The Eucharist

I see "bread" and "cup", not "Christ".

No real presence proven.

 

Bro Curtis,

""I see "bread" and "cup", not "Christ".

No real presence proven. ""

I do not see air. So air does not exist.

I see no germs, so they are not the cause of sickness.

Somebody told me that what I had was ice cream the other day, but it tasted like strawberries so it must have been strawberries.

I have never seen anyone feed 5000 people fed on a few loaves and fishes so it must not have happened.

I see no Holy Spirit dwelling in any man. Therefore by your logic it must not be.

A man walk on water, preposterous.

A virgin concieve? Ridiculous.

But God says it is possible.


What appears as bread and wine, actually the body and blood of Christ? Well he did say "this is my body and this is my blood, my flesh is TRUE FOOD, my blood is TRUE DRINK. I suppose I will believe him rather than your faulty human logic. But human senses can betray us and God is in control of the elements. So I believe.

 

Daveth,

Did I say I was Orthodox. Don't recall ever saying that.

 

The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit dwells in us.

The Bible tells us that Jesus walked upon water.

The Bible tells us a virgin would concieve.

But it is silent on the real presence. No wait, it isn't silent, it tells us Jesus is in heaven, at the right hand of God. Ipso facto- he could not possibly be in a platter of crackers.

The Bible does not support the real presence, so why teach it ?

 

" posted the Biblical reasons for rejecting the eucharist on this very thread, and those remain unanswered. "

Oh really. I posted a verse by verse refutation of you reasons for rejecting it so you are less than honest in this regard.

 

You didn't use one verse in that "refutation". You put your own words, or words somebody taught you, but you used zero scripture to back it up.

 

My ananswered replies (with additions) to Borther Curtis's alleged unanswered questoins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because right now, Christ is at the right hand of God."

Hmmmm, the Christ I know is God so if at the right hand of God is the only place that he can be then that Christ you are speaking of couldn't be God. Too bad he's not real. He also says "I will be with you always until the end of time" and finally doesn't the Apostle Paul in Galatians says "it is not I, but Christ lives in me". How can this be if he is only at the right hand of God? Nice try though.

"He said when he returns, we will be going with him. We don't recieve him, he's gonna revieve us!!!!"

All true and well and good. When he comes in the form of a man, just as he left, he will. In the form of the Eucharist he sustains us. He said I will be with you always until the end of time. Paul says in Galations with regard to the good that he does, "yet not I but Christ lives in me.".

"And finally, the Holy Spirit is who's doing Christ's earthly work."

So the Holy Spirit is a separate God? Trinitarian theology says that when one person of the trinity is there, all three are. You do believe in the trinity don't you. Once again Paul says when he does good, "it is not I, but Christ lives in me.". Bro Curtis has a tritheistic divided God that does not exist. This he uses to support his rejection of the Eucharist, saying that the Holy Spirit is the only God doing any work around here. The other two God's are in heaven only. Last I checked, my God was omnipresent. You baptists out there, even by your own faith, brother Churtis is preaching error. Reprimand him.

"I know this has been civil, but I have to chime in. This is a baptist board, and I believe my comments are welcome. I completely reject the eucharist, and furthermore claim that those who participate are no closer to the Lord than I am."

Oh yes, your comments are welcome. God will be the judge of the last part.

Blessings.

 

I'll believe, and post, what the Bible says.

You haven't proven anything. You didn't put verses up, but little bitty snipets, with no references, like your afraid to look them up. taken out of context. No problem, you can't prove the real presence. Keep trying, but it can't be done, by scripture only.

 

"You didn't use one verse in that "refutation"."

Oh really. I did have a couple of direct quotes from scripture so that makes you a not so truthful guy (to put it kindly). Does it bother you that much to know I didn't put a chapter and verse number. Well, did you know that there was no such thing in any bible until the 4th or 5th century. They were traditions added to the Bible much later.

Where I didn't quote ver batum scripture I would have thought that a man of the word like you would know the exact verses that I was refering to, since I knew exactly the verses that you were refering to without going to the chapter and verses that you kindly provided. But I suppose not.

Here are some of the verses I either quoted or eluded to.

Gal 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; "

Acts 1:11
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Two of these verses I quoted directly. Now Bro. Curtis, you didn't quote scripture in your post but just put down some chapter and verse numbers to go with your own words so the standard that you are holding me too is quite different than the one you have for yourself. But excuse my laziness. I won't let it happen again.

"You haven't proven anything. You didn't put verses up, but little bitty snipets, with no references, like your afraid to look them up. taken out of context. No problem, you can't prove the real presence. Keep trying, but it can't be done, by scripture only. "

What kind of a clown are you?

 

Don't call me a clown. Got it ? Good.

You have not proven a real presence. Until you do, or admit you can't, get used to my broken record.

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "You have not proven a real presence."

This what I dislike most about Apologetics. That is, when Apologetics begins to be considered a way to "prove" particular points.

For instance, it is impossible to prove that Jesus is God. Yes, it can be demonstrated reasonably that this is what the New Testament Scriptures teach, but not definitively. You still have Jehovah's Witnesses, Neo-Arians, Christadelphians, and the like who will show that you cannot prove this fundamental keystone of Christianity.

In the end, the assent of faith must be given when we consider Divine Mysteries such as the Holy Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Immaculate Conception, the Mystical Body of Christ, etc. Apologetics helps to show the reasonableness of various articles of faith, but in the end, they are objects of faith, not proof. And, we cannot believe without the assistance of the Spirit, without divine grace, who enables our reason to accept mysteries of faith that transcend reason.

God bless,

Carson

 

If you aren't a clown, then why are you calling the many pages of my work to explain my faith "silly."

Practice what you preach.

Grant

 

Attack the religion, not the person.

 

Carson, I guess the Holy Spirit just won't enable me to believe the real presence.

The Bible says that Jesus is the son of God, I need nothing else.

[ January 28, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

Hi Brother Curtis,

When the deposit of faith is preached, grace is given with it. Grace always accompanies revelation. (Thank the Lord for the catechists!)

You wrote, "The Bible says that Jesus is the son of God, I need nothing else.

The Bible also says that Solomon was a son of God. Read 2 Sam 7:14. The Arians are already a step in front of you.

God bless,

Carson

 

Bro. Curtis said:

Whew!!!!! Huge sigh of relief!! Glad I didn't have to jump in here and be the bad "girl." Neal, I understand your original intent. I mean there are many misunderstandings as to what RCs actually believe and don't. I've had many misconceptions cleared up through my studies. However, your responses were leaning towards receptiveness or agreement with your newfound understandings. However, that may not be the case, but I think Bro. Curtis' concerns as a moderator of a Baptist Board is that readers will think theses beliefs are being exhorted and endorsed.

Now, I have a few things to say myself.

Before Jesus ever said for us to eat His flesh He said He was the "bread of life."

Bread is continually used to reference bodily sustenance, physcial/literal and spiritual. Nothing says it plainer than Luke:

Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

Daily bread is what sustains us. Not daily flesh.

From John 16:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Holy Spirit could not be here if Jesus is still here.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Jhn 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

If none of the above tell you that Jesus was being figurative in John 6. Then look at John 16 (Chapter 16 comes after Chapter 6)

Jhn 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Jesus tells the apostles that the things He had previously/recently taught had been spoken in proverbs, that would include John 6 and "eating His flesh . . . "

Never does Scripture encourage or allow for consumption of human flesh, however Scripture does set a precedent for "eating words."

Jer 15:16, "Your words were found and I ate them, and your words became for me a joy and the delight of my life."

Many times Scripture endorses, exhorts and praises the value of the words of Christ:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

[ January 28, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Curtis,

"Attack the religion, not the person. "

I guess that is why you painted me as a coward of some sort.

You are absolutely right. I have not proven the real prescence. Neither can the trinity or the incarnation or the virgin birth or a host of other things be proven from the Bible. That is what faith is, believing in things that are not proven through mathematical formulas and scientific theoroms. And the sad truth is that I cannot convince you. Things of God can only be revealed through the son. I hope you don't mind if I quote scripture on you. My leggs are shaking but here it goes.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Luke 10:22
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

James 3:17
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

So if you don't get it I am not surprized and neither do I look down on you for not getting it because God has not given you the grace to get it yet. I pray he will.

I will retract the clown comment only because it was reactionary to your ridiculous characterization of me as a quivering coward. I hardly am afraid of scripture or quoting it. But I reserve the right to speak freely on these boards. What you will never admit is that along with your scriptural interprutations comes a set of Baptist ideas as to what those verses mean and a whole religious context that goes with your Bible. The context you are missing is the Church and the Traditions that have been held to for 2000 years.

God bless

By the way, Curtis, I have not yet been mad at you, contrary to your speculation in a post or two above. You have made me laugh a bit.

 

Thess,

From a scientific point of view those things can not be proven. However, as people of faith, those things can be proven scripturally. Does Scripture use the word Trinity? Nope. But, we can gleen this from Scripture. Just look at what Tertullian said:

Sorry, for the length, but I think you'll get my drift.

Yes, but the "Real Presence" can not be deduced even Scripturally

Ditto.

 

Here's a bonus eye-popper :

Tertullian said: It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself.

He proved the Trinity by using Scripture, not by relying on Traditon. Hmmmmmm . . . Verly, intelesting . . . .