Eucharist - Flesh & Blood?

[DrBubbaLove]

St. Paul simply overwhelmed and tried to overshadow the semi-literate apostles to dominate the Jerusalem Church. He started the first division and went on his own to the Gentiles exclusively though Jesus had asked him to reach out to all including children of Israel.



It cannot be any other than the preaching of Jesus. One has to abide in Him, not submerged by the self-proclamations of a person who had not experienced the ministry of Jesus and had no idea of the sublime words of Jesus.

So the claim/opinion being expressed is Saint Paul was so busy converting people to "his version" of Christianity that no one was able to respond for 1500 years?
How that makes sense to claim am not sure.
Whether claiming it or not, one making such accusations about Saint Paul and his writing/teachings is fully submerged in the self-proclamations of men that began about 500 years ago - and is an opinion that is fortunately fading among Protestants.

 

[Righttruth]

So the claim/opinion being expressed is Saint Paul was so busy converting people to "his version" of Christianity that no one was able to respond for 1500 years?
How that makes sense to claim am not sure.
Whether claiming it or not, one making such accusations about Saint Paul and his writing/teachings is fully submerged in the self-proclamations of men that began about 500 years ago - and is an opinion that is fortunately fading among Protestants.

Catholics have been preserving the writings very meticulously right from the very beginning. But basically they were shelved with a few compiled into a big book called Bible. Nobody bothered much since they were immersed in traditions. Protestantism opened up the books, that is, a phenomenon that began just about 500 years ago. It has taken time to assimilate these things and wrong focus has been questioned. Matters become simple if you go back to the roots, that is, the four books of the Gospel.

Giving importance to appendix leads to appendicitis. That has happened with Protestantism! Paul's compromising theories looked great for Gentiles and Pagans who easily embraced for convenience! It did not work with Jews who were well versed with God's words. So Paul chose for good a responding audience keeping away the essence of the preaching of Jesus! He hardly exhibits the commandments of Jesus in his letters.

 

[Hank77]

Luke didn't record Lord teaching him. Instead, he only records audaciously that the Lord was pleading him not to persecute Him.

Act 9:13 And Ananias answered, `Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many evils he did to Thy saints in Jerusalem,
Act 9:14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests, to bind all those calling on Thy name.'
Act 9:15 And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings--the sons also of Israel;
Act 9:16 for I will shew him how many things it behoveth him for My name to suffer.'
So now you would call Ananias a liar as well. Major conspiracy going on it seems. Paul, Luke, Peter, Ananias, etc.

Does he think that not seeking support is a kind of injustice? What was he talking here?

Para...If taking nothing from you is proof that I am not for you, then forgive me for this injustice to you.
In other words, it does not make any sense to accuse him of being self-serving (injustice to them) when he hadn't taken anything from them. Therefore, they must think that not taking anything from them was an injustice to them. He was pointing out how nonsensical the false prophets accusations were against him and they were not thinking rationally to believe it.

This is the worst thinking of Paul who had no experience as a parent. It is children who should support and honor parents. Jesus condemns those who avoid that.

The Apostle John also calls the people, 'my little children'. This is how Paul thinks of them, as though they are children that he should be care for. Not giving them an inheritance in earthly goods but spiritual truths.

Jesus taught against Korbin. Children are cared for by the parents as they are growing up. Parents don't ask their children to provide the parent with the necessities of life. When the parent cannot take care of themselves it is the child's turn to care for them.
When the parent can longer run the family business, farm, etc. they give to over to the child, as an inheritance. Anything that they have stored up goes to the child. Then the child sees that the parent is cared for.
Korbin said that the child could dedicate what they had to the temple, while still having control over it and using it any way that they chose. But when it came to using it to take care of their parents they could claim they couldn't because it had been dedicated to the temple. Out and out lying in order to hang on to their goods and the greedy Pharisees had made this rule.
This is what Ananias and Sephira had done when they lied about giving everything from the sale of their property. Peter tells them that they didn't have to give it, it was still theirs to do with as they chose, but they lied about it.

You are overlooking his strategy of pleasing everybody to push his agenda unsupported in any another place in the Bible. For example, for the gibberish talk that imitated badly the happening on Pentecost in Corinth, he claimed that he also spoke gibberish!

He never claimed any such thing. He said he prayed with his understanding and in languages he, himself, did not understand. That doesn't mean they were gibberish. Read what he said to them. In public, do not speak a language that you or someone else cannot interpret, it will not edify anyone there except yourself.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Catholics have been preserving the writings very meticulously right from the very beginning. But basically they were shelved with a few compiled into a big book called Bible. Nobody bothered much since they were immersed in traditions. Protestantism opened up the books, that is, a phenomenon that began just about 500 years ago. It has taken time to assimilate these things and wrong focus has been questioned. Matters become simple if you go back to the roots, that is, the four books of the Gospel.

Giving importance to appendix leads to appendicitis. That has happened with Protestantism! Paul's compromising theories looked great for Gentiles and Pagans who easily embraced for convenience! It did not work with Jews who were well versed with God's words. So Paul chose for good a responding audience keeping away the essence of the preaching of Jesus! He hardly exhibits the commandments of Jesus in his letters.

Again as I said and without addressing the obvious discrepancies with this position, it is just repeated. The problem is one has to maintain the Jesus taught correctly and presumably at least initially the Apostles taught what He taught them. So your stand has to be something like what many Protestants have said, most of those teachings become immediately (1st century) corrupted and Saint Paul contributed to that.

The problem is that is a claim without any evidence of it. So you can only say it must be so because some/most/all the things the Church is claiming have been taught and passed down (the Eucharist in this thread) CANNOT really be what Christ taught but instead is a corruption of His teachings. And that is fine but it is still a claim/position without proof. It is the same position the Reformers use 1500 years after those teachings were first given in working to help create a Protesting group of Christians, in Protest of those teachings. So while one can claim the opposing orthodox view, in this case/thread specifically Catholic (and a few others) are "following the teaching of men" one cannot prove the one's own position IS NOT doing likewise. It is a claim just like my position is a claim - but am saying my position has a lot of historical record to back it up - and by comparison little to zero record to demonstrate a great disharmony in what occurred in the early Church.

Does this PROVE I am right and you are wrong about who is following teachings of men, and in specific about the Euchrist (or Saint Paul's teachings)?
No. Many of us would probably need to have been there and heard it from God (or Saint Paul) ourselves to believe it - but what is not true is that support from the historical record against the Eucharist (or Saint Paul) position is better than that for it. In fact is not just better for it, it is way better from the records we dp have. So much so that people on agreeing with you, and even in this thread, must for instance do things like reference books said to be either forgeries or gross lies and as such were rejected by the Church as not being part of His teachings, in order to "find" support for their position.

In fact by the end of the 1st and early 2nd we see already discussions within the Church already concerning whether particular letters/teachings can be supported by comparison to known letters/teachings of an Apostle - with that becoming the often the litmus for accepting something "new", if the "new" thing was just expounding on the teachings they already held sacred. What we do not see in those same years is anyone speaking out against what obviously was common thought out the Church in the same period in regards to the Eucharist. The same can be said about Saint Paul's letters/teaching.

So when someone says teachings became corrupted, resulting in things like the Eucharist, that position is not just weak, it is not supported by the records we have, which shows the Apostles and early leaders very actively fighting to support "true" teachings. So the claim against the Eucharist apparently occurs to NO ONE to seriously raise for about 1500 years and certainly no evidence to support an Apostle objecting to it. And that last part should be the oddest part to swallow if indeed this teaching about the Eucharist were so apparently opposed to Apostolic teaching and what God said Himself in John 6.

So while it could be suggested this is my claim and your claim is opposed, it is not true the history of the Church recorded/preserved for us supports both claims with anything approaching even just 50/50. Certainly the record of the reformers writings support the claim against it but how to relate that directly to the Apostles is unclear. I think one should consider motive for objecting 500 years ago, and that a Priest knowing what the Eucharist is for the people he asks to follow him, would have a motive to want (actually he had to do this) to discredit that teaching in order to make it easier for them to follow him (just saying).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Catholics have been preserving the writings very meticulously right from the very beginning. But basically they were shelved with a few compiled into a big book called Bible. Nobody bothered much since they were immersed in traditions. Protestantism opened up the books, that is, a phenomenon that began just about 500 years ago. It has taken time to assimilate these things and wrong focus has been questioned. Matters become simple if you go back to the roots, that is, the four books of the Gospel.

Giving importance to appendix leads to appendicitis. That has happened with Protestantism! Paul's compromising theories looked great for Gentiles and Pagans who easily embraced for convenience! It did not work with Jews who were well versed with God's words. So Paul chose for good a responding audience keeping away the essence of the preaching of Jesus! He hardly exhibits the commandments of Jesus in his letters.

And btw this claim about "openning" books is deceptive at best. Only in the modern era have the masses been able to read scripture and when people spoke a common language within the civilized world, the Church translated the Bible into that common language and used it in Mass so they could all understand what was being read/said - but the majority of people could still not read or write.
So the idea there would be something sinister about only a small group of people being able to read/study scripture until the modern era where education of the masses is improved, that idea is obviously a false picture painted in an attempt to distort history to support one's current position. Let's not forget it was the very Church one attempts to apply this sinister motive to that actually began the work of educating the masses, with a chief goal of getting more able to read and write so they could study the Bible. A work still done today by the Church, especially where it is most needed. So not only does this false picture of something sinister fail, it makes no sense to say the Church would be involved in that and at the same time educating the masses.

 

[Albion]

And btw this claim about "openning" books is deceptive at best. Only in the modern era have the masses been able to read scripture and when people spoke a common language within the civilized world, the Church translated the Bible into that common language and used it in Mass so they could all understand what was being read/said - but the majority of people could still not read or write.
So the idea there would be something sinister about only a small group of people being able to read/study scripture until the modern era where education of the masses is improved, that idea is obviously a false picture painted in an attempt to distort history to support one's current position. Let's not forget it was the very Church one attempts to apply this sinister motive to that actually began the work of educating the masses, with a chief goal of getting more able to read and write so they could study the Bible. A work still done today by the Church, especially where it is most needed. So not only does this false picture of something sinister fail, it makes no sense to say the Church would be involved in that and at the same time educating the masses.

You overstate your case. Perhaps there is something to be said for the idea that the Scriptures were translated into something like a universal language, but for most of church history, the Mass being in Latin (which no one but the clergy understood) speaks to the opposite. And it led to many abuses.

In addition, it is no fiction or false claim to say that the Bible was not allowed to the ordinary Christian. Individual copies were expensive until the invention of the printing press, it's true, but even then the Church did not approve of ordinary Christians reading it BECAUSE, it was thought, they might get the wrong meaning (this is to say, ideas at odds with what the Church wanted them to believe).

 

[Hank77]

And that is fine but it is still a claim/position without proof. It is the same position the Reformers use 1500 years after those teachings were first given in working to help create a Protesting group of Christians, in Protest of those teachings. So while one can claim the opposing orthodox view, in this case/thread specifically Catholic (and a few others) are "following the teaching of men" one cannot prove the one's own position IS NOT doing likewise. It is a claim just like my position is a claim - but am saying my position has a lot of historical record to back it up - and by comparison little to zero record to demonstrate a great disharmony in what occurred in the early Church.

What of the words of Justin Martyr, surely they would hold substantial significance. (c117)
Justin Martyr to Tryphon the Jew.
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
and again....
"The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”"

Justin Martyr does not say transubstantiation but transmutation. They are very different.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)

You can verify these quotes here....http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxx.html

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You overstate your case. Perhaps there is something to be said for the idea that the Scriptures were translated into something like a universal language, but for most of church history, the Mass being in Latin (which no one but the clergy understood) speaks to the opposite. And it led to many abuses.

In addition, it is no fiction or false claim to say that the Bible was not allowed to the ordinary Christian. Individual copies were expensive until the invention of the printing press, it's true, but even then the Church did not approve of ordinary Christians reading it BECAUSE, it was thought, they might get the wrong meaning (this is to say, ideas at odds with what the Church wanted them to believe).

Not so certain it is overstated, but am very certain the correct reasoning behind a reluctance to support local translations is not just understated but not even considered by most Protestants.

Spoken Latin at the time that effort began would have been understood by most people attending masses at that time, and that stated reason given by the Pope for ordering the project - which in those days would take a long, long time. Being commonly understood would also be the reason it's been said that a lot of Mass/Bible readings in Latin had already taken place from the 1st century on, before the Pope ordered this. This allowed a Priest to conduct Mass in an understood language even if he could not speak the local, so it would be a natural and convenient thing to do and easier than undertaking a new translation to local language.

The fact Rome fell and latin with it gradually fell into disuse as something that once was a common understood by the people and is not replaced for hundreds of years by any other is not the Churches fault. At the time the Vulgate is written, Only on the fringe missions at the far reaches of what they would consider the civilized would would Latin have been less relevant/less understood. And it is not like even there on the fringes, the local Priests did not learn and USE native language (and still do) in Mass - also not like there were never regional efforts within the Church to translate parts of the Bible and the liturgy into the local language. The idea sticking with Latin even as it fell into disuse was the entire Church would be speaking with a common and clearly understood voice that drove the Latin effort as obviously allowing regional translations opens a lot of room for and requires a very much more coordinated effort to ensure, such a common voice as doing everything in one language. Especially in an age before communications and mass printing were at a point where having coordinated efforts to correctly translate things becomes possible. Greek first to some extent and then latin became the closest thing mankind had to a common language until English eventually dominates in the modern era.

Besides, and this predates my becoming Catholic, the people attending Latin mass understood the meaning of the words spoken and sung in latin even if they could neither read or speak any Latin, because the Church taught the meanings of those Latin words - even after dropping Latin as a core requirement for Catholic schools. So even where latin was commonly used long after it was a commonly spoken, the words spoken in Mass were understood.

As to Bibles, the same reasoning applies. As I already mentioned, the local ordinaries had already been translating the Bible into locally understood languages, portions only as such an effort took considerable time, but it was being done and in spite of objections or lacking official endorsement by the Pope and Bishops. And yes, the errors such a process could produce which you admit, would be precisely the reason the Church would want to carefully undertake that process rather than allow local ordinaries to freely work on it as they will.

Even with the Latin, Saint Jerome's work used many already existing latin translations (and other languages) in that effort and it still took him something like 40 years of doing almost nothing else. Tradition has it those existing Latin works could be traced back to the earliest days of the Church, but just like all such translation efforts prior and since, those Latin translations conflicted with one another and contained corruptions of the originals, forcing Jerome to choose and also draw reference from other translations including Jewish works of the Greek OT and other Church manuscripts/writings.

So I think it not overstating to say the Church was careful, for good reason to go slow and be warying of approving/endorsing local efforts to translate. Fortunately such things are far easier done today - and we see local Masses done with permission in many languages everywhere to match local language preferences (including a few still done in latin).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What of the words of Justin Martyr, surely they would hold substantial significance. (c117)
Justin Martyr to Tryphon the Jew.
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
and again....
"The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”"

Justin Martyr does not say transubstantiation but transmutation. They are very different.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)

You can verify these quotes here....http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxx.html

Thanks for pointing that out about Justin Martyr, which even if true, was not the point of my reply and is not addressing the OP who would support neither concept. I do suppose your case about a person the Church holds as a "Father" is made stronger by failing to mention quotes of him to the contrary.

The fact the early Church leaders and Fathers may have disagreed or expressed opposing views of how or even views that do not explicitly express transubstantiation, and one could put various labels on all of those views; the point is there is little doubt that they believed something supernatural and far beyond mere symbolism being expressed is occurring with the hosts.

 

[Righttruth]

Act 9:13 And Ananias answered, `Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many evils he did to Thy saints in Jerusalem,
Act 9:14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests, to bind all those calling on Thy name.'
Act 9:15 And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings--the sons also of Israel;
Act 9:16 for I will shew him how many things it behoveth him for My name to suffer.'
So now you would call Ananias a liar as well. Major conspiracy going on it seems. Paul, Luke, Peter, Ananias, etc.

I was not referring to those. This is the One:

Acts 9:4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,

Jesus Christ was a suffering servant before crucifixion. He is now sitting on the right of God. That was what Stephen saw. It is unthinkable for Jesus to plead with egoistic Saul to stop persecuting Him. This audacious attitude continued with the trait of Paul. That is why he was regularly tormented by the messenger of Satan.

Para...If taking nothing from you is proof that I am not for you, then forgive me for this injustice to you.
In other words, it does not make any sense to accuse him of being self-serving (injustice to them) when he hadn't taken anything from them. Therefore, they must think that not taking anything from them was an injustice to them. He was pointing out how nonsensical the false prophets accusations were against him and they were not thinking rationally to believe it.

Thanks for a good clarification. Is that the reason why Protestantism has produced salaried pastors? Consequently, Christianity has become a business enterprise!In fact, the words of God should be shared freely!

The Apostle John also calls the people, 'my little children'. This is how Paul thinks of them, as though they are children that he should be care for. Not giving them an inheritance in earthly goods but spiritual truths.

But what Paul wrote can easily be misunderstood to mean earthly goods!

Jesus taught against Korbin. Children are cared for by the parents as they are growing up. Parents don't ask their children to provide the parent with the necessities of life. When the parent cannot take care of themselves it is the child's turn to care for them.

How many children are doing that? In fact, children may quote Paul and demand goods from the parents. That may be happening in the world right now resulting in the negligence of the parents.

When the parent can longer run the family business, farm, etc. they give to over to the child, as an inheritance. Anything that they have stored up goes to the child. Then the child sees that the parent is cared for.

What about the poor parents? A child can ignore because he did not inherit anything?

Korbin said that the child could dedicate what they had to the temple, while still having control over it and using it any way that they chose. But when it came to using it to take care of their parents they could claim they couldn't because it had been dedicated to the temple. Out and out lying in order to hang on to their goods and the greedy Pharisees had made this rule.

When Pharisees had twisted God's command, Paul, with his old Pharisaic nature, has added fuel to fire by asking parents to accumulate property--that is how hypocrites think--for the sake of children. No wonder, if children claimed that as a right before taking care of them!

This is what Ananias and Sephira had done when they lied about giving everything from the sale of their property. Peter tells them that they didn't have to give it, it was still theirs to do with as they chose, but they lied about it.

Sorry, it is not related to the point in discussion.

He never claimed any such thing. He said he prayed with his understanding and in languages he, himself, did not understand. That doesn't mean they were gibberish. Read what he said to them. In public, do not speak a language that you or someone else cannot interpret, it will not edify anyone there except yourself.

This business of interpretation and the post of an interpreter is a pure invention of Paul to solve the nuisance at Corinth since it appears nowhere in the Bible including in other letters of Paul!

 

[Righttruth]

Again as I said and without addressing the obvious discrepancies with this position, it is just repeated. The problem is one has to maintain the Jesus taught correctly and presumably at least initially the Apostles taught what He taught them. So your stand has to be something like what many Protestants have said, most of those teachings become immediately (1st century) corrupted and Saint Paul contributed to that.

I don't understand why we should consider the 1st century as the base with Paul added. Why not go back to the origin with Jesus' sayings? St. Paul claimed to teach his gospel! Probably, it was short version of death and resurrection and nothing of Jesus' teaching in between! Both Luke and Paul, technically, be called hearsay people. Who do you rely on? Apostles who shared in the ministry of Jesus or some rank outsiders with their self-claims and proclamations unsupported by the essence of the preaching of Jesus in many instances?

The problem is that is a claim without any evidence of it. So you can only say it must be so because some/most/all the things the Church is claiming have been taught and passed down (the Eucharist in this thread) CANNOT really be what Christ taught but instead is a corruption of His teachings.

Eucharist is based on Paul's verses. It is not based on what Jesus desired.

And that is fine but it is still a claim/position without proof.

Here is the proof:

Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

It is the same position the Reformers use 1500 years after those teachings were first given in working to help create a Protesting group of Christians, in Protest of those teachings. So while one can claim the opposing orthodox view, in this case/thread specifically Catholic (and a few others) are "following the teaching of men" one cannot prove the one's own position IS NOT doing likewise. It is a claim just like my position is a claim - but am saying my position has a lot of historical record to back it up - and by comparison little to zero record to demonstrate a great disharmony in what occurred in the early Church.

Are we trying to understand the preaching and practice of Jesus according to history or making history by being witnesses to His commandments? When even Bible versions are being altered, in what way can we rely on biased and scholastic versions of the history?

Does this PROVE I am right and you are wrong about who is following teachings of men, and in specific about the Euchrist (or Saint Paul's teachings)?

My stand is that traditional with its long history of Eucharist is based on Paul and not on John 6. Chosen apostles had based it on John 6 which can be understood if you looked at some apocryphal books. You know, what is apocryphal and what is not depends on the groups!

No. Many of us would probably need to have been there and heard it from God (or Saint Paul) ourselves to believe it - but what is not true is that support from the historical record against the Eucharist (or Saint Paul) position is better than that for it.

For that reason, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remind us of His sayings, not of Paul! Don't you believe the versions of the Last Supper recorded by people who were present? Can a rank outsider Paul become an authority to tell us what he dreamt?

In fact is not just better for it, it is way better from the records we dp have. So much so that people on agreeing with you, and even in this thread, must for instance do things like reference books said to be either forgeries or gross lies and as such were rejected by the Church as not being part of His teachings, in order to "find" support for their position.

You seem to reject Gospel accounts!

In fact by the end of the 1st and early 2nd we see already discussions within the Church already concerning whether particular letters/teachings can be supported by comparison to known letters/teachings of an Apostle - with that becoming the often the litmus for accepting something "new", if the "new" thing was just expounding on the teachings they already held sacred. What we do not see in those same years is anyone speaking out against what obviously was common thought out the Church in the same period in regards to the Eucharist. The same can be said about Saint Paul's letters/teaching.

The base can only be the four books of the Gospel, not one sided letters of Paul for some problems in a church he had established.

So when someone says teachings became corrupted, resulting in things like the Eucharist, that position is not just weak, it is not supported by the records we have, which shows the Apostles and early leaders very actively fighting to support "true" teachings.

True teachings can only be expected from those who personally heard what Jesus said! Hearing has more value than reading in spiritual matters. Are we hearing the Holy Spirit or reading from Paul?

So the claim against the Eucharist apparently occurs to NO ONE to seriously raise for about 1500 years and certainly no evidence to support an Apostle objecting to it.And that last part should be the oddest part to swallow if indeed this teaching about the Eucharist were so apparently opposed to Apostolic teaching and what God said Himself in John 6.

Gospel books were written after 1 Corinthians that obviously point to the wrong notion of Paul trying to glorify death--no big deal--instead of resurrection and living bread in the words of Jesus as indicated in John 6. I reiterate again Paul was not a apostle and he cannot have that authority; it was his self-claims like many other suppositions of his!

So while it could be suggested this is my claim and your claim is opposed, it is not true the history of the Church recorded/preserved for us supports both claims with anything approaching even just 50/50. Certainly the record of the reformers writings support the claim against it but how to relate that directly to the Apostles is unclear. I think one should consider motive for objecting 500 years ago, and that a Priest knowing what the Eucharist is for the people he asks to follow him, would have a motive to want (actually he had to do this) to discredit that teaching in order to make it easier for them to follow him (just saying).

As I said before, church settles for easy rituals instead of spiritual responsibility of keeping the commandments of Jesus! Hence, Paul's assumed notions came in handy!

 

[Righttruth]

And btw this claim about "openning" books is deceptive at best. Only in the modern era have the masses been able to read scripture and when people spoke a common language within the civilized world, the Church translated the Bible into that common language and used it in Mass so they could all understand what was being read/said - but the majority of people could still not read or write.
So the idea there would be something sinister about only a small group of people being able to read/study scripture until the modern era where education of the masses is improved, that idea is obviously a false picture painted in an attempt to distort history to support one's current position. Let's not forget it was the very Church one attempts to apply this sinister motive to that actually began the work of educating the masses, with a chief goal of getting more able to read and write so they could study the Bible. A work still done today by the Church, especially where it is most needed. So not only does this false picture of something sinister fail, it makes no sense to say the Church would be involved in that and at the same time educating the masses.

Church is doing fantastic work in educational field and social services. Nevertheless, did Catholic church attempt to share the words of Jesus in public earlier? Even now Latin is used in mass in many churches. Even that not related to Jesus' words!

Matthew 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

 

[Righttruth]

So the claim/opinion being expressed is Saint Paul was so busy converting people to "his version" of Christianity that no one was able to respond for 1500 years?
How that makes sense to claim am not sure.
Whether claiming it or not, one making such accusations about Saint Paul and his writing/teachings is fully submerged in the self-proclamations of men that began about 500 years ago - and is an opinion that is fortunately fading among Protestants.

Only when the Gospel was made public from 500 years onward, enlightenment began with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't understand why we should consider the 1st century as the base with Paul added. Why not go back to the origin with Jesus' sayings? St. Paul claimed to teach his gospel! Probably, it was short version of death and resurrection and nothing of Jesus' teaching in between! Both Luke and Paul, technically, be called hearsay people. Who do you rely on? Apostles who shared in the ministry of Jesus or some rank outsiders with their self-claims and proclamations unsupported by the essence of the preaching of Jesus in many instances?



Eucharist is based on Paul's verses. It is not based on what Jesus desired.



Here is the proof:

Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."



Are we trying to understand the preaching and practice of Jesus according to history or making history by being witnesses to His commandments? When even Bible versions are being altered, in what way can we rely on biased and scholastic versions of the history?



My stand is that traditional with its long history of Eucharist is based on Paul and not on John 6. Chosen apostles had based it on John 6 which can be understood if you looked at some apocryphal books. You know, what is apocryphal and what is not depends on the groups!



For that reason, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remind us of His sayings, not of Paul! Don't you believe the versions of the Last Supper recorded by people who were present? Can a rank outsider Paul become an authority to tell us what he dreamt?



You seem to reject Gospel accounts!



The base can only be the four books of the Gospel, not one sided letters of Paul for some problems in a church he had established.



True teachings can only be expected from those who personally heard what Jesus said! Hearing has more value than reading in spiritual matters. Are we hearing the Holy Spirit or reading from Paul?



Gospel books were written after 1 Corinthians that obviously point to the wrong notion of Paul trying to glorify death--no big deal--instead of resurrection and living bread in the words of Jesus as indicated in John 6. I reiterate again Paul was not a apostle and he cannot have that authority; it was his self-claims like many other suppositions of his!



As I said before, church settles for easy rituals instead of spiritual responsibility of keeping the commandments of Jesus! Hence, Paul's assumed notions came in handy!

As I keep saying, the idea that Saint Paul is a "rank outsider" is a very modern opinion of men of his writings and obviously not an opinion hared by the other Apostles or we would have proof of their objections.
No one is rejecting the Gospel accounts. I am objecting that those Gospel accounts or any book of the NT or any writing of a first or early second century leader is in contradiction with Saint Paul - and objecting that the claim they were is substantiated by anything those same men wrote - which is most odd since that would have to be your claim. So your claim is ONLY supported by a bunch of men who had motive 1500 years after those things were written for making such claims against Saint Paul besides the imagined wanting God's true message allegedly corrupted by the Church revealed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Church is doing fantastic work in educational field and social services. Nevertheless, did Catholic church attempt to share the words of Jesus in public earlier? Even now Latin is used in mass in many churches. Even that not related to Jesus' words!

Matthew 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

Not sure where you live or how this opinion was reached, but I would be very hard pressed in most areas of the US to find a Latin Mass as compared to relative ease of finding say Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, Tagalog, or Portuguese for example. I think there might be a single Parish in San Diego doing a Latin Mass, a city of over a million and over 30 parishes in San Diego proper. I would not call that "many" as it is more like 3%. I have been a Catholic for over a decade and never heard a Latin Mass, my wife her whole life and has not heard one in over 50 years. Now if all I knew of Catholics came from Jack Chick tracts I would agree with you.

 

[Hank77]

Jesus Christ was a suffering servant before crucifixion. He is now sitting on the right of God. That was what Stephen saw. It is unthinkable for Jesus to plead with egoistic Saul to stop persecuting Him. This audacious attitude continued with the trait of Paul. That is why he was regularly tormented by the messenger of Satan.

By the very nature of Christ and His relationship to His Body the church members, when they were persecuted it was as though He was being persecuted. Just as He said, when we care for someone it is as if we are caring for Him. "Lord, when did I give you a drink of water?" (para)

But what Paul wrote can easily be misunderstood to mean earthly goods!

Nope, not if one read the whole thing in context. And especially not if one were to read it in the original language.

In fact, children may quote Paul and demand goods from the parents.

What about the poor parents? A child can ignore because he did not inherit anything?

Paul taught what?
Eph 6:1 The children! obey your parents in the Lord, for this is righteous;
Eph 6:2 honour thy father and mother,
Eph 6:3 which is the first command with a promise, `That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live a long time upon the land.'

Both Luke and Paul, technically, be called hearsay people.

Ok, there goes Pentecost.......Peter's vision, etc.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Only when the Gospel was made public from 500 years onward, enlightenment began with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So your opinion would be that God came to earth and started a Church that would need another 1500 years before it became "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit?
Did Jesus forget to tell or invite the Holy Spirit to the launch?

 

[Hank77]

I have been a Catholic for over a decade and never heard a Latin Mass, my wife her whole life and has not heard one in over 50 years. Now if all I knew of Catholics came from Jack Chick tracts I would agree with you.

40 yrs. ago I attended three different churches. Two said the mass in English and one in French.

 

[Righttruth]

As I keep saying, the idea that Saint Paul is a "rank outsider" is a very modern opinion of men of his writings and obviously not an opinion hared by the other Apostles or we would have proof of their objections.

Opinions may vary from person to person AND from time to time. Nevertheless, the fact remains the same. Paul was not an apostle. The number ended with 12, no more or no less! John clarified on that:

Revelation 2:
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Revelation 21
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Paul can be accommodated if Peter permits him to sit on his lap!

No one is rejecting the Gospel accounts. I am objecting that those Gospel accounts or any book of the NT or any writing of a first or early second century leader is in contradiction with Saint Paul - and objecting that the claim they were is substantiated by anything those same men wrote - which is most odd since that would have to be your claim. So your claim is ONLY supported by a bunch of men who had motive 1500 years after those things were written for making such claims against Saint Paul besides the imagined wanting God's true message allegedly corrupted by the Church revealed.

You want to consider the Gospel in the shadow of Paul's one sided letters meant for immature churches he founded? That is, in a way, you want Jesus to abide by Paul! God forbid such thoughts!

 

[Righttruth]

Not sure where you live or how this opinion was reached, but I would be very hard pressed in most areas of the US to find a Latin Mass as compared to relative ease of finding say Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, Tagalog, or Portuguese for example. I think there might be a single Parish in San Diego doing a Latin Mass, a city of over a million and over 30 parishes in San Diego proper. I would not call that "many" as it is more like 3%. I have been a Catholic for over a decade and never heard a Latin Mass, my wife her whole life and has not heard one in over 50 years. Now if all I knew of Catholics came from Jack Chick tracts I would agree with you.

This is relatively later practices compared to hundreds of years of Latin masses before the advent of Protestantism.