The main issue for the Reformation was the sacrificial character of the mass, which stems from Luther’s views on predestination, which eclipses the Church’s sacramental theology, denying that the sacraments, (the chief of which is the Eucharist and its sacrifice), avail for salvation.
Thanks Nicholas. Well said. I understand that Luther was quite disturbed at the rejection of the Real Presence Eucharist by Calvin et al.
I sent my last composition away without a thorough review. Mea Culpa.
Erratum
“If you read nothing else please NOTE that famed protestant scholar J.N.D. KELLY wrote this…
Bo,
And what does this website and this writers words really offer to you or anyone.
Could it prove that the early Church was never Real Presence?
Could this mans writings on Clement of Alexander and a few others provide comfort to you and those that cannot abide by the possibility that Real Presence Eucharistic celebration was at the centre of faith worship in the early Church because so that you do NOT have to adjust your ideas of faith action to be in accord with Gods actual revelation.
So was the early Church entirely Real Presence Eucharistic despite what the writer on your website offered?
If not when did the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches become Eucharistic centred in its worship and have it as the source and summit of their faith worship?
It must have been before the Catholic-Orthodox schism over a thousand years ago. Right?
By all evidence that one can provide, does not faith and secular history clearly show that the entire Church was Real Presence Eucharistic?
Would you follow then a man on some website who is able to bring argument against some early Church writer who may have discussed a few items in a metaphorical sense – as we all do. As Jesus did. But who also discussed things literally and actually.
Was God with the early Church (that mustard seed) that was more than evidently Real Presence Eucharistic?
Are we called to believe that this tradition (from “tradition” which means to hand down) was in fact from the apostles, who learned it from Jesus and was therefor sanctioned by God?
Did God NOT have that power to protect the teachings of what the entire Church actually believed until a few men came along in the 1500s and caused all to have so very much reset it all at THAT point.
You tell me what to make of it all and John 14:26 then.
“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Again I ask, was our God so ineffectual that the Holy Spirit actually did NOT have the power to keep us on the straight and narrow for 1500 years until a few (not so wholesome) men came along?
If He let Real Presence Eucharist slip in amongst the sheep and it was not true then why did Jesus bother at all?
It boggles the mind, does it not?
rockypath1,
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Did you read the link? It shows that the early church leaders did not believe in the real presence of Messiah in the elements. Your church tells you the opposite. So your chruch stands against what is said in scripture and against those that were closest to those that wrote the scriptures. It is not apostolic authority, but apostate authority that you follow.
Shalom
Holy smokes Bo.
Are you denying the historical fact that the Catholic and Othordox churches were Real Presence Eucharistic. Historic Reality.
There is nothing in that link which has the weight you think it does. I see your not the scholar I thought you were.
And you read NOTHING of what I gave you.
Read the early Church fathers for yourself and not the shameful obfuscator or onefole.wordpress. It is just that easy.
There is only a few Church fathers your link pseudo-scholar discusses and then he only choses some ambiguous metaphorical quotes of a very tine minority of early Church fathers who ALL were Real Presence Eucharistic- including the ones he uses (Clement of Alexandrai, Tertullian and Origen).
You begin to sound too much like the false witness persecutors I am used to on Youtube. How sad.
The early Church was unequivocally Real Presence Eucharistic.
This then from the apostles.
This from Jesus.
You cannot create your own false reality without jeopardizing your own salvation.
Rodkypath1,
You wrote:
“There is only a few Church fathers your link pseudo-scholar discusses and then he only choses some ambiguous metaphorical quotes of a very tine minority of early Church fathers who ALL were Real Presence Eucharistic- including the ones he uses (Clement of Alexandrai, Tertullian and Origen).”
I am wondering how these can be real presence people when their quotes in context show otherwise. But I am pretty sure that you will believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe whether or not history or the Bible says the same thing. Messiahs words concerning eating His flesh, in context, show that He was speaking metaphorically. And there is nothing elsewhere in the entire Bible that even hints at anyone thinking that it is real flesh and blood.
Shalom
Bo,
Secular history will verify that the early Church History was undeniably Real Presence Eucharist.
You only have to look at the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church history held this view. Do you think this came out of a vacuum. And developed in some latter day time.
Cherry picking a few early writers with a few ambiguous quotes can hardly negate the body of early Church writers who do NOT support the information given in your website information. I think this is called eisegesis. No?
When one tries to make reality (including authentic history) fit what they want rather than what is true and what God wants, well we get a lot of instability and 33,000 plus protestant denominations and growing rapidly.
This is NOT obedience to what the apostles taught.
I see you do not read what is in front of you out of fear but I will give support for Real Presence Eucharist in John 6. Symbolic? Impossible.
Bo,
SYMBOLIC COMMUNION LEADS TO DEATH FOR TAKING JESUS IN WHEN YOU ARE IN STATE OF SIN.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[b] without discerning the body,[c] eat and drink judgment against themselves.
Bo,
ROAD TO EMMAUS (Immediately after His resurrection)
28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us[f] while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and HOW HE HAD BEEN MADE KNOWN TO THEM IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD. (Luke 24:13-35).
The importance of the recognition of Jesus at the breaking of bread is obvious. The insight of the immediate post-resurrection occurrence by Jesus is not to be dismissed.
What is Luke saying here?
Rockypath1,
Joh 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.
Please note that in the above verses that you quote that we are not partaking of His death or even His physical body and blood, but are proclaiming His death until He comes. It also says that the cup is the new covenant in His blood, not that the wine in the cup is blood. Drinking in an unworthy manner has nothing to do with not believing that it is actual flesh and blood. It has to do with us examining/looking at ourselves, not us being able to see/discern real flesh and blood in the elements.
You left out a verse. We need to discern whether we are part of the body of Messiah, not that the bread is real flesh. We are partakes of that one bread, not real flesh.
1Cor 10
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
What the church has turned into communion and the Eucharist is really the age old Passover meal. Paul tells us to keep the feast of unleavened bread earlier in 1Coriinthians not some new communion thing.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
When we allow sin/leaven into the congregation, we eat and drink damnation to ourselves by partaking with them. We are not allowed to eat with unrepentant “believers.”
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
The Passover meal always carried a strict command and if eaten unworthily would cause sickness and death.
Ex 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
2Ch 30:18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one
19 That prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.
20 And the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.
Shalom
They recognized Messiah blessing the bread, not Messiah’s real flesh as the bread.
He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread, not His flesh being the bread or the bread being His flesh.
Bo et al.,
The early Church held the Real Presence of Jesus as the communion bread and wine (the Eucharist) as the central act of their faith gatherings. These were the acts of giving thanks, which is what Eucharist means.
The Eucharist is the undeniable sign of authentic faith that was declared symbolic by Calvin in the early 1500s and yet this (what Calvin did) is EXACTLY what Jesus stubbornly insisted was a false interpretation in His longest discourse on any one given subject – His Real Presence to come in our Communion bread and wine (John 6).
“VERY TRULY, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my FLESH and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is TRUE food and my blood is TRUE drink. Those who eat my FLESH and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” [John 6:53-56]
He employs a word in verse 53 that literally meant “gnawing on”, the way a wild animal gnaws on a bone. It loses its graphic realism when it is translated as “eat”. Why does he INTENSIFY the graphic realism of His statements by saying unless you GNAW on My flesh and lap up My blood, you have no life in you. Because he means them to understand the realism of it and to reject the meaphoric/symbolic understanding they had started with.
(PLEASE NOTE: the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is SARX, which means specifically and only “physical FLESH.” Aramaic scholars indicate that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used. That is why the KJV versions also uses the word flesh. Why would Jesus use the word flesh. That may be a dead give away.)
Jesus makes no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. The AUDIENCE understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.
If they had misunderstood or mistook him then WHY no correction?
Many of his disciples left him at this moment and it seems this is also where JUDAS left him (lost his faith) as Jesus brings him into the discussion at the point where the unfaithful disciples abandon Him The teaching on this were just too hard for them. Yes they left him because they KNEW he meant it.
John 6:64-69.
The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the ONE THAT WOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God”
Look now. In these words we see that the apostles stick with Jesus though totally bewildered. It was only after the last supper and His Resurrection that they really understood HOW he could and would be consumed as a Real Presence – in the communion bread and wine – the Eucharist.
And this is why they taught this truth to the early Church.
And this is why the entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.
And this is the most unshakable litmus test that points to the TRUE path.
If you are not in a Eucharistic Church You are outside the FULLNESS of His Divine Will.
LOOK AT THE TWO SEPARATE REFERENCES to JUDAS IN THIS CHAPTER. WHY, WHY, WHY? Why do they occur in the context of the devastating abandonment by his disciples.
And remember Jesus makes no attempt to correct
any misunderstanding here.
He lets them leave because they finally understand Him correctly. He was NOT being metaphorical. This is proven by their abandonment (John 6:66), proven by the apostles bewilderment and proven by the warning Jesus is giving those who will reject Him in the Real Presence by bringing up Judas at this time.
ON JUDAS
Immediately before the unfaithful disciples abandon him because of His insistence that they must eat his body and drink His blood (as spiritual food). To be understood as Spiritual derived. BUT NOT symbolic.
64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him [John 6:64).
John 6 finishes with what? Oddly it finishes with a final reference to JUDAS the ultimate betrayer (like those who JUST betrayed him in the Eucharist).
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him.” [JOHN 6:70]
The bringing up of Judas in this most significant of bible chapters is a clear enough warning for those who also want to abandon Jesus in His Real Presence Eucharist.
Look again at the how Peter and the apostles were clueless, dazed and bewildered but DID NOT leave him.
This was the obedient action that is pointed to.
After the last supper (PASSOVER) institution of Communion eating and drinking of the body and blood and after the resurrection of our Lord and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we have the reason why the apostles accepted and taught Real Presence Eucharistic faith to the early Church.
This is why the apostle taught it.
This is why the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So WHY how can someone interpret Jesus as being entirely metaphorical, totally symbolic?
At the beginning or John 6 this is what everyone was thinking He was doing – being metaphorical.
But He did NOT let it stand at this and went on to frame the entire dialogue as a factual and literal eating of his flesh and blood in a spiritual (non-symbolic) reality that they would NOT accept.
So they abandoned him. Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly. Of course He did.
[Except the unfaithful disciples of John 6:66 and then Calvin and Zwingli some 1500 years later.]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING PASSAGE John 6:62
Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Here Jesus seems to be saying “how are you going to deal with me levitating into heaven if you cannot allow for God’s power and ability to accomplish such anti-natural states.
Bo,
Given the unshakable fact that the entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic, we must assume by the power of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the apostles that this is TRULY what Jesus wanted for us. This is what HE gave us. Everything else is obfuscation and disobedience.
Peace brother.
CHURCH FATHERS ON THE EUCHARIST
Background information on Real Presence Eucharitic celebration.
Especially take note of Clement below.
We know the Church Fathers were REAL PRESENCE EUCHARISTIC because this would have been part of their orthodoxy and obedience. The Church demands four major characteristics to be exhibited in the life and works of an early Church leader if he is to be considered a Father of the Church. These are antiquity, meaning that he lived before the eighth century (the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] ); doctrinal orthodoxy; personal sanctity; and approval by the Church.
By the way Tertullian and Origen did not quite stand up to the Orthodox part, especially Tertullian.
Also please note, especially if you do not read or retain any of the information on the Church Fathers or the Ecliasastical Writers below, that one of your own famous and respected Protestant scholar and historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Mr. Kelly knew the Church Fathers well. Though he acknowledged the early church belief I do not know if he personally agreed with it. No matter.
********************************
DIDACHE
Before Clement, the Didache (a liturgical manual circa A.D. 70), stated, “On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.
********************************
IGNATIUS of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [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]).
********************************
JUSTIN MARTYR
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
********************************
IRENAEUS
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
********************************
CLEMENT of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
[“Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement’s teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement’s rule of faith was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church’s tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting “the ecclesiastical rule”, but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm%5D
[“Clement explains that the Lord feeds Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds her infant child from her own body: ‘The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye My flesh,” He says, “and drink ye My blood.” This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.’ [Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38) http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num29.htm%5D
********************************
TERTULLIAN
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
********************************
HIPPOLYTUS
“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
********************************
ORIGEN
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
********************************
CYPRIAN of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and condemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
********************************
COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325 AD)
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
********************************
APHRAAHAT the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested.” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
********************************
CYRIL of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
********************************
AMBROSE of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
********************************
THEODORE of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
********************************
AUGUSTINE
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
********************************
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
rodkypath1,
“Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly[?]”
He was such a great teacher that He could spell out exactly what He meant and still puprposely keep people from understanding Him. And then clarify to His disciples with sayings like “the flesh profiteth nothing.”
Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
And you only quoted half of this verse:
Joh 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.
“The flesh profiteth nothing” is in direct reference to Messiah’s discourse on eating His flesh. He explained Himself privately to His closest disciples and most of the others left, precisely because they were left with the misunderstanding that they would have to become cannibals. “Eating His flesh” is gaining spiritual nourishment from hearing His words and putting them into practice.
Joh 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
PASSOVER and eating the UNBLEMISHED LAMB.
The Jews celebrate Passover as a commemoration of their liberation over 3,300 years ago by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their birth as a nation under the leadership of Moses.
God (through Moses) forced Egypt to let them go by killing the first born sons of all the Egyptians.
Recall that the Hebrew sons were spared when (as directed) the Jewish families marked the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a slaughtered and UNBLEMISHED SPRING LAMB. The Angel of death then passed over these homes, hence the name passover.
BUT they would not have been saved if they had not followed all they were told to do in order to complete the mystery,
The Hebrews HAD TO eat the lamb.
Jesus IS the unblemished lamb. This is the obvious prophetic reality of the Passover that is not lost on any Christian. Right?
Passover and their safety from the angel of death coming into their house depended on one final action.
They MUST eat the lamb. Our lord in the bread and wine. The Eucharist.
In order to facilitate our own salvation we also MUST eat the lamb.
Rockypath1,
According to your dates above, it looks to me like the first time real presence was believed was more than a 100 years after Messiah. A lot of false doctrine can infiltrate in a 100 years. A lot of paganism can be assimilated.
The Scriptures contain nothing of this “real presence” doctrine, so it is obvious that the Roman church and many others were apostate from a very early on. (See Revelation chapters 2 and 3)
Acts 20
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Paul taught the word of YHWH and then commended the disciples to “the word of His grace” and not to a real presence doctrine. Grievous wolves entered in early. The enemy planted tares among the good wheat. The kingdom of heaven was corrupted from shortly after the apostles. Real presence and “communion” replaced the true celebration of Passover and unleavened bread that Paul told us to keep.
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“In order to facilitate our own salvation we also MUST eat the lamb.”
Yes, not literally, but just as Messiah told us to…by hearing His words and putting them into practice. And by realizing that the flesh profiteth nothing.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
You CLEARLY REJECT this.
Only one Church teaches the same thing from the inception of our faith from Jesus, down through years through ALL generations for the sake and salvation of ALL.
Who are the wolves but those who deny Jesus in the Eucharist and have led so very, very many away in disobedience and error. 33,000 protestant denominations teaching significantly different doctrine can’t be wrong! Really. The signs are there. The WOLVES are known. Are YOU a wolf Bo, with your radically different messianic faith. You bet. As you lead people away from apostolic teaching and obfuscate history and scripture.
Eucharist. Clearly supported by biblically and by Holy Tradition.
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15)
“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2).
Sola Scriptura. Non biblical and heretical. Latter day development from Luther in 1500s. Leading 100s of millions into confusion and false faith, abomination (Hypergrace) (rejection of Eucharist) (rejection of Church authority).
Bo, God may lead you to truth by his grace in His good time and yours.
But it is evident that you choose passages to support your ideas and your new traditions and reject the traditions firmly established by the apostles.
This is cafeteria Christianity and really took off in the 1500s.
To seek His truth and being open to the movement of His grace we must be of goodwill and obedient to Him and not our own assumptions and make-believe history.
Perhaps someday the seeds planted on this day will take root.
May God be with you.
rockypath1,
you wrote:
“John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
You CLEARLY REJECT this.
Only one Church teaches the same thing from the inception of our faith from Jesus, down through years through ALL generations for the sake and salvation of ALL.”
No, I clearly accept it and duly note that not one time did the Holy Spirit direct the apostles to teach that there is real presence in the bread and wine. There is not one recorded word in scripture that says such a thing. The only church that teaches such a thing started well over a hundred years after Messiah. It is the harlot in Revelation. Mystery Babylon. It teaches Messiah’s servants to eat things offered to idols and to commit spiritual fornication in the very same tradition that the pagans did using the same symbols of idolatry.
You wrote:
““Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15)
“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2).”
And none of those traditions contain any mention of real presence but do ask us to keep the Biblical feasts of YHWH instead of pagan styled communion and false sabbaths.
You wrote:
“Bo, God may lead you to truth by his grace in His good time and yours.
But it is evident that you choose passages to support your ideas and your new traditions and reject the traditions firmly established by the apostles.”
I do not “choose passages” to support my ideas. I quote them to you and you do not accept what they say. You have ears, but hear not. You have eyes that see not. My traditions are not new, but are as old as creation. They are mentioned in the very beginning of the Bible. Yours are not even mentioned in the Bible. There is no Easter and xmas and lent and Sunday sabbath anywhere in scripture. I do not have cafeteria christianity. Protestantism may have this problem to greater and lessor degree, but I do not. I accept every word of YHWH. I hear every word of Messiah including, “the flesh profiteth nothing.” The Catholic church is based only on the doctrines of mere men that have twisted the truth to align with pagan idolatry and continues to reject the scripture in actuality.
The scripture is the words of the apostles and prophets and is what the Spirit speaks to us. Since the Catholic church rejects what is contained in the Scripture, it rejects true faith. It has changed the times and laws of YHWH and is thus antichrist. The mother of harlots.
Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
History has no instance of real presence for well over a hundred years. It is on my side. It shows that real presence was invented much later by false teachers.
There is time for you to repent. May it be soon.
Shalom
rockypath1,
John 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.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
The people in Messiah’s day that heard Him say to eat His flesh and drink His blood had the good sense to not follow someone that would teach this literally. The disciples had the good sense enough to continue to follow Him once He told them that it was a metaphor. They followed Him because he had the words of life, not because His physical flesh and blood would be literal food.
But what of the church system that thinks that He was being literal and still claims to follow Him? What of the people that go along with this? It is not good sense. It is paganism. It is mystery religion…mystery Babylon. It teaches a false Messiah…a cannibal…a pagan entity.
Shalom
There is a profound satanic delusion amongst your assemblies Bo. You show extraordinary ignorance (in the truest sense of the dictionary definition). You know nothing of the early Church and yet you hate her.
But this is the Church founded by Jesus, and it is His body.
You cannot hate Jesus and profess to love him too. It is nonsensical.
Irenaeus writes (in the 2nd century),
“Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.” (Against Heresies, 3:3)
and…
Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:
“All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
and…
The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge.
So Clement of Rome writes:
The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/stewards-of-the-kingdom
Bo,
JUST WHY DID JESUS CHANGE THE NAME SIMON TO ROCK?
# We KNOW that when God changes someones name it is for a covenantal type reason? Right Bo. You cannot deny this. Or can you?
There is only one reason. Remember Bo, Jesus is God and He knew what he was going to do with Mr. Rock.
You and bible-only Christians offer a lot of vague texts that you think gives you some legitimacy and then gloss over the critical, ground-shaking ones texts like Matthew 16:16-19. Why is that?
There is just too much in the grammar and context that will not allow for any other interpretation than that Peter HIMSELF was the central element of Matthew 16. Yes it is true that it is Peter’s revelation of truth that has Jesus declaring the following.
“But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Two things:
1) Jesus has already changed Simon’s name to ROCK (John 1:42) in anticipation of this authorization as head of the Church (for all generations). To say it was about “revelation” and not Peter (Rock) is to obfuscated the obvious play on words here.
2) If it was not about Peter then we would not have Jesus giving him (Peter) and ONLY Peter the keys of authority and the powers to bind and loose.
To give the rename Simon to “Rock” indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority
Lets step back a little.
*******************
It was very significant that Jesus renames Peter to Rock in that there must be a reason. Surely Jesus had a reason and a good reason for doing this. He was just not handing out a nickname for a bit of fun or like something that might be done as some high school high-jinx.
We know that God had a reason for the names that were changed in the Old Testament and this points to why Jesus did what he did (And surely Jesus foresaw the future of Peter’s name change and the contention of it and that of matthew 16):
Gen 17:5 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram…thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.”
Gen 32:28 “And He said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel”. Jacob founder – twelve tribes of Israel.
These name changes were outward signs of covenants made that would last forever. And just as these were signs of a promise made so is Simon-Peters name change an indication of something to come – and something that would last down through time.
John 1:42 “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kepha (Cephas) (Rock).”
Now Peter himself is not so much the direct recipient of this name change as is the new covenant church – in Peter’s authoritative role or position.
And again please remember, besides the change of name, Jesus unequivocally gives something else to Simon-Peter that is unique – the Keys of the Kingdom.
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Matthew 16:19]
This refers back to Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim as steward of the royal House of David was essentially the prime minister (or steward) of the kingdom. In charge of the Kingdom when the King is away.
“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” [Isaiah 22:22].
Peter himself then is commissioned to become the steward (the Prime Minister) of a kingdom. And while the King is away he has the authority to wield the King’s power. Peter’s authoritative role will continue as the keys of the prime minister are always passed along.
So is the promise inherent in Peter’s new name (and these keys) fulfilled? There is only one unique body that can fulfill this – the new covenant church (the Catholic Church).
*********************
Yes the element of “revealed truth” (revelation) that Peter was inspired to speak was revealed by His “Father in heaven” and it is just this inspiration of truthful revelation that is to be inherent in the steady hand of Peter and his successors down through all generations.
Matthew 16
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven”
Peter and his successors would keep the teachings of the Church inviolate and in accordance with God’s will forever. This is critical. And ALL believers must be obedient to this or the Church will be splintered and many will become confused.
By denying the role of Peter is to set your own self up as the purveyor of inspired truth – and I just don’t see that in the bible – or as a possible source of reliability.
There is more in the bible that refers to Peter and his EXTREMELY prominent capacity. Its very remarkable Bo.
Jesus used certain words to instruct (ordain the apostles) to perform the Eucharistic Celebration. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”
This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term “priest” is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for “elder,” as any dictionary will confirm. In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholics elders.
Titus 1:5 (KJV), Paul tells Titus: ” For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” The Douay Rheims versions (the Catholic KJV) say priests not elders.
James 5:14-15 says: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
Akin’s insight from James 5 is that New Testament priesthood is a sacramental priesthood. (A sacrament is an outward, physical means that communicate God’s grace to us.) We have the priests of the church – that is, the presbyters or “elders” of the church – distributing the sacrament of holy anointing. The priests come in, anoint the sick person with oil, and pray over him so that he might be raised up and forgiven any sins he has committed.
John 20:21-23
Another sacrament the elders (priests) of the Church administer. Jesus says “Receive the Holy Spirit. . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” John 20:22: “Receive the Holy Spirit. When Jesus commissions his ministers to forgive sins, he tells them to “Receive the Holy Spirit” and then breathes on them. [John 20:22]
This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands IS ORDINATION.
2 Tim 1:6
We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.”
1 Tim 4:14
Paul tells Timothy that he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”
Part of Timothy’s duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain priests (elders) in different congregations
1 Tim. 5:19-22
“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”
Akin states “Timothy, as well as Titus and other early evangelist-bishops, carried out this ministry of ordaining priests, and the result is what we have today in the Catholic Church: a sacramental priesthood with a chain of ordinations running straight back to the first century, whose links can be clearly documented from Church history.”
PRIEST
The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.”
BISHOPS
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), andi t means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel.
Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions
rockypath1,
I love the real early church that is explained in scripture. The false Babylon harlot church that solidified as the Roman Catholic church…that I do not love. You mistake the two. It is obvious from Catholic doctrine that they have supplanted true doctrine. The changes are obvious. You continue to quote from those that were many, many generations removed from the apostles as some kind of proof that Catholicism is the early church. No one is fooled by this except those that want to be fooled.
Shalom
Bo,
It is you that mistakes the two. There is some kind of fake Berean, made-up history (non-history) of an early Church that no one takes seriously except for those who want so badly to create a legitimate foundation where one is otherwise completely lacking. Is that you Bo.
I have tested your waters and I find you are mostly part of the false witness camp of believers that is sadly all to common amongst the bible-only believers. By your comments you might be quite at home with those who delight in claiming that hundreds aborted fetuses are found in the sewers of convents or child sacrifices occur in the basements of Catholic Churches. I am just as likely to hear the same stuff you are starting to reveal on this all too common of venue at the following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ie46V2wfw
A very common phenomenon and one the relies on fake credential, make belief history and absurd pseudo-scholarship such as Jack Chick. I thought you had more going for you than that. It is more of the persecution variety than anything.
WHO IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON
When the Whore falls we read, “‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth” (Rev 18:20 and 24).
So, the Whore could not be the Catholic Church because 1) it did not exist to kill the old testament prophets and
2) No blood is on the Churches hand with respect to any Apostle.
Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10). Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century and BEFORE.
WHO KILLED THE PROPHETS
Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
Rev 17:5 “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus….”
Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
Rev 18:10 “Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.”
Rev 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her.’
SO WHO IS BABYLON – THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES
ANSWER
REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM
NOT ROME!
Passages of Revelation pertaining to the whore or the harlot makes sense when it is referring to ancient PAGAN Rome but make no sense when Fundamentalists try to associate it with modern Rome. The passage says that the Whore will have power over kings. Modern Rome has no power over modern “kings”, in fact there are almost no kings left in the world. Nor does the Church (which rests on Vatican hill outside of the 7 hills of Rome) have power over political leaders, otherwise ABORTION, PORNOGRAPHY, and HOMOSEXUALITY with HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE would not be legal in the civilized world. Revelation says that the whore was the center of commerce. (Rev 18:17-19) No economist today will say that modern Rome or the church is a leader in commerce. The US, Japan, etc are. However, ancient Pagan Rome was a leader in commerce.
The Vatican is on Vatican hill and outside the 7 hills of Rome that that city is built on.
And it MUST be noted the bibles including the KJV translate it not as hill but as mountain.
Revelation 17:9
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Jerusalem is built on 7 mounts.
One source, http://jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/rev-13.html, lists the seven, and explains a bit more of why some authors list different mountains, and includes a map: 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion.
The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are (according to wikipedia): Scopus, Nob, Olivet, “Mount of Corruption” or “Mount of Offence”, “Mount Zion”, the “Ophel Mount” and the new “Mount Zion.”
Or perhaps interpetations are far more complex than the followers of Jack Chick might expect,
Who knows? Perhaps the 7 mountains refer to the 7 continents. Perhaps the harlot is in fact apostate Christianity of a protestant variety. It may not hurt to look at all the possibility but NO ONE should go about insisting that their interpretation against another faith is correct. It is too convoluted with too many possibilities.
And no one should contradict scripture in their assertions. Like you are doing Bo.
7 MISSING BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE (Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha))
If Bible-only Christians admit that the early Eucharistic Church was somehow in fact guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing the correct (inspired) gospels and letters from amongst the many available at the time, then how can they say the seven books removed by Luther were NOT inspired?
To say the early Eucharistic Church included these 7 books in error is to say that any other book accepted in the original bible canon might NOT be inspired either. Or that one of the other texts left out might have actually been inspired.
Did it take the Holy Spirit 1300 years before He could get Luther to correct the error that He originally let slip in?
IN FACT, to say the Eucharistic Church made an error in compiling the bible is to say the Holy Spirit was not active in the selection of the correct books, gospels and letters and therefore we can have NO certainty of the inspiration (validity) of ANY book contained in the New Testament.
To say the early Eucharistic Church was not the Catholic Church is an absurdity and is only done to create a false historical reality in order to justify ones own foundation – if that were possible.
********************************
BACKGROUND
Through a process of intense discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the successors of the Apostles determined in the fourth century which of the writings of their day were Sacred Tradition—the “Word of God”—and which were not inspired writings of the Church.
The canon of Scripture was first affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.
7 MISSING BOOKS in Protestant bible
Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Sirach), Tobias, Judith, Baruch, First and Second Machabees.
The 7 books were part of the Greek Septuagint used by NT writers. Jesus probably used it. There is much evidence for this and it is widely accepted. As for reference from the 7 books compare Hebrews 11:35 with 2 Maccabees 7). And others cross references too.
Rockypath1,
You have a problem. The mother of harlots has daughters…lots of them. They are the very protestant churches that you call wolves. The mother that begat them is Rome…Papal Rome. You confess that the protestant churches are whores and fail to recognize their Mother.
I have not brought up anything about history that you have not mentioned. I have made no claims regarding the atrocities that you have mentioned. They may be true or they may not be true. One thing has been becoming quite clear though, Catholic priests have a homosex and pedophilia problem. There are historic accounts concerning the immorality of Catholic priests going way back and they continue to the present. Then there are the indulgences and the inquisition and and and…
Of all the well meaning people that are Catholics, it is a shame that they are devoted to a system that produces so much evil and superstition. A system that hijacked the true faith. There is good reason that the first 100 years of the church have no historic accounts that demonstrate a link to Roman Catholicism. It does not exist. Roman Catholicism congeals out of much apostasy and becomes the world antimessiah religion with Constantine.
But we digress. As to the topic of real presence bread and wine. The scripture does not support it. History before 150 does not support it. All you claims have been proven false.
You wrote:
“Jesus used certain words to instruct (ordain the apostles) to perform the Eucharistic Celebration. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”
Hmmmm!??
The Catholic Douay Rheims translation does not even do that. There is nothing about sacrifice in the passage. Nothing about offering.
Luke 22
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Douay Rheims)
You are grasping at straws. Flesh profits nothing.
John 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.
Shalom
rockypath1,
You said (way up there somewhere!): “He employs a word in verse 53 that literally meant “gnawing on”, the way a wild animal gnaws on a bone. It loses its graphic realism when it is translated as “eat”. Why does he INTENSIFY the graphic realism of His statements by saying unless you GNAW on My flesh and lap up My blood, you have no life in you. Because he means them to understand the realism of it and to reject the meaphoric/symbolic understanding they had started with.”
I think what’s going on here is that the Lord is equating Himself with the Passover Lamb that the Israelites celebrated as indicative of the Exodus. They were to eat “all of it” and brush the blood on the lintels and doorpost. None was to step outside of the protective barrier of their residence or they would be destroyed. There was to be “none left over until morning” but each was to prepare and eat only as much as they needed. So, in following the command, I imagine they actually did “gnaw” on the bone to dispose of it.
I believe that’s the equation He’s drawing on when He uses the analogy of eating and drinking of the Son of Man.
Every Jew would have equated the Passover with coming out of Egypt. Jesus says, I am that Lamb of God and I am that Judge who will “pass-over” your sins and preserve your life by giving mine. If you do not have me in your inward parts, you have no life in you. The passover lamb would most likely have hearkened back to the substitute given to Abraham in place of Isaac also.
Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ and of us receiving the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. This is given upon our Confession of Faith and not during the taking of communion. It was during Pentacost that the Holy Spirit fell on those present. I don’t see where the sharing of bread and wine is of more importance than that of the communion of the saints remembering the Lord’s suffering for our sins as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” That some were sick when eating it, being unworthy, makes sense without the supernatural transposition of the literal body of Christ. They were there to gorge themselves and were eating in the wrong spirit, rather than of remembrance of Christ as the Passover Lamb. They weren’t right with God when they partook of it.
That’s how I understand it.
Messiah is present in all of the Jews Feast days and He is especially present in the Passover. Notice He refers to Himself as “the Son of Man.” To use that description is to equate Himself with the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7 who “rides upon the clouds” and is “brought before the Ancient of Days” (the Father) in Heaven. Those verses in Daniel is the litmus test to the divinity of Messiah and to His being the ultimate Judge of the world whose Kingdom is an everlasting one. In fact, the Son of Man is more important in establishing His divinity than the expression, the “Son of God.”
Anyway, the communion of Saints is another way of coming together as One in Messiah in remembrance of His death for our sins; His “body broken for us” and His “blood shed for the remission of our sins.” There’s no need for transubstantiation.
After saying that, I do understand that the tradition you’ve embraced, or, perhaps even grown up in, has elaborated on that belief to your satisfaction, apparently, and you’re convinced of it’s truth. I hope you come to understand the way in which I’ve come to appreciate the Passover meal. It’s a gathering in appreciation and remembrance of Messiah as a sacrifice for us.
I don’t see where it’s a matter of salvation to believe one way or another and if you believe otherwise, perhaps I missed that part. I admit that I haven’t read every post in the conversation yet. I’ve been trying to catch up on another conversation and to work up my response there, so, I’ve had to leave off responding to other posts.
Thanks! And may the Lord richly bless you in your service of Him!
Sheila,
I think that rockypath1 thinks that not believing that the elements become the physical flesh and blood of Messiah constitutes not discerning the body of Messiah and therefore it is eating and drinking damnation to yourself. If I am correct, he thinks it is an issue of salvation. But of course he would probably not think that a protestant could bless the elements so that they become the physical body and blood because they have not had hands laid on them from the Catholic church. So maybe protestants do not have to worry about eating and drinking damnation, because they are already damned because they do not partake of the body and blood of Messiah. Maybe he will elaborate.
Shalom
So, Bo, do you agree with what I wrote out? I didn’t want to offend anyone.
Bo,
You have got to do better than this bizarre interpretion of Verse 63. Its a stale old chestnut that has no merit for your position. Just the opposite.
John 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.
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
bo/shiela
I would not say anyone is damned for not having the sacraments given by Jesus. But they are certainly uniquely efficacious toward sanctification and therefore towards the goal of salvation.
I believe in the saving grace of Jesus but see a paradox in what Jesus says for those who believe in his death on the cross and yet reject his body and blood in the bread and wine.
Jesus said
“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
NOTE: the “Truly truly” or “verily, verily” is a rabbinic method for saying what is about to follow is literally true.
I gave the biblical evidence that shows the development of the Catholic ministerial priesthood (bishops and priesthood). And the Eucharistic sacrament is certainly the prime mover of this necessity.
No it is unfathomable (and unbiblical) that just any believer could consecrate the bread and wine. (It is done by the work of the Holy Spirit and not by the power of any human/priest.)
I would note here also that the reason there are so very many incorrupt saints in the Catholic Church is meant as a sign of the truth of this holy sacrament. If any think satan has this power they are in error and in jeopardy of blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Bo,
You have created a fallacious straw man of the Catholic Church that is easier for you to believe and therefore very easy for you to knock down.
For the sake of your own credibility you may want to NOT take fundamentalist talking points too seriously.
I am baffled that you are still able to think that the early Church was not entirely Real Presence Eucharistic. Did you really read my historic posts or those who are not Catholic? Did you really do your own research?
IGNATIOUS of ANTIOCH was a student of JOHN the APOSTLE and this holy martyr is clear (and VERY EARLY CHURCH):
Referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, JUSTIN MARTYR, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).
THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!
THIS then IS an apostolic tradition if nothing else.
And I think I would take the opinion of highly respected protestant early Church scholar Church J. N. D. Kelly more than than your anti-Catholic website you offered. In his humility and integrity he acknowledges:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
And I gave many others who agree. They have done their homework and are men of honor. They are above creating false realities.
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation.
There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Shiela,
I understand your ideas but my conclusions are based on the historical fact that the early Church was entirely Real Presence Eucharistic.
This certainly edifies John 6 but John 6 stands well enough alone.
“Very truly I say …” A rabbinic declaration that what follow is to be taken literally.
His references to Judas are powerful indicators of betrayal. It is a warning not to betray him as the unfaithful disciples did in John 6:66..
His reference to the ascension as an indicator of Gods power to enact what He says no matter how we in our limited capacity cannot accept it.
Peter accepts it in the name of the apostles though he clearly does not get it. Obedience and faith.
Jesus is not backing down. He never does. He ramps it up until the squeak and then abandon Him. He would not do this in order to proclaim the metaphorical nature of his flesh. That was the easy thing to understand and that is what they wanted to accept. He did not let them but took them to a higher spiritual place.
With his death and resurrection. And with Pentecost we now have a fuller acceptance (by his disciples) of His meaning and intentions.
We Catholics believe because this is what He gave us to partake of.
And it was certainly given by the apostles or that sacred tradition would not have existed.
I can not see the logic in a just a metaphorical interpretation given this historical reality.
Surely Sheila you must recognize the reality of what was always believed and guarded by the early Church – for ALL generations.
Do you also really think that the reformers were giving the true apostolic truth then?
Where the heck did they get their authority. Luther was Real Presence Eucharistic but Calvin took precedence on this issue. Why? Do you really think that the Church was apostate until these new traditions were developed 1500 years later.
You do know that there is NO support for Sola Scriptura in the bible?
You know in a very real sense, the Mormons take the same stand. They would also say that God had not the power to protect the truest teaching He gave to the apostles. The all was apostate from the get-go. That all those centuries the people were lost, confused or deluded. For the Mormons an angel descended and gave them reconstituted truth after 2000 years of Catholic corruption.
What we have is a principle that basically says John 14:26 was NOT true and that God was basically ineffectual.
“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
This I will not believe.
I gave more on some of this above.
Once I noted that Bo was not actually reading the supporting information and held the same simplistic hostile anti-Catholic fundamentalists views, I just gave some of most critical supporting information I had and was ready to leave the page. So I gave he biblical roots for the ministerial priesthood and why it is important. And I gave some minor information on the Church who had the Divine infallible authority to discern the canon of the bible but not the charism to do anything else except to be foul and apostate. Something is wrong with this notion.
Thanks for you peaceful discussion Sheila. May Gods blessing be upon you. And Bo too 😉
Garry
Thanks for that, Garry. As I said I didn’t read all of the discussion but will go back now and tackle it since you put so much effort into it. I apologize for that.
You said, “You do know that there is NO support for Sola Scriptura in the bible?”
I have to differ with you on that point. The Bible is God’s revelation of His self and of the coming of Messiah. It’s a God breathed document from beginning to end. Also, in the New Testament we have Paul stating “2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
That’s Sola Scriptura if I ever heard it!
Thank you for a good and civil discussion too!
rockypath1.
You wrote:
“THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!”
Muslims die for their faith too. It does not mean that they believe the correct things. What is the date of the first solid belief in real presence?
Sheila,
I can’t argue with the fact that scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
However, it is too much to say that scripture has authority over the Church. Or that any human being, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has his/her own personal authority when it comes to doctrine or moral behavior. Examples and history show otherwise – to potential mass confusion.
One must be obedient first to the Church and authority and its God-given traditions.
We know that Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation has led to many thousands of splinters and many grave interpretations such as hypergrace (OSAS) vs sanctification. We see the Southern Baptist and Seventh Day Adventist (and others) allowing for abortion. Some assemblies accept homosexual behavior as okay.
Jesus said, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat18:17-18]
Luke 10:16
“He who hears YOU hears ME. He who rejects YOU rejects Me
Ephesians 5:27
27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.
1 Timothy 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
2 Peter 1:20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
2 Peter 3:14-17
14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
Thank you for elevating my own discussion Sheila by your goodwill.
I cannot say that this gives NO
rockypath1.
You wrote:
“THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!”
Muslims die for their faith too. It does not mean that they believe the correct things. What is the date of the first solid belief in real presence? Please give the quote and the date of its writing.
Bo,
Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.
The testimony of the early Church stands and is clear for those who are obedient to what the apostles gave.
What else is THIS belief except for what the apostles taught. This did not come from thin air. This is the God-breathed Church testimony.
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat 18:17-18]
Go ask Ignatius who learned his faith at the foot John who saw our Lord crucified and who spoke with Him after His resurrection and who wrote John 6 etc. If you do not believe Jesus, the apostles and the early Church testimony what more can be offered.
You have your own agenda and this takes precedence. You are looking to every latter day concretion that gives you permission to obscure what was conveyed from the start. Apostolic faith. From Jesus. Guided by the Holy Spirit. For ALL generations. It can’t get any simpler or more obvious.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus has been called the most important witness of the Christianity in the 2nd century. Taught by Polycarp, who had been instructed by John the apostle, Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons in 178 CE. In his Against the Heresies, Irenaeus wrote, “Although there are many dialects in the world, the force of the tradition is one and the same. For the same faith is held and handed down by the churches established in the German states, the Spains, among the Celtic tribes, in the East, in Libya, and in the central portions of the world…” In Book 3, Irenaeus continues his defense of the unity of the church around the bishop, writing, “By pointing out the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has been brought down to our time by successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient, and well known church, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome, we can confound all who in any other way… gather more than they ought.”
rockypath1,
I just want the earliest reference, and its date, that is obviously real presence directly stated from someone that was not an apostle.
Bo,
If you are sincerely interested in the truth you will find that information for yourself.
You have been given enough now to discern the truth of it all.
rockypath1,
In other words…you and I both know that the idea real presence is at least 2 generations removed from the apostles and that no apostle taught such a thing. You do not want to publish the what I asked for because it is damning to the Catholic Church’s position. There is no true continuance between the Apostles doctrine and Catholic doctrine on this matter and many, many more.
Shalom
rockypath1,
And I have read the early Church fathers over and over. I know a bit about the topic. I have found the truth. I was just hoping that you would admit the truth to yourself even if you could not admit it to us.
Shalom