Eucharist - Flesh & Blood?

[Righttruth]

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)

Such preaching was before crucifixion when Jesus was in flesh. Not after ascension. He will not come back again as a suffering servant to show such traits when seated with God waiting for His return.

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

You expect all to become scholars of different languages to understand what Jesus preached! What is the role of the Holy Spirit then? Already enough misinterpretations are the order of the day!

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.'

That is OK. But these will be sidelined when children expect inheritance from parents based on what Paul wrote unwittingly!

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

They don't contradict the Gospel so I accept them.

 

[Righttruth]

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?

For 1500 years the Catholic church had quenched the Holy Spirit by hiding the light in the bushel! Jesus had breathed the Holy Spirit to the ten apostles present even before the Pentecost after His ascension.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

The Lord's Supper is literal, but spiritually present, not locally.

 

[Righttruth]

The Lord's Supper is literal, but spiritually present, not locally.

Lord is present when we pray to take our daily food in the family.

 

[Albion]

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.

Don't blame the men of "1500 years after" (meaning, apparently, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and the other Reformers), who accepted all the books of the New Testament as the word of God.

Where the notion that you can be Bible-based and still talk as though the writer of much of the New Testament was somehow off on his own, in conflict with Christ, or any of the rest of that, came from...I don't know.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood which IS shed for you. But when he held up the piece of bread and said this is broken for you, why did he have to go to the cross then, if that was literal? and when he said this is my blood which is shed for you, why did he have to shed his literal blood on the cross if it was shed them and his body broken for them then? Obviviously he was speaking symbolically. John the baptist said behold the lamb of God as he saw Jesus. Was Jesus a literal lamb? NO.

One time Jesus told the disciples to beware the leaven of the pharisees, and they asked is it because we have no bread, he told them no he was not speaking about literal bread but of their doctrines. Jesus used bread in other symbolic meanings.

"6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?9 Do ye not yet understand, ...11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6-12 KJV)

If some were willing to have a test. Put a pieces of the bread that the priest uses for the so called "mass', and a regular piece of bread and place them in the open air for 3 months and see if they both corrupt.

"
Acts 13:35
Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 

[Hank77]

the point is there is little doubt that they believed something supernatural and far beyond mere symbolism being expressed is occurring with the hosts.

I wanted to respond to this post earlier but I was unsure as how to word it and I'm not sure I can be clear now, but I will try.

I do not believe that when I receive the bread and the wine that I am eating the literal human body and blood of Christ. In my view that is just not something that is consistent with God's commands about flesh and blood.

However, my views have changed from a simple (but never common) remembrance done in honor and worship to Him. I do believe that it is more than that, that there is a, supernatural/spiritual, blessing that is received with it.
When I understood the Jewishness of the whole preparation day, Nissen 14, and the Passover it became even more real. I don't know how to explain what I mean by 'real' though, what those words would be.
Paul says some are sick and even die because they take it as a common thing. It is anything but common.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Don't blame the men of "1500 years after" (meaning, apparently, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and the other Reformers), who accepted all the books of the New Testament as the word of God.

Where the notion that you can be Bible-based and still talk as though the writer of much of the New Testament was somehow off on his own, in conflict with Christ, or any of the rest of that, came from...I don't know.

Need to ask the person my reply was to who posted an modern era (but fortunately fading) teaching of men against Saint Paul to defend his position. See posts 20, 32, 34, 36, 40, 51, 59- am not the one here claiming the Bible contains works that should be rejected - which was a position of some of the prime leaders of the reformation - though they were talked out it for at least the NT.

But I agree, even if one opposes the idea that God could still do something supernatural at every Mass, it makes no sense to trash talk Saint Paul just to justify that position.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

For 1500 years the Catholic church had quenched the Holy Spirit by hiding the light in the bushel! Jesus had breathed the Holy Spirit to the ten apostles present even before the Pentecost after His ascension.

Apparently you must also believe His Spirit left them as you claim none of them stood up and rejected the allegedly opposing views of Saint Paul nor worked to have that Apostles writings labeled false if in fact that is what they were or as it pertains to this thread stopped the practice Saint Paul obviously endorsed and the first century Church followed if in fact it DID NOT represent the teaching of Our Lord God Himself.

 

[Albion]

Apparently you must also believe His Spirit left them as you claim none of them stood up and rejected the allegedly opposing views of Saint Paul nor worked to have that Apostles writings labeled false if in fact that is what they were or as it pertains to this thread stopped the practice Saint Paul obviously endorsed and the first century Church followed if in fact it DID NOT represent the teaching of Our Lord God Himself.

I can't seem to find that, Dr.

But I did find you saying this (below) in response to a post that did not mention the Protestant Reformation or "1500 years after."--

"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]

I can't seem to find that, Dr.

But I did find you saying this (below) in response to a post that did not mention the Protestant Reformation or "1500 years after."--

"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."

As represented in the posts I mentioned, His claim is Saint Paul's teachings (most, some or maybe just the ones rejected - take your pick) are wacked - that Saint Paul made up his own stuff - that he lied about meeting the risen Lord and so had no valid claim to be an Apostle as is recorded in the NT - that he is responsible for the corruption of the early Church - and that corruption as it applies to this thread includes his support of the practice clearly in place in the 1st century and the "true" Apostles taught what Jesus taught. So it is said rather than being Christ centered as a "true" Apostles would teach, Saint Paul is claimed to be teaching something more man centric - and thus people can right off anything we say Saint Paul supported - like the Eucharist teachings - as teachings of men.

So I first pointed out that none of the other Apostles are ever quoted either in the NT or by their disciples as objecting to the teachings on the Eucharist. As this particular poster seemed focused on Saint Paul's false "gospel", I also pointed out these particular opinions about Saint Paul and "his" teachings only arises during the reformation and then becomes increasing popular, peaks and apparently started fading a few decades ago. I happen to believe as the Church as always taught that Saint Paul is an Apostle, met the risen Lord God and so his teaching would be Jesus teachings and in perfect alignment with the other Apostles - which is why we have no evidence/support that the other Apostles or their disciples objected.

And to lead people away from the Church, addressing why they no longer need the Eucharist would certainly be a very important thing to address - a concern on any prospects mind. So people trying to lead others in that direction would have motive to discredit that teaching - and it certainly would help to discredit Saint Paul in that effort.

 

[Righttruth]

Apparently you must also believe His Spirit left them as you claim none of them stood up and rejected the allegedly opposing views of Saint Paul nor worked to have that Apostles writings labeled false if in fact that is what they were or as it pertains to this thread stopped the practice Saint Paul obviously endorsed and the first century Church followed if in fact it DID NOT represent the teaching of Our Lord God Himself.

The early church was also practicing 'baptism for the dead' which Paul also endorsed with his typical populist stance.

All religions tend to deviate from the preaching of the founder after he departs. Christianity is not an exception. You can clearly see how all churches endorse Paul no matter how much he deviated from the preaching of Jesus because it has helped Catholics to pick on a dead ritual
for convenience instead of stressing on the preaching of Jesus and Protestants with 'ear tickling' theories and theology overlooking the warnings of Jesus!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The early church was also practicing 'baptism for the dead' which Paul also endorsed with his typical populist stance.

All religions tend to deviate from the preaching of the founder after he departs. Christianity is not an exception. You can clearly see how all churches endorse Paul no matter how much he deviated from the preaching of Jesus because it has helped Catholics to pick on a dead ritual
for convenience instead of stressing on the preaching of Jesus and Protestants with 'ear tickling' theories and theology overlooking the warnings of Jesus!

Ah, typical. A letter to the Church in Corinth, and specifically the section we now call 1 Cor 15.
Before we jump on the band wagon of this "evil Saint" corrupting Jesus' teachings idea, lets look at the reference cited as alleged support for the claim. Remember too that most of Saint Paul's letters are either encouragement or correction (or both) to communities of believers (Churches) he had worked to established. It is important to see those letters for what those writings really are rather than insisting it represents the Apostle and Saint creating "new" teachings.

If we actually read the entire letter and not just what someone claims a single verse means, we should note the Saint's repeating reference to "we" and "they" and then ask our self which group does Saint Paul indicate the people said to be baptizing the dead belong. To not do at least that much before claiming one understands what the writer meant by that single verse referenced is not just sloppy but lazy.

 

[Hank77]

The early church was also practicing 'baptism for the dead' which Paul also endorsed with his typical populist stance.

1Co 15:29 Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead?
This is a difficult verse for sure but because of the other teachings of Paul we know that he is not talking about people being baptized For dead people. He would be teaching against his own Gospel message. We know that before being baptized one must believe and repent.
What I believe Paul is referring to in this verse is the hope of (for) our resurrection. That would be within the context of the scripture. His wording and thoughts rather along the lines of this....
Here he speaks of the new life we live in Christ. But it is also our hope to be raised from death in Him. So our baptism can symbolize both.

Rom 6:3 are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?
Rom 6:4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
Rom 6:5 For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of the rising again;

1Co 15:15 and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise;
1Co 15:16 for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen,
1Co 15:21 for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead,

 

[Albion]

As represented in the posts I mentioned, His claim is Saint Paul's teachings (most, some or maybe just the ones rejected - take your pick) are wacked - that Saint Paul made up his own stuff - that he lied about meeting the risen Lord and so had no valid claim to be an Apostle as is recorded in the NT - that he is responsible for the corruption of the early Church - and that corruption as it applies to this thread includes his support of the practice clearly in place in the 1st century and the "true" Apostles taught what Jesus taught. So it is said rather than being Christ centered as a "true" Apostles would teach, Saint Paul is claimed to be teaching something more man centric - and thus people can right off anything we say Saint Paul supported - like the Eucharist teachings - as teachings of men.

Right. And we both reject all of that as historic revisionism and an implicit denial of Scripture as divinely inspired.

My point was simply this--that POV cannot be laid at the feet of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, which references to "1500 years after" clearly seem to do. If there is someone else who should get the blame for that particular way of looking at Paul's epistles, then they should be named or referred to, but in any case, it's NOT Luther, Calvin, etc.

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm just a simple Christian with a Bible...
all of this controversy over Paul is kinda beyond me, although I do know that Peter did say that there were some things Paul had written that were difficult to understand, and that some folks would twist, as they did other scriptures, to their own destruction.

As for the bread and wine...
It looks like bread.
It smells like bread.
It tastes like bread.
Conclusion: It is bread.

It looks like wine.
It smells like wine.
It tastes like wine.
Conclusion: It is wine.

It's a whole lot of arguing over nothing.

 

[Albion]

I'm just a simple Christian with a Bible...
all of this controversy over Paul is kinda beyond me, although I do know that Peter did say that there were some things Paul had written that were difficult to understand, and that some folks would twist, as they did other scriptures, to their own destruction.

As for the bread and wine...
It looks like bread.
It smells like bread.
It tastes like bread.
Conclusion: It is bread.

It looks like wine.
It smells like wine.
It tastes like wine.
Conclusion: It is wine.

It's a whole lot of arguing over nothing.

Not entirely. One denomination says that the bread and wine have ceased to exist although what's left has all the properties of bread and wine. But that's just one slant on the subject and it's a view held by only a couple of churches out of all those that exist.

The great majority of Christian denominations believe either that the bread and wine symbolize something while remaining bread and wine OR ELSE that they are changed in some way that does not involve the elimination of bread and wine.

That's where the discussion ought to run in these debates, but it usually doesn't. It usually just focuses on that one theory which one you have rejected here and which the members of most Christians of various denominations from Episcopal to Baptist reject also.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Right. And we both reject all of that as historic revisionism and an implicit denial of Scripture as divinely inspired.

My point was simply this--that POV cannot be laid at the feet of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, which references to "1500 years after" clearly seem to do. If there is someone else who should get the blame for that particular way of looking at Paul's epistles, then they should be named or referred to, but in any case, it's NOT Luther, Calvin, etc.

I did not think you agreed with this view of Saint Paul and misunderstood my replies to someone entrenched in it. To be clear to you:

I do not believe I named anyone in particular and would not know enough to know whom to lay the ugly and malicious rumor too. Perhaps it is not known. I can see my comment being overstated in suggesting I was putting the blame directly at the feet of Luther or Calvin - but that was not my intent. Certainly the idea expressed about Saint Paul furthers the separation Luther started and would not hurt that cause even if Luther (or Calvin) did not agree. For what it is worth, I do see a lot of disagreement among the early movement on various issues, especially between the originators of particular movements like Luther or Calvin and those under their lead. So it would not surprise me to know the Eucharist would be one such issue. The objection and distortion of the Churches teaching on justification, which goes hand in hand with aiding in the application of God's Grace, on which the Sacraments are based - that effort does benefit greatly with discrediting Saint Paul's letters or at least portions of it.

From what I have read there is no shortage of theologians on both sides of this house today talking about how the theory that Saint Paul went rogue came about (and actually today how that view has been fading the last few decades). Among that group of people there seems no doubt it has it's origins on the Protestant side and dates to the earliest period of the protest against the Church. As to Luther himself, since he is a priest, and am told his original intent was not a split but an internal reform, which was needed BTW and actually happens just not on Luther's schedule. So I would not think this Saint Paul theory started with him. Also I do not see his original 95 objections requiring a tear down of Saint Paul. But clearly it seems at some point someone did according to theologians on both sides. I also cannot see why it would occur to a Catholic theologian to promote such a theory, unless he was having trouble with the same view of justification, Grace, the Sacraments...etc, which would also then be leading him away from the Church.

 

[Albion]

I did not think you agreed with this view of Saint Paul and misunderstood my replies to someone entrenched in it. To be clear to you:

I do not believe I named anyone in particular and would not know enough to know whom to lay the ugly and malicious rumor too. Perhaps it is not known. I can see my comment being overstated in suggesting I was putting the blame directly at the feet of Luther or Calvin - but that was not my intent.

OK, that's all there is to it, than. When you wrote that it is traceable to "1500 years after" (the start of the church), that wording undeniably seems pointed at the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. I wanted to say for the record that that's incorrect. The Reformers were strong defenders of Scripture, as most people know, and would not speak of Paul's Epistles as uninspired.

For what it is worth, I do see a lot of disagreement among the early movement on various issues, especially between the originators of particular movements like Luther or Calvin and those under their lead. So it would not surprise me to know the Eucharist would be one such issue.

Of course...but that isn't the issue. They interpreted the Bible differently, but they considered the whole of the New Testament to be the word of God, which does not allow for speculation that Paul was speaking only for himself and can be seen as opposed to true Christianity, etc.

So I would not think this Saint Paul theory started with him. Also I do not see his original 95 objections requiring a tear down of Saint Paul. But clearly it seems at some point someone did according to theologians on both sides.

Yep. Someone had to. But it's only right to assign it to the person or persons who did the deed and not imply that it was someone else (which saying "1500 years after", even if carelessly written and not intended to refer to Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation, unfortunately does).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm just a simple Christian with a Bible...
all of this controversy over Paul is kinda beyond me, although I do know that Peter did say that there were some things Paul had written that were difficult to understand, and that some folks would twist, as they did other scriptures, to their own destruction.

As for the bread and wine...
It looks like bread.
It smells like bread.
It tastes like bread.
Conclusion: It is bread.

It looks like wine.
It smells like wine.
It tastes like wine.
Conclusion: It is wine.

It's a whole lot of arguing over nothing.

Saint Paul

"Is not the cup of blessing a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
"a man should examine himself first . . . anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:28-29)​

hardly sounds like someone teaching the Eucharist is merely symbolism and that is just two examples from Saint Paul. Which is also the reason why someone wanting to refute the Eucharist would want to seek to discredit Saint Paul's teachings as depicted in his NT letters.

That such teachings of Saint Paul opposes the other Apostle's teachings and so Jesus', is difficult to support when one starts looking at writings from the early Church outside the NT. Like Saint Ignatious, who is believed to have been tight with both Saint John and Saint Peter. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Romans

"I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." end of Chap 7​

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnæans

"Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again." Chap 6 and 7 continues
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
​

So my point is you cannot have people who learned from the Apostles writing about a clear practice representing an ESTABLISHED belief with ZERO objections recorded from the Apostles and say that makes a lot of sense. At best you would have to claim (as some do) a wide spread corruption occurs early in the 1st century and somehow no record of what would have to be strong objection from the Apostles survived and no record survives of what had to have been a rebellion against the Apostles to have been so widely established in such a short time. People were willing to and did die for these beliefs and also died staunching defending all of their beliefs. Defending each part of a whole body of teachings is one reason for most the NT letters.

So it is not like objections would have been a trivial or quite matter in those days. Which given the records we do have of people objecting to hosts of other Apostolic/Church teachings, the absence of any record seems most unlikely, especially odd too that we have no mention of what would have to have been great rebellion within the Church against the Apostles.