So True; blind, faithful trust. An example of the faith that Jesus expects us to have in the Eucharist.Not unlike God telling Abraham to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him.
Upvote
0
So True; blind, faithful trust. An example of the faith that Jesus expects us to have in the Eucharist.Not unlike God telling Abraham to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him.
Not true in so many ways, but mainly: Abraham trusted the Creator would keep His Promise. That is NOT blind faith nor blind trust - Abraham knew Who he trusted.So True; blind, faithful trust.
And we don't?; not logical reason to other than motivation by the Holy Spirit.Not true in so many ways, but mainly: Abraham trusted the Creator would keep His Promise. That is NOT blind faith nor blind trust - Abraham knew Who he trusted.
LOL............You are still making comments to me that look like I am some kind of authority figure.
Lets be clear. #1. I do not care what you do my friend.
#2. I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me. I only read the Bible, pray about it and study it and if you and the rest of the world disagree with me, WONDERFUL!!!!
I have NO authority over anyone!
The facts are that there is NO Biblical Scriptures that substantiate Transubstaciation.
It is strictly a RCC concoction and nothing more.
Your comment that ALL the ECF's supported Transubstantiation is false to say the least.
That is began in the gospel of John 6 is also false.
Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.Yet Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and it's raising up in three days.
Likewise, Mary did not quite understand the Angel, yet she pondered those things in her heart.
Zachariah did not understand the message about John the Baptist, and was struck dumb until his birth came to pass.
For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.
But IMO, John 6 is not a simple statement; it is almost a debate in which Jesus goes on at some length, repeating himself several times, apparently intending to convince his listeners of his message--even though, and as I said before, there was no possibly of them connecting his words with a special ceremony that had never occurred and which, to the best of my knowledge, none of them ever was going to experience.
Really Maj1? This source you're getting your information from (justforcatholics.org) is one of the top five anti-Catholic sites on the web, and not to be deemed credible when it comes to Catholicism. Posting their views on Catholicism is no different than going to the ISIS web-site and asking their veiw on Judaism and the State of Israel. Sorry. Let's see what The Catholic Education Resource Center (CERC) has to say:
"And what about Paschasius Radbertus? Was he the first to believe in transubstantiation?
Radbertus was abbot of Old Corbie Monastery near Amiens. In 831 he composed a treatise that contained this ambiguous expression: "This is precisely the same flesh that was born of Mary, suffered on the Cross, and rose from the tomb."16 He narrated some Eucharistic miracles that gave the impression that Christ must be understood to be sensibly present in the sacrament, and another monk at his abbey, Ratramus, wrote a counter treatise noting that one must distinguish between the appearance of Christ in the Eucharist and the appearance of His body received from Mary, but he used language that might suggest Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist. Both Radbertus and Ratramus were orthodox; the trouble was that neither was precise in wording.
"The debate between these principals soon became a theological free-for-all", said historian Newman Eberhardt.17 Others entered the fray, sometimes proposing rectifying language that was even more confusing than what Radbertus and Ratramus wrote.
The dispute ended by 860, with no one denying the Real Presence. (Take special notice on the following Maj1) What should be noted is that, despite various attempts to phrase the doctrine of the Real Presence accurately, there was no cry from anyone that this was a new doctrine. It was taken as a given. Those who inadvertently implied the Presence might be symbolic only were considered the innovators, not those who presumed it was Real.
In the theological world there was no further controversy on the issue until Berengarius of Tours, who died in 1088. He had studied the dispute that began with Radbertus and Ratramus and concluded that Christ was indeed present only symbolically. He repeated signed recantations and then, safe at home, reiterated his original position. This theological seesaw went on for decades, until he finally subscribed to an unambiguous formula. Church historians say he apparently died reconciled.18 Whether or not he did, he is the first Christian, so far as we can tell from the records, who denied the Real Presence. Paschasius Radbertus and Berengarius of Tours are remembered to history only because the one seemed to doubt the Real Presence and the other actually did. What this tells us is that the accepted belief was the opposite of what they were understood to hold."
16aschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini.
17.Newman Eberhardt, A Summary of Catholic History (St. Louis: Herder, 1961), I:464.
18.Eberhardt, Summary, I:610.
So , as you can see Maj1. history disagrees with you and your anti-Catholic source "justforcatholics." Sorry.
Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term See, for example, the citation from Justin Martyr’s First Apology (A.D. 151): "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."
The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is compelling and unanimous. Again, facts and history show it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied.
Have a Blessed Lenten Season
Yes, and the same could be said of Nicodemus who went away confused after hearing Christs answer about being born again.
But IMO, John 6 is not a simple statement; it is almost a debate in which Jesus goes on at some length, repeating himself several times, apparently intending to convince his listeners of his message--even though, and as I said before, there was no possibly of them connecting his words with a special ceremony that had never occurred and which, to the best of my knowledge, none of them ever was going to experience.
For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.
The bible is progressive wisdom, I don't believe that the wisdom attained at the conclusion can be added to or taken away from because the bible is complete wisdom. If it can't be proved from the bible it doesn't matter. If from outside of the bible a timeline of the wisdom gleaned from the apostles is sealed no matter what can be proved from the bible is ignorance.And that was AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit which gave them understanding and that was 1 year after John 6.
I explained in the previous post why that approach is unconvincing. First, his questioners in John 6 were not his disciples, or even sympathizers. Second, it is almost impossible that they would later have any way of having it dawn on them what Jesus had meant.For how many times that the disciples put 2 and 2 together after Christ's death how could that not be one of them that the disciples would gleam wisdom from, just as living stones is the fruitation of revealed progressive thought, complete within the bible.
That's the point of biblical interpretation being personal learning lighting the way to your own road to eternal home.I explained in the previous post why that approach is unconvincing. First, his questioners in John 6 were not his disciples, or even sympathizers. Second, it is almost impossible that they would later have any way of having it dawn on them what Jesus had meant.
The bible is progressive wisdom, I don't believe that the wisdom attained at the conclusion can be added to or taken away from because the bible is complete wisdom. If it can't be proved from the bible it doesn't matter. If from outside of the bible a timeline of the wisdom gleaned from the apostles is sealed no matter what can be proved from the bible is ignorance.
I haven't read much more of the thread so I don't know what your stance is but I know what Albion's and Prodogamus' are and that is the ignoring that I refer to.
Humankind shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, yet He still turned stones into bread able to edify others. Taste and know that God is good. Spirit of the law or letter of the law. That is the question.I am of the understanding that the Communion service is totally symbolic.
The point that the RCC teaches is that John 6 is the directions of the sacraments of Lords Supper where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation. Those of a Catholic belief use this passage to support the idea that the Eucharist actually becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.
My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.
John 6 is NOT about communion. When Jesus talks about “eating His flesh”, He is tying it back to the idea of Him being “the bread of life” (John 6:35). Many in John 6 were asking Jesus to perform a physical sign such as raining down bread from heaven like the manna in the Old Testament or at least replicate the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:26,31). Jesus informs them that they should not be seeking physical bread which perishes, but a food that “endures to eternal life” (John 6:27).
When one believes in Jesus and abides in His Word, it is as if they are consuming Jesus. If you consume Jesus you will receive spiritual nourishment that results in everlasting life. Jesus’ spiritual nourishment is everlasting, He states:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). If one abides in Jesus they will never lack spiritual nourishment. One abides in Jesus by hearing and learning His teachings. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).
Jesus makes it very clear that He is not talking about physical food at all (like the communion), but spiritual food that results in spiritual nourishment.
The Bible Answer Show: Is John 6 talking about the Lord’s Supper or Communion when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?
And we all know that your understanding is a misunderstanding from the POV of Scripture, History, and orthodoxy.I am of the understanding that the Communion service is totally symbolic.
The point that the RCC teaches is that John 6 is the directions of the sacraments of Lords Supper where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation. Those of a Catholic belief use this passage to support the idea that the Eucharist actually becomes the literal body and blood of Christ.
My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.
John 6 is NOT about communion. When Jesus talks about “eating His flesh”, He is tying it back to the idea of Him being “the bread of life” (John 6:35). Many in John 6 were asking Jesus to perform a physical sign such as raining down bread from heaven like the manna in the Old Testament or at least replicate the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:26,31). Jesus informs them that they should not be seeking physical bread which perishes, but a food that “endures to eternal life” (John 6:27).
When one believes in Jesus and abides in His Word, it is as if they are consuming Jesus. If you consume Jesus you will receive spiritual nourishment that results in everlasting life. Jesus’ spiritual nourishment is everlasting, He states:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). If one abides in Jesus they will never lack spiritual nourishment. One abides in Jesus by hearing and learning His teachings. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).
Jesus makes it very clear that He is not talking about physical food at all (like the communion), but spiritual food that results in spiritual nourishment.
The Bible Answer Show: Is John 6 talking about the Lord’s Supper or Communion when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?
My dear friend. I know from our past conversations that you are a well entrenched RCC member.
Good for you. You have learned their doctrine at the expense of everything else and you represent the RCC well, if not incorrectly.
Having said that, I am sure that you are aware
The catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, according to YOUR catechism.
If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!-----The Sacraments Do Not Save
This means that anything good that we try to do for God appears like a filthy rag to God
"Nothing we can do is clean enough of God’s eyes. Can’t you see that? Notice how Isaiah says that all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags? This means that anything good that we try to do for God appears like a filthy rag to God. This means that praying a thousand rosaries, attending mass every day, or even working at a nursing home to help the elderly will be of no benefit to you."
"Just reading this description is disgusting to me. When we look at the difference between this disgusting type of blood and the precious blood of Jesus Christ, we can see a vast difference."
"Just reading this description is disgusting to me. When we look at the difference between this disgusting type of blood and the precious blood of Jesus Christ, we can see a vast difference. If you read in Leviticus 15:19-33 and 20:18, you will see what was required when dealing with this type of blood – the cleaning ceremonies were intense. The leper was also linked with this type of uncleanness (Leviticus 13:45) and his rags were considered just as filthy. I once heard a sermon about lepers. The preacher said that before the leper could enter a city, he had to take a rag from the top of a post (that other lepers had used) and rub hard over his leperous sores. He would then return the filthy rag back to the top of the post for the next leper to use. Is this not disgusting to you? Isaiah says that God views our good works in the same manner He views this filthy rag!
God compares our own works to this putrid type of filthy rag! There is nothing that we can do that will even come close to the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Everything you do in order to get closer to God will fall short of what God requires of us. This includes the sacraments required by the catholic church."
"No amount of keeping the sacraments, praying a thousand rosaries, going to confession daily, doing daily penance, repeated flaggellations, climbing the stairs of a cathedral on your knees, wearing rough clothing against your skin, working in the soup kitchen, – NOTHING can cause God to view your good works in any other way than as that putrid dirty bloody rag mentioned in Isaiah 64:6.
How then can you as a catholic say that obeying the sacraments assures salvation? The Bible says:
~Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!
The Sacraments Do Not Save
I'd be most interested in seeing what Scripture passage say's this.
Easy. Begin reading chapter #6 and then continue on to chapter 18.
My point is that the actual Lord's Supper where Jesus in fact did give the instructions for the sacraments was a whole year later than John 6.
Or you can read Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapter Six