Do I have to be baptised and partake in the eucharist?

[Highway54]

54, I would assume the Spirit of God has already warned you about this, possibly several times, but it deserves reminding you again: You will have blood on your hands in eternity for teaching this. The Jehovahs Witnesses teach a mountain of doctrinal error, but the above may be one of their most egregious. You will not be worthy of Heaven if you spent your lifetime sending people to Hell by teaching the lie that it didn't exist.

And no, I'm not anymore interested in getting into a debate with you on it in this thread than Mungo was about baptism. That's just another trick you guys are trained to employ in order to keep spreading more heresy. Just understand, I have seen the Jehovahs Witnesses corrupt and destroy Christian communities elsewhere, and if you keep peddling this nonsense here you are going to be met with greater and greater rebukes for it.

Hidden

May I ask why you would serve a god who is going to torture people eternally? I won't. Best to know what hell is sir.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo
I've been thinking about this and a couple of scriptures came to mind that at first might not seem relevant. But bear with me.

Firstly the incident in John 2 at Cana in Galilee.
At the marriage feast they run out of wine.
Jesus changes 6 jars of water, each containing 20-30 gallons, into wine - the best wine.
This wine wasn't taken from the existing stock of wine in the world. Jesus didn't ship in wine from somewhere else.
It was in addition to the wine in the world.
And it wasn't water that was symbolically wine.

I believe that the God who changed water into wine can also change wine into his blood. He doesn't need to cut himself to bleed out that blood. He can just change wine into his blood.

Secondly consider the beginning of Luke's gospel.
The angel Gabriel come to Zechariah with a message from God that his wife is to conceive a son. But Zechariah sees a problem. His wife is barren and to old to conceive a child so he doesn't believe the angel and is punished for his disbelief.
The Gabriel appears to Mary with a similar message - she is to bear a son. But again there is a problem - she is a virgin. But this time Mary believes the angel but is puzzled as to how this is going to happen. She asks "How shall this be...?"
I think Mary shows us how we should react when God tells us something that doesn't seem possible. We should believe but then ask "How shall this be?" We may or may not get an answer.

The quotes I gave earlier from the Early Fathers showed that the early church believe Jesus literally but do not seem to have an explanation of how it could be, except it be a miracle.

Here are a couple of later quotes that make that point

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.

"Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ...[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,...partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (Catechetical Discourses; Mystagogic 4, 22:9 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my body,' but, 'This is my body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, '‘This is the symbol of my blood,' but, 'This is my blood'; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought...not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 428]).

​

---

In time the church in the west came up with and explanation - transubstantiation. I think the (Eastern) Orthodox prefer to leave it as a mystery.

The bread -- bread! -- is a symbol, as is the wine. Look at the actual scene. Jesus, a living being, is reclining at the table with His disciples. He holds up bread and says "this is my body". How is this possible? He is there, in the flesh, holding up bread. He cannot be both the living being and the bread! That is beyond obvious!

The same scene continues when the living person holds of a goblet of wine and says "this is my blood". How is this possible? He cannot be both the living being and the wine! That is also beyond obvious!
And when people consume bread (wafers)
The only way to resolve this is to realize that the bread and wine are SYMBOLIC.

And when people consume bread or wafers and a sip of wine, they are symbols of Christ's body and blood. If they were not, they would be arrested and imprisoned for cannibalism!

Now, pay attention! When I was an elder of my church, I made the bread for communion. I took flour water, salt and mixed them together into a flat loaf, then baked it in my oven at home. => Was I creating the body of Jesus Christ??? <= The very idea is lunacy!

By faith, one who partakes of the ceremonial bread and wine is symbolically partaking of Jesus' body and blood, but not the actual body and blood. Now I know that you and other Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but that is simply your belief; it is not evidence-based. As the baker, I was not creating Jesus Christ!

 

[Mungo]

The bread -- bread! -- is a symbol, as is the wine. Look at the actual scene. Jesus, a living being, is reclining at the table with His disciples. He holds up bread and says "this is my body". How is this possible? He is there, in the flesh, holding up bread. He cannot be both the living being and the bread! That is beyond obvious!

The same scene continues when the living person holds of a goblet of wine and says "this is my blood". How is this possible? He cannot be both the living being and the wine! That is also beyond obvious!
And when people consume bread (wafers)
The only way to resolve this is to realize that the bread and wine are SYMBOLIC.

Didn't you actually READ my post - or just skimmed over it.
I'll repeat it for you. Read this time.

At the marriage feast they run out of wine.
Jesus changes 6 jars of water, each containing 20-30 gallons, into wine - the best wine.
This wine wasn't taken from the existing stock of wine in the world. Jesus didn't ship in wine from somewhere else.
It was in addition to the wine in the world.
And it wasn't water that was symbolically wine.

I believe that the God who changed water into wine can also change wine into his blood. He doesn't need to cut himself to bleed out that blood. He can just change wine into his blood.

What is so difficult about that?

As to

He holds up bread and says "this is my body". How is this possible? He is there, in the flesh, holding up bread. He cannot be both the living being and the bread!

Pope Benedict answered that in his book Jesus of Nazareth (book II)
When Jesus speaks of his body he is obviously not referring to the body as opposed to the soul or the spirit, but to the whole, flesh-and-blood person….. “The disciples could understand that he was saying: this is I myself, the Messiah.” (quoted from Rudolf Pesch)

But how can this be? Jesus, after all, is standing there in the midst of his disciples – what is he doing? He is bringing to fulfilment what he said in the Good Shepherd discourse: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord”. (Jn 10:18) His life will be taken from him on the Cross, but here he is already laying it down. He transforms his violent death into a free act of self-giving for others and to others.

And he also says: “I have power to lay [my life] down, and I have power to take it up again.”(ibid.). He gives his life, knowing that in doing so he is taking it up again. The act of giving his life includes the Resurrection. Therefore by way of anticipation, he can already distribute himself, because he is already offering his life – himself – and in the process receiving it again. So it is that he can already institute the sacrament in which he becomes the grain of wheat that dies, the sacrament in which he distributes himself to men through the ages in the real multiplication of loaves.

And when people consume bread or wafers and a sip of wine, they are symbols of Christ's body and blood. If they were not, they would be arrested and imprisoned for cannibalism!

Now, pay attention! When I was an elder of my church, I made the bread for communion. I took flour water, salt and mixed them together into a flat loaf, then baked it in my oven at home. => Was I creating the body of Jesus Christ??? <= The very idea is lunacy!

That is just a straw man. Nobody claims that baking bread makes Jesus.

Jesus took bread (already made) and said "This is my body" - not This symbolises my body.

Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Mt 26:26)
And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” (Mk 14:22)

By faith, one who partakes of the ceremonial bread and wine is symbolically partaking of Jesus' body and blood, but not the actual body and blood. Now I know that you and other Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but that is simply your belief; it is not evidence-based. As the baker, I was not creating Jesus Christ!

By faith one believes what Jesus said even if one is wondering "How shall this be...?" (As I suggested in my previous post)

 

[jaybo]

I think jaybo and others don't understand the true meaning of
John 6:53
So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.
I'm not a big fan of "going to the Greek", but sometimes it does help and this is one of them....
5315. phago
phago: I eat
Original Word: φάγω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: phago
Phonetic Spelling: (fag'-o)
Definition: eat
Usage: I eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does); used only in fut. and 2nd aor. tenses.


I devour....
Some dictionaries say: I chew...

I understand perfectly. There is absolutely no question that Jesus was speaking symbolically. Again, how could Jesus, the actual person reclining at a table, hold up a piece of bread that someone had baked, say "this is my body" if He wasn't speaking symbolically? Just imagine the scene as if you were there!

 

[jaybo]

You know Jaybo, I've thought of this for about 40 years now.
I'm coming more and more to believe that Jesus meant it literally.
How does a person symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Look at John 6:53...look it up.
It doesn't sound like the writer meant it figuratively.

It's something to study.

A person doesn't "symbolically eat". The person actually eats. The symbolism is in what s/he attributes to what s/he is eating. "Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19

Jesus was reclining at the table...
a) He took a loaf of bread
b) He gave thanks and broke it (the loaf)
c) He distributed the pieces to those at the table
d) He said "this is my body..."

Now, how could Jesus, who was reclining at the table and distributing pieces of bread to others, say "this is my body" if it wasn't symbolic??? Jesus, the man, was there in the flesh. He didn't tear off a piece of His arm and pass it around, He took bread. Now clearly Jesus was not made of bread and the loaf He was holding in His hand was not Him.

How can any sane person actually think that He wasn't speaking symbolically???

Of course, the same principle applies to the wine. Jesus did not have wine circulating throughout His body, so when He passed the goblet of wine around and said "this is my blood", how could He mean anything but that it was symbolic?

Regarding citing John 6:53... Let's look at it in context. (Taking a single verse out of context is poor exegesis!)

John 6:52-63, "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which the ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” He said these things while he was teaching in a synagogue at Capernaum.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

The disciples said that the teaching was difficult to accept. They obviously didn't understand the symbolism of what Jesus was saying. They took Him literally. Do you really think that Jesus, the very person standing in the synagogue, was telling the people to become cannibals? => DID JESUS REQUIRE HIS FOLLOWERS TO PRACTICE CANNIBALISM? No wonder they were upset, because they took His words - whoever eats me will live - literally.
Do you really think that the Jews, who followed very strict dietary laws, including the prohibition of eating/drinking blood as stated in the Old Covenant, were going to drink actual human blood?

Is that really what Jesus was asking: that they violate the commands of His Father? Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood.” Leviticus 6:26-27, "You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off from your people.”

There is a real problem here if Jesus' words are taken literally. His Father commanded that if any one eats any blood s/he shall be cut off from their people. Yet Jesus is telling them to not only consume blood, but human blood, thereby defying His Father's specific command!

If it isn't interpreted symbolically, then Jesus was defying His father in the most blatantly offensive way possible!!!

​

 

[Anaphora]

No. John Baptist did baptized people. Because he was getting Christian people to repent. Luke chapter 13. Christian people must repent sins to God and be forgiven. What you see on the outside. Examine from within. Example. What held up abraham from going to Palestine. Abraham earthly father held him up. The answer is in Acts. The truth is thier, if someone digs it out. I definitely recommend you having a king James companion bible and STRONGS concordance. The king James companion bible is from the authorized version of 1611 king James. Both king James companion bible and STRONGS concordance have Hebrew and Greek. And the appendix, figures of speech, biblical text, Hebrew and Greek words, significance of numbers, ect, ect. EKZETEO in Greek means = investigate, seek, worship. NICHUM in Hebrew means = repenting. KURIOS in Greek means = God. LUWIS in Hebrew means = teacher, ambassador. I have both the companion king James bible and STRONGS concordance and Greek lexicon concordance. Peace.

 

[jaybo]

No. John Baptist did baptized people. Because he was getting Christian people to repent. Luke chapter 13. Christian people must repent sins to God and be forgiven. What you see on the outside. Examine from within. Example. What held up abraham from going to Palestine. Abraham earthly father held him up. The answer is in Acts. The truth is thier, if someone digs it out. I definitely recommend you having a king James companion bible and STRONGS concordance. The king James companion bible is from the authorized version of 1611 king James. Both king James companion bible and STRONGS concordance have Hebrew and Greek. And the appendix, figures of speech, biblical text, Hebrew and Greek words, significance of numbers, ect, ect. EKZETEO in Greek means = investigate, seek, worship. NICHUM in Hebrew means = repenting. KURIOS in Greek means = God. LUWIS in Hebrew means = teacher, ambassador. I have both the companion king James bible and STRONGS concordance and Greek lexicon concordance. Peace.

John baptized Jews, asking them to repent to prepare for the imminent coming of the Messiah.

All sins are forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The King James translation is difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret. It should not be used by people who do not have an excellent command of the English language, especially the Englyshe of early 17th Century England. A concordance and/or lexicon is no substitute for reading and understanding what God's word actually says and means. The best translation is one that doesn't require these external aids, for example, the NIV, the NET, and the NRSVue.

 

[Mungo]

A person doesn't "symbolically eat". The person actually eats. The symbolism is in what s/he attributes to what s/he is eating. "Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19

Yes, this IS my body, not this symbolically is my body.

Jesus was reclining at the table...
a) He took a loaf of bread
b) He gave thanks and broke it (the loaf)
c) He distributed the pieces to those at the table
d) He said "this is my body..."

No he didn't take a loaf of bread. He took bread. It would have been the matzot bread that they ate at the Passover - round, flat and unleavened.

Now, how could Jesus, who was reclining at the table and distributing pieces of bread to others, say "this is my body" if it wasn't symbolic??? Jesus, the man, was there in the flesh. He didn't tear off a piece of His arm and pass it around, He took bread. Now clearly Jesus was not made of bread and the loaf He was holding in His hand was not Him.

Of course he didn't tear off a piece of an arm. No-one has suggested he did. Don't you feel embarrassed suggesting such nonsense.

How can any sane person actually think that He wasn't speaking symbolically???

All the sane people from the beginning of the church believed it until the "Reformation" came along with novel ideas. Most Christians in the world believe it.

Of course, the same principle applies to the wine. Jesus did not have wine circulating throughout His body, so when He passed the goblet of wine around and said "this is my blood", how could He mean anything but that it was symbolic?

Because he said it was.
I believe Jesus.

Regarding citing John 6:53... Let's look at it in context. (Taking a single verse out of context is poor exegesis!)

John 6:52-63, "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which the ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” He said these things while he was teaching in a synagogue at Capernaum.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

The disciples said that the teaching was difficult to accept. They obviously didn't understand the symbolism of what Jesus was saying. They took Him literally. Do you really think that Jesus, the very person standing in the synagogue, was telling the people to become cannibals? => DID JESUS REQUIRE HIS FOLLOWERS TO PRACTICE CANNIBALISM? No wonder they were upset, because they took His words - whoever eats me will live - literally.
Do you really think that the Jews, who followed very strict dietary laws, including the prohibition of eating/drinking blood as stated in the Old Covenant, were going to drink actual human blood?

Is that really what Jesus was asking: that they violate the commands of His Father? Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood.” Leviticus 6:26-27, "You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off from your people.”

There is a real problem here if Jesus' words are taken literally. His Father commanded that if any one eats any blood s/he shall be cut off from their people. Yet Jesus is telling them to not only consume blood, but human blood, thereby defying His Father's specific command!

If it isn't interpreted symbolically, then Jesus was defying His father in the most blatantly offensive way possible!!!

​

Here are a couple of answers:
The blood prohibition in Leviticus 17:11-12 was replaced by Christ’s new teaching in John 6:54: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.”Eating blood was prohibited in the Old Testament, “Because the life of the flesh is found in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Blood is sacred and the life of each creature is in its blood. Many pagans thought they could acquire “more” life by ingesting the blood of an animal or even a human being. But obviously this was foolish. No animal or human person has the capacity to do this. But in the case of Christ, it’s different. John 6:54 tells us that our eternal life depends on His blood: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.”
Christopher J. Aubert

"There are a number of paradoxes which the gospel teaches. We are not to worship men, but there is one Man whom we absolutely must worship. Human sacrifice is against the will of God, but in one unique case, a human sacrifice was at the heart of God's plan. In the Old Testament the eating of blood was forbidden since "the blood is the life." That is, we are not to seek our "life" from creatures. We are to seek it from God. And when God assumes flesh and blood he therefore tells us, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
Mark Shea

 

[Mungo]

I understand perfectly. There is absolutely no question that Jesus was speaking symbolically. Again, how could Jesus, the actual person reclining at a table, hold up a piece of bread that someone had baked, say "this is my body" if He wasn't speaking symbolically? Just imagine the scene as if you were there!

That's just your opinion.
As I showed the early Church believed Jesus and the Church did so until the "Reformation" came along with their novel ideas. The majority of Christians still believe Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

A person doesn't "symbolically eat". The person actually eats. The symbolism is in what s/he attributes to what s/he is eating. "Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19

Jesus was reclining at the table...
a) He took a loaf of bread
b) He gave thanks and broke it (the loaf)
c) He distributed the pieces to those at the table
d) He said "this is my body..."

Wanted to give this a lot of thought.
You say that a person actually eats...it's not symbolic.
So then why is the Eucharist symbolic? Maybe we ARE actually eating something?
So you ask WHAT. ok.

Even the reformers believed in the Real Presence.
They did NOT believe it was just bread and wine. (Luther for instance).
To them the belief was that Jesus was really present and that they had a real sense of Him being present.
(which differs somewhat from our knowing that God is present all the time).

It's said that in the host is the body of Christ...
the body includes the physical, the soul and the spirit.
So we must be doing something more than just remembering the crucifixion...
I understand it more as it being that we are, in a sense, actually there...transported there.

Why would Jesus say to eat His body and drink His blood?
We couldn't remember Him at every worship method of that time?
Why did we have to eat the bread and drink the wine?
Why were we told to EAT and DRINK something?

Now, how could Jesus, who was reclining at the table and distributing pieces of bread to others, say "this is my body" if it wasn't symbolic??? Jesus, the man, was there in the flesh. He didn't tear off a piece of His arm and pass it around, He took bread. Now clearly Jesus was not made of bread and the loaf He was holding in His hand was not Him.

I considered this.
Jesus was holding the bread and speaking of His body.
He could not have been that bread....
but the very next day He DID become that bread....
it was broken, and His blood was shed.
Is this what He said to eat maybe?
His BROKEN BODY and HIS BLOOD which was spilled?

How can any sane person actually think that He wasn't speaking symbolically???

Don't be silly Jaybo.
Many ECFs believed it was the body and blood and they surely were very sane.

Of course, the same principle applies to the wine. Jesus did not have wine circulating throughout His body, so when He passed the goblet of wine around and said "this is my blood", how could He mean anything but that it was symbolic?

Regarding citing John 6:53... Let's look at it in context. (Taking a single verse out of context is poor exegesis!)

It's not out of context!
The whole of John 6 is about this.

John 6:52-63, "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which the ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” He said these things while he was teaching in a synagogue at Capernaum.

Yes. These are the verses I read over and over.
If we don't EAT and DRINK we have no life in us.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Exactly!
It was a difficult teaching because they understood that Jesus meant it literally!
And Jesus said IF THIS OFFENDS YOU....then what if....etc.
Jesus knew they would be offended....
So how does this prove that it's just a symbol?
Why be offended if it's just a symbol?

The disciples said that the teaching was difficult to accept. They obviously didn't understand the symbolism of what Jesus was saying. They took Him literally. Do you really think that Jesus, the very person standing in the synagogue, was telling the people to become cannibals? => DID JESUS REQUIRE HIS FOLLOWERS TO PRACTICE CANNIBALISM?

Be serious!


You do know that the early Christians were reputed to be cannibals...
Another proof that it was taken literaly.

No wonder they were upset, because they took His words - whoever eats me will live - literally.
Do you really think that the Jews, who followed very strict dietary laws, including the prohibition of eating/drinking blood as stated in the Old Covenant, were going to drink actual human blood?

Is that really what Jesus was asking: that they violate the commands of His Father? Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood.” Leviticus 6:26-27, "You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off from your people.”

There is a real problem here if Jesus' words are taken literally. His Father commanded that if any one eats any blood s/he shall be cut off from their people. Yet Jesus is telling them to not only consume blood, but human blood, thereby defying His Father's specific command!

If it isn't interpreted symbolically, then Jesus was defying His father in the most blatantly offensive way possible!!!

​

Very good point about the blood and how it is seen in the OT.
But, remember, they also worshipped on the Sabbath in the OT.
They also practiced circumcision.
Jesus changed many doctrine from the OT.
Whenever He said: YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID....
it meant that He was going to change something or correct it.
I'm sure you know this.

 

[jaybo]

Wanted to give this a lot of thought.
You say that a person actually eats...it's not symbolic.
So then why is the Eucharist symbolic? Maybe we ARE actually eating something?
So you ask WHAT. ok.

Even the reformers believed in the Real Presence.
They did NOT believe it was just bread and wine. (Luther for instance).
To them the belief was that Jesus was really present and that they had a real sense of Him being present.
(which differs somewhat from our knowing that God is present all the time).

It's said that in the host is the body of Christ...
the body includes the physical, the soul and the spirit.
So we must be doing something more than just remembering the crucifixion...
I understand it more as it being that we are, in a sense, actually there...transported there.

Why would Jesus say to eat His body and drink His blood?
We couldn't remember Him at every worship method of that time?
Why did we have to eat the bread and drink the wine?
Why were we told to EAT and DRINK something?




I considered this.
Jesus was holding the bread and speaking of His body.
He could not have been that bread....
but the very next day He DID become that bread....
it was broken, and His blood was shed.
Is this what He said to eat maybe?
His BROKEN BODY and HIS BLOOD which was spilled?



Don't be silly Jaybo.
Many ECFs believed it was the body and blood and they surely were very sane.



It's not out of context!
The whole of John 6 is about this.



Yes. These are the verses I read over and over.
If we don't EAT and DRINK we have no life in us.



Exactly!
It was a difficult teaching because they understood that Jesus meant it literally!
And Jesus said IF THIS OFFENDS YOU....then what if....etc.
Jesus knew they would be offended....
So how does this prove that it's just a symbol?
Why be offended if it's just a symbol?



Be serious!


You do know that the early Christians were reputed to be cannibals...
Another proof that it was taken literaly.


Very good point about the blood and how it is seen in the OT.
But, remember, they also worshipped on the Sabbath in the OT.
They also practiced circumcision.
Jesus changed many doctrine from the OT.
Whenever He said: YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID....
it meant that He was going to change something or correct it.
I'm sure you know this.

I stopped reading when you said that the bread was crucified.

I normally respect and value your thoughts, but not this time. Sorry.

 

[GodsGrace]

I stopped reading when you said that the bread was crucified.

I normally respect and value your thoughts, but not this time. Sorry.

Where did I say that and why don't you agree with it?
Was Jesus body not crucified the next day?
Maybe I worded it wrong...
Please post what I said...

 

[GodsGrace]

I stopped reading when you said that the bread was crucified.

I normally respect and value your thoughts, but not this time. Sorry.

Why stop reading?
Scary to think about this stuff, isn't it?
I've been thinking about it a long time.
I'm not afraid of the truth.
Wherever it brings me, that's where I'll go.

 

[Mungo]

wondering
jaybo
I'm going to start a thread in the Catholic Forum under the title of Transubstantiation.
It will be long but I want to give a more structured explanation of the Eucharist than I or wondering have given here.
It will be in 3 parts

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering
jaybo
I'm going to start a thread in the Catholic Forum under the title of Transubstantiation.
It will be long but I want to give a more structured explanation of the Eucharist than I or wondering have given here.
It will be in 3 parts

OK
But it would get more exposure here?

 

[jaybo]

Where did I say that and why don't you agree with it?
Was Jesus body not crucified the next day?
Maybe I worded it wrong...
Please post what I said...

In post #50 you wrote...
"Jesus was holding the bread and speaking of His body.
He could not have been that bread....
but the very next day He DID become that bread....
it was broken, and His blood was shed."

Jesus' body was "broken" (although actually none of His bones was broken) on the cross, not any bread. I'm sure that is not what you meant, but that is what you wrote.

Again, if you take Christ's body as anything but fully human, for example being comprised of bread and wine, then we are in real trouble.. He was fully human and said that people should eat bread an drink wine in remembrance of Him. It is a ritual to symbolically identify with Jesus and His sacrifice.

 

[SyrianMariam]

Mariam,
If you believe in Christ Jesus (his death, burial, and resurrection) and acknowledge Him as your one and only Lord and Savior, then rest assured in Him and try not to concern/confuse yourself with all of man’s many technicalities.

Thank you.

In pagan times it was the man who sacrificed the most oxen who was most favoured by the gods...I feel that any 'rituals' of Christianity are similar...

 

[SyrianMariam]

Probably not go to hell, but we should be obedient to such commands and there is no reason to not do them.

Why? Is Christianity orthopraxic or orthodoxic?

 

[SyrianMariam]

This is symbolic! Nobody ever ate Jesus' flesh or drank His blood.

The Catholics do...every week. Else they go to Hell*

*or purgatory?

 

[SyrianMariam]

I believed that you were serious after reading your first few posts. Now I'm convinced that you're a troll.

I am serious. Why wouldn't I be? I don't want to go to Hell.