transubstantiation unsubstantiated substantially :P

[AnticipateHisComing]

You do realize that the so-called LXX was cited with the exact same word?

You do also realize that scripture [KJB] throughout, uses two and three [witnesses] differing words which mean the same thing? ie. "created", "made", "formed".

Isaiah 43:7 KJB - [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.​

Good job at trying to explain how scripture betters the "expert" translators.

I will add to it the communication theory of Error Correcting Code, ECC. It uses the concept of repeating, adding extra information to a message such that if there is a slight error introduced in one area, it does not corrupt the whole of the message.

I believe this concept is very much alive in scripture. As you have shown, scripture reuses words, including variants, in multiple places so that the meaning of the words should be clear throughout the tests of time, copies and translations. Further scripture uses multiple words with the same or similar meaning to ensure preservation of the message.

Scripture uses simple words to express ideas that stumbled the Jews and baffled the wisdom of the Greeks. I cringe when an educated says the English language is inadequate to express the message of scripture or that complicated words need to be invented to express true doctrine.

​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Which is good, since Anamnesis comes from the original Koine Greek New Testament:
http://biblehub.com/greek/364.htm
The problem is simply anamnesis when translated into English tends to lack the full sense of recapitulation conveyed forcefully by the Greek original.

The disparate uses of the word "remebrance" and "memorial" cited above, translated from dofferent Greek and Hebrew original words, simply prove my point that the KJV is somewhat sloppy when it comes to word choice, although it is much better than for example the Dynamic Equivalence translations like the NIV. Not as good as the Douay-Rheims alas.

Acts24Fourteen did a good job of compiling a short concordance of how remember and variants of it are used in scripture. This should help in understanding that the celebration of the Lord's Supper entails remembrance, not some kind of involvement in a past or present sacrifice. You response is to simply dismiss the words of scripture and promote a concept that English is inadequate along with the KJV Bible.

Learn that the majority of English translations use the same language as the KJV for translating G364. Note that the use of G364 in Heb 10:3 certainly does not teach a
"new" meaning of remembrance. If we took the Catholic meaning, it would make the verse to read as some kind of celebration and participation in the past sins that sacrifices were meant to clean up.

So where did you learn what the original Greek word Anamnesis means? I would like to understand "the full sense of recapitulation conveyed forcefully by the Greek original". Sounds like words from a professor, not scripture. When people start using big words to explain simple words, I am instantly weary of deception. Remember also that Jesus did not even speak the text originally in Greek so the exact word and meaning is forever lost in translations. Whatever private meaning you have been taught is therefore suspect.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't see the point in promoting a recurring and personal "participation" in the one act by Jesus that brought atonement for all our sin.

If you were an OT priest whose temple was just destroyed by the Romans, what's the solution?

Do the repeated sacraments somehow complete Jesus' sacrifice?

My understanding of their belief is the repetition doesn't complete, but applies it to your sins. They see their mass/dl as salvific, as a required sacrifice from their priest's hands, without which, your (Christian) sins can't be forgiven. For them, the sacrifice 2000 years ago doesn't apply to our sins future (or since their last mass/dl). For them, Christ may be seated, until He stands up to administer His sacrifice again via their standing priest.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

My understanding of their belief is the repetition doesn't complete, but applies it to your sins.

Semantics. I stand by my word, they think to complete Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus died to atone past and future sins, not to enable some priests to continually finish the job. But they never finish the job because they must continually repeat it.

They see their mass/dl as salvific, as a required sacrifice from their priest's hands, without which, your (Christian) sins can't be forgiven. For them, the sacrifice 2000 years ago doesn't apply to our sins future (or since their last mass/dl). For them, Christ may be seated, until He stands up to administer His sacrifice again via their standing priest.

My comment was about those that think the Eucharist a repeated participation in Jesus' one death, not it being a repeated sacrifice. Regardless, so the incohesion of both doctrines. They ignore scripture that says Jesus ended sacrifices and in his death provides sanctification once for all time. Instead they teach a reliance on priests' power to effect God's grace. Further, their effecting of God's grace is temporary, needing to be repeated each Sunday for the additional sins that we continue to commit. I can't understand how they reconcile their doctrine with what Hebrews says.

If they think the Eucharist is their participation in Jesus' death, then they should be content with just one celebration of the Eucharist for it is Jesus' sacrifice that atones sin and it was completed 2000 years ago. The incongruent facet is that they don't think forgiveness is ever complete, that it needs to be repeated for salvation for every sin they commit.

For the others that think the Eucharist a "reenactment" of Jesus' sacrifice, there doctrine is obviously contrary to what Hebrews teaches on the termination of sacrifices with Jesus' one and final sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.​

 

[Standing Up]

Semantics. I stand by my word, they think to complete Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus died to atone past and future sins, not to enable some priests to continually finish the job. But they never finish the job because they must continually repeat it.

My comment was about those that think the Eucharist a repeated participation in Jesus' one death, not it being a repeated sacrifice. Regardless, so the incohesion of both doctrines. They ignore scripture that says Jesus ended sacrifices and in his death provides sanctification once for all time. Instead they teach a reliance on priests' power to effect God's grace. Further, their effecting of God's grace is temporary, needing to be repeated each Sunday for the additional sins that we continue to commit. I can't understand how they reconcile their doctrine with what Hebrews says.

If they think the Eucharist is their participation in Jesus' death, then they should be content with just one celebration of the Eucharist for it is Jesus' sacrifice that atones sin and it was completed 2000 years ago. The incongruent facet is that they don't think forgiveness is ever complete, that it needs to be repeated for salvation for every sin they commit.

For the others that think the Eucharist a "reenactment" of Jesus' sacrifice, there doctrine is obviously contrary to what Hebrews teaches on the termination of sacrifices with Jesus' one and final sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.​

That's the difference between us and them. We believe we are clean and need a foot washing. They believe they stand up from the altar and immediately require their priest/sacrifice again. See you next Sunday.