"This is my flesh"

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Living_stone, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. Living_stone

    Living_stone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rather than have this go on burried in a random forum, I thought I'd bring this one out in the open...

    The Church from the 1st century forward has posited that the Eucharist is Christ's real flesh, not mere bread and wine (and wine, not grapejuice!).

    Scripture seems to back this up.

    Christ's simple statement "this is my flesh" seems enough to me. "this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new covenant" he says. This is the only time he mentions the new covenant. Moreover, he is the Lamb of God and there was no other lamb present at the passover they celebrated. They ate his flesh. His blood was the blood which now protected them from death.

    There's his entire discourse with the Jews of John 6 where 12 times he commands them to eat his flesh. The Greek word Christ uses for eat is "trogon", which means literally "to gnaw" or "masticate" or "to chew". "My flesh is food in deed, and my blood is drink in deed", says Christ.

    The Jews asked "how can this man give us his flesh to eat" when he said he was the bread come down from heaven. Jesus doesn't correct them. In Matthew 16:12, when people misunderstood a bread-based parable about "the leaven of the pharisees", he corrected them. Why no correction here? John 6:66 records that because of this many of his diciples left him. Why let them leave merely because Jesus himself hadn't been clear enough? And if it was metaphorical, what made it such a hard saying?

    Paul is pretty firm too. Paul in 1 Cor 10:16 asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?"

    In the next chapter he says "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

    History also seems to be on the side of the catholic understanding.

    "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." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

    "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

    "[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

    This is only the beginning of the defense I am willing to give, but for the sake of brevity (and I've already posted much) I will end here.

    I'd certainly like everyone's takes on this issue.
     
  2. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe with the Fathers, Early Church, Scripture...I affirm the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist.

    Here is my article on the subject: Eucharist

    (Note: It needs work [​IMG] )
     
  3. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am also instructed by scripture to be "crucified with Christ..." In no way have I ever climbed upon a cross and had my hands and feet nailed there.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. The RC view relies heavily on the words of Christ BEFORE His sacrifice (John 6, and Luke 22:20).

    #2. In BOTH instances nobody eats or drinks the blood of Christ – He is alive and right before them – no opening up of His veins!

    #3. In Luke 22 Christ speak of the future when His blood WILL be shed and said "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.– he shows explicitly that it “represents” a future reality when His blood WILL be poured out at Calvary.

    "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance -- Declaring this to be a memorial of a FUTURE event when He would be killed on the cross!

    Christ was not killed at the last supper! (obviously!) That proves “symbolism” then and there!

    #4. In 1Cor 11:22-26 the entire ceremony is stated as a memorial service “Do this in REMEMBERANCE” of Me

    #5. In John 6 the “faithLESS” disciples make the “too literal” cannibalistic argument – and the RCC takes the side of the FaithLESS group in John 6!

    #6. In John 6 Christ says “Literal flesh and blood is WORTHLESS it is my WORDS that have spirit and life” – by contrast to the complaint of the faithLESS disciples who can only think about cannibalism.

    #7. In Heb 10 we find the explicit argument that Christ’s sacrifice is complete “ONCE for ALL TIME” and that instead of “continual sacrifice” we have “AN END to ALL sacrifice”.

    #8. In Luke 22 Christ said of that Passover cup – (that HE calls “The fruit of the vine”) that He would drink of that same cup AGAIN with us in heaven. The sacrifices is LONG ended after the cross and certainly ended in heaven itself!


    But man's tradition has dictated that we "ignore these details" in God's Word and believe the argument about "confecting God" that the RCC would have us believe.

    Choose you this day whom you will serve.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jer:15:16: Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

    bet he didnt literally eat them

    "Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" He revealed the fact, as do many, when the cutting truth is brought home to the conscience, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. There is nothing in them that responds to spiritual things; for spiritual things are spiritually discerned. But, although Nicodemus did not comprehend His words, Jesus did not become impatient or discouraged, but sought to make more plain His statement of truth.

    In solemn, quiet dignity, Jesus repeated His words in a manner that would convince him of their divine truth: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

    bet Jesus didnt expect Nicodemus to enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again
     
  6. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, I would like to make sure that the OP was posted by the supporter or Pro-RC, or RC minded idea, while many RC or Pro-RC here have said that Protestants bash RC while Rc don't do so, which is quite untrue if you look at this thread as it is opened in favor of Pro-Roman Catholics.

    If you look at the current threads, you can notice how many Pro-RC threads are initiated by the Pro-Roman Catholics. Even this issue was already dealt with recently under the title of Transubstantiation.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3619/5.html#000061


    I would not mind about such RC's repetition and therefore will enjoy responding to them.

    1. OP poster must clarify what is his position about the Transubstantiation.
    Even RC's statement about the Transubstantiation is quite ambiguous, because it says sometimes that EXTERNAL ACCIDENTS don't change while the Internal Substance changes.

    So, I hope the OP- Poster Living_Stone must clarify what he is claiming, whether all substances are changed or only the internal substance is changed. Please check your theory.

    2. Before I hear your answer about RC's position, I want to hear you whether you have your own belief different from RC's Transubstantiation.

    What is your belief about it and what is your comment if you hear that RC don't believe that the materials- Bread and Wine- are changed to flesh and blood because the External Accidents remain unchanged ? Please let me know your belief.

    3. If you claim that the Materials- Bread and Wine are changed to flesh and blood, are you ready to prove it by Laboratory Tests? or will you admit that the material is not changed ?

    4) Are you claiming that Jesus cut out His flesh and gave it to the disciples and the Disciples drank the blood of Jesus?


    Again, I want to tell you that this was already discussed sufficiently and recently at :

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3619/5.html#000061


    If the time has passed quite a lot, then it may be worthwhile to discuss again. Otherwise, if you have a brilliant new idea, you can explain here in detail.

    I must tell you some of my opinion :

    1) You misunderstand about John 6 because Jesus said
    "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life " (John 6:63)

    2) I was not crucified at the Cross, nor was Paul crucified at the Cross, but Paul said " I am crucified at the Cross with Christ" (Gal 2:20)

    "Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 6:11

    In the same manner, we regard the bread as representing flesh, wine representing blood.

    3) Do you believe that you were crucified with Christ at the Cross? How do you believe it? Have you ever climbed up to the Cross? Were your hands pierced?

    4) If you believe the materials are changed, when did it happen , at the bakery or at the delivery truck? or after the prayer by Priest?


    I believe it by Faith. I believe that I eat His flesh by believing.
    I regard it as flesh, even though they are bread and wine I believe it by Faith. There is no Magic Show there.
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to Living Stone and Nate - and to Jesus too! [​IMG]
     
  8. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Claudia,

    You made good points! [​IMG]
     
  9. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even Catholic doesn't believe Transubstantiation because they talk about External Accidents separately. People are cheated!
     
  10. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus also said he is the Vine, and called His followers branches. He called Himself the door.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The memorial service of Luke 22 is shown "Again" to be a memorial in 1Cor 11. How much more "obvious" can this be -- this is symbolism.

    It is a "memorial" not a "sacrifice" -- it is a memorial OF a sacrifice!

    RC Eucharist is “idolatry” (if non-Catholics are right) according to the RCC.

    The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

    Parenthetical inserts “mine”

    Indeed if they simply do this "IN REMEMBERANCE" of the sacrifice of Christ INSTEAD of as the CONTINUED sacrifice - then for Centuries the RCC has duped mankind to worship A PIECE OF BREAD as God”
     
  12. Living_stone

    Living_stone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    But he never said "this door is me" or "this vine is me", but he DID say "This [bread/host] is my body"
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    His body HELD the bread. His body HAD YET to be broken or sacrificed. Christ said "DO this in REMEMBERANCE of ME" - showing the service BEFORE his death to be a memorial OF that future sacrifice just as today it CONTINUES as a memorial of that PAST 'once for all time' sacrifice.
     
  14. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus made the comments "This is my Body" and 'This cup is the New Covenent in my blood" during a Seder Meal. The Seder Meal is a whole meal of rememberence. The different aspects of the deliverence out of Egypt were remembered in different stages and by drinking different cups at the right time during the meal. Jesus added another "rememberence" during a meal that is based on remembering what was done by God for His people. Just thought I would add that in.

    In Christ,
    Brian
     
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    But he never said "this door is me" or "this vine is me", but he DID say "This [bread/host] is my body" </font>[/QUOTE]And that interpretation is borne out by the Apostolic witness of the Church
     
  16. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    We regard the Bread as Flesh, Wine as Blood by faith and in obedience to the Lord as Romans 6:11.

    Nobody has answered my questions yet:

    1) Roman Catholic themselves deny Transustantiation because the External Accidents don't change while the inner substance change.

    2)If the material even including External Accidents change, can they be tested?

    Does Blood contain Hemoglobin, Leukocyte, Red Blood Cell, Blood platelet ?

    Why don't they prove their theory by a Lab Test?


    What RC claims is very similar to Jewish unbelievers' because Jewish unblieving people said this:
    John 6:52
    The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    Jesus said:
    John 6:63
    the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
     
  17. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Transubstantiation was the cheating method of Roman Catholic during the era when there was no method of Laboratory Test for the Blood, cheating the people in a superstitious way and accusing the people who disagree with it and torturing them by the inquisition.

    It came from Paganism, from Canna-Baal priests, resulting in the word " Cannibal"

    Did Jesus give the Disciples the cooked flesh or uncooked flesh? by cutting His own flesh ? or turning Bread into flesh?

    They don't believe Real Presence at everywhere, Omni-Presence, but instead they claim Jesus is present in cookie god!, the Egyptian paganism.
     
  18. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you still going off on this foolish tangent? Why don't you just drop it, it has already been demonstrated to you that the definition of Transubstantiation is fits RCC beliefs because they are the ones who defined it according to the works of Thomas Aquinas.

    Once again the answer is no they cannot be tested because the tests would only detect the external accidentals.

    If you continue asking these question, I will once again have to ask you to submit to laboratory tests to see if you are a new creation in Christ. Don't force things to go back that way.
     
  19. gekko

    gekko
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    actual body and blood of Jesus with the bread and wine? actual flesh of Christ?

    I always thought that Christ was sacrificed already... so why have the eucharist to do it again? and again? and again? and again?

    that's essentially what it's doing... real flesh and blood of Christ. then taking that in rememberance of Him.

    besides... that'd be cannibalism. no?
     
  20. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right! [​IMG]

    The people who claim that the Bread is changed to the Flesh and Wine to Blood physically and then refuse the testing by Lab cowardly, saying that our belief cannot be tested at the Laboratory are frankly admitting that what they claim and insist are only the matter of faith without the actual and physical change of the sunbstances , and admitting that Transubstantiation is wrong!

    They themselves know well that they are telling lies !
    They are quite frank at least in that impasse.
     

Share This Page

Loading...