The "eucharist" is unbiblical

[Avatar4321]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

it is unbiblical the way RCC do it and others. In memory of HIM, YES. Memory is entirely diff. then the "real" presence where a sinful man (Priest) supposedly calls Jesus down from Heaven millions of times a week to be "resacrificed" over and over in the "flesh".

1) that is a different argument thsn you started the thread with. There is a big difference between the Eucharist being unbiblical and the way they take it being unbiblical.

2) not being biblical does not mean something can't be of God. god does many things outside the bible.

3) Catholics dont believe in following the bible alone. It's ridiculous to bold them to your standard when your stardard isn't theirs or biblical

 

[Avatar4321]

ninja, please stop your endless attacks on the Catholic Church. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should act like it.

Because you a RC and go to Church every Sunday you are a brother or sister in Jesus? No- only those who are BORN AGAIN are my brothers and sisters.

and how do we know you are born again? Why should we not treat all men as our brothers? Christ taught us to love even our enemies. So shouldn't we treat everyone as our family?

 

[Meriweather]

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.


The only possible way that Jesus could be present in anyone is if his flesh, symbolic of teaching from God, bread from heaven, is in you.

Nothing made by human hands that has no life and can neither see, hear, walk or talk can give life.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.



When Jesus said this;

"The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life."

he wasn't talking about wine and crackers.


Jesus is not and never was present in the eucharist and if you say that he is, the teaching of Jesus is not present in you.

Christ is present in the Eucharist, and his teachings are present in my life.

 

[ninja007]

JESUS still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine".

 

[ninja007]

B. Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent history:

Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.

"The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

Orthodox writers misrepresent history, but correctly identify the Lord's Supper as a battle ground between Christians and Gnostics.

"In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 173)

The historically accurate way of saying this would be:

"In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed. By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view. It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation."

Some Gnostics groups refused to break bread altogether. The only churches today that do not break bread at all, like the Gnostics, are groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army. But even still, the 2nd century Gnostics and the church both viewed the elements of the Lord's Supper as symbolic. Transubstantiation was never the issue at this time.

But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.

"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

Amazingly the language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church:

"they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

In truth, however, this literalistic language was typical of how everyone talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. But we want to note that the Orthodox statement is quite wrong when they say the Gnostics distinguished between transubstantiation and the symbolic view, for they in fact used the same identical literalistic language as the church. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox historians to be consistent, they would need to admit, that if the literalistic language of "this is my body" proves transubstantiation, then they are forced to admit that the Gnostics at the time of Irenaeus in 180 AD, also believed in transubstantiation. Of course the truth is that both the church and Gnostics taught the symbolic view, while employing the same literalistic language.

In fact, the logic employed by early church leaders like Irenaeus to defeat Gnosticism, were specifically based upon a symbolic, non-transubstantiation view of communion. In other words, Irenaeus' whole argument would have been defeated, if he believed in Transubstantiation. The very logic of Irenaeus' argument is that the Lord's supper is composed of natural elements of common juice and bread.

"He (the Gnostic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)

The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be. Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics.

The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

This is the kind of historical information that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep from their people. Both the early church and the Gnostics rejected transubstantiation and took the symbolic view.​

 

[ninja007]

ntx-communion-transubstantiation

 

[Meriweather]

Ninja, perhaps you think you are making your case by cutting and pasting so much misinformation. I read it, thinking, "So much misinformation...where do I start?" Then decide the mess is too great to bother with.

Why not bring in a single point rather than an entire dump?

I've looked back through the thread, and the point I am choosing is Tertullian. If you wish to bring in another single point, I'd be happy to discuss that as well. One at a time, okay?

 

[Meriweather]

Post #26 included this:

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)4. Cyprian (200 AD):

The first question to address is whether the word translated as 'figure' had the same meaning for Tertullian as it does for us today. Where else did he use it, and how did he use it then? He used the word 'caro figuratus' to describe that in the womb, Christ received the appearance and the reality of flesh.

Likewise, in using 'figura' to describe the Eucharist, the bread is the means Our Lord uses to make his body present.

This post addresses the evolving/changing definition of a word over time, which should not be neglected. It shows Tertullian's use of the word in another context.

The next post will include six statements Tertullian made about the Eucharist.

 

[Meriweather]

Six statements Tertullian made regarding the Eucharist:

* It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground.

* It was the Lord's body which the disciples received at the Last Supper.

* It is the Lord's body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home.

* It is the Lord's body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist.

* It is Christ's body and blood with which "the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God".

* Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend.

 

[Meriweather]

The other point I will address is that Jesus was speaking only figuratively or using metaphors when he commanded we eat his body (present in the bread) and drink his blood (present in the wine).

We can see in Old Testament writings that using such figurative language would mean to destroy a person. Is Jesus telling his disciples to destroy him, and to destroy him for eternal life at that?

 

[hobelim]

Christ is present in the Eucharist, and his teachings are present in my life.

Nonsense.

The first chapter of John clearly establishes that flesh is a metaphor for words from God. "The Word became flesh", teaching, in the person of Jesus.

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

 

[Meriweather]

Christ is present in the Eucharist, and his teachings are present in my life.

Nonsense.

The first chapter of John clearly establishes that flesh is a metaphor for words from God. "The Word became flesh", teaching, in the person of Jesus.

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

I don't read and interpret John the same way. Where we do seem to have a common ground is that what comes forth from us, comes from the heart, from within.

 

[hobelim]

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

I don't read and interpret John the same way. Where we do seem to have a common ground is that what comes forth from us, comes from the heart, from within.

I can accept that. I do not doubt that the vast majority of practicing Catholics have a sincere love for Jesus and acknowledge their need for God.

I am just showing the way to the fulfillment of that love and need.

As it is, the more a person worships and eats the eucharist for spiritual life, the further from God and spiritual life they recede in actuality. The more a person attends mass with the intention to get closer to God and cultivate a holy life, the more they receive the exact opposite of their professed intentions.

Bodily ascending into Heaven is as easy or as difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.

Why waste any more precious time in the darkness of a tomb full of corruption and dead men's bones dicking around with bread and wine?

 

[Meriweather]

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

I don't read and interpret John the same way. Where we do seem to have a common ground is that what comes forth from us, comes from the heart, from within.

I can accept that. I do not doubt that the vast majority of practicing Catholics have a sincere love for Jesus and acknowledge their need for God.

I am just showing the way to the fulfillment of that love and need.

As it is, the more a person worships and eats the eucharist for spiritual life, the further from God and life they recede in actuality. The more a persons attends mass with the intention to get closer to God and cultivate a spiritual life, the more they receive the exact opposite of their professed intentions.

Bodily ascending into Heaven is as easy or as difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.

Why waste any more precious time in the darkness of a tomb full of corruption and dead men's bones dicking around with bread and wine?

Let's take a look at the way Christ showed to the fulfillment of that love and need: He gathered people together and joined them for meals. He told stories, he taught, he healed, he nourished. He is still doing that today...and it not a waste of anyone's time.

 

[hobelim]

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

I don't read and interpret John the same way. Where we do seem to have a common ground is that what comes forth from us, comes from the heart, from within.

I can accept that. I do not doubt that the vast majority of practicing Catholics have a sincere love for Jesus and acknowledge their need for God.

I am just showing the way to the fulfillment of that love and need.

As it is, the more a person worships and eats the eucharist for spiritual life, the further from God and life they recede in actuality. The more a persons attends mass with the intention to get closer to God and cultivate a spiritual life, the more they receive the exact opposite of their professed intentions.

Bodily ascending into Heaven is as easy or as difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.

Why waste any more precious time in the darkness of a tomb full of corruption and dead men's bones dicking around with bread and wine?

Let's take a look at the way Christ showed to the fulfillment of that love and need: He gathered people together and joined them for meals. He told stories, he taught, he healed, he nourished. He is still doing that today...and it not a waste of anyone's time.

"Dwell in my love. If you heed my commands you will dwell in my love as I have heeded my Fathers commands and dwell in his love."

If a person seeks eternal life by worshiping and eating a lifeless thing made by human hands they are not only wasting their time, that practice is insuring that they will never receive the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life in this life.

If you do not conform to the divine commands as Jesus conformed to the divine commands you cannot have the eternal life promised for obedience to the divine commands in you.

 

[Meriweather]

Teaching from God is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world.

If his teaching about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the Law is not in you, Jesus is not present in you or your life much less the eucharist and are under a delusion which renders your mind defiled and contaminated to the point where you have become oblivious to the fact that anything made by human hands and has no life cannot impart spiritual life that can only come from the living God through the words that Jesus spoke which are both spirit and life.

If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of God, receive this teaching, the eternal life promised for compliance with the Law cannot be in you...

Worshiping a trinity that does not exist by eating the eucharist which has no life is a brazen violation of divine Law, an abomination which causes desolation - the absence of life and light.

I don't read and interpret John the same way. Where we do seem to have a common ground is that what comes forth from us, comes from the heart, from within.

I can accept that. I do not doubt that the vast majority of practicing Catholics have a sincere love for Jesus and acknowledge their need for God.

I am just showing the way to the fulfillment of that love and need.

As it is, the more a person worships and eats the eucharist for spiritual life, the further from God and life they recede in actuality. The more a persons attends mass with the intention to get closer to God and cultivate a spiritual life, the more they receive the exact opposite of their professed intentions.

Bodily ascending into Heaven is as easy or as difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.

Why waste any more precious time in the darkness of a tomb full of corruption and dead men's bones dicking around with bread and wine?

Let's take a look at the way Christ showed to the fulfillment of that love and need: He gathered people together and joined them for meals. He told stories, he taught, he healed, he nourished. He is still doing that today...and it not a waste of anyone's time.

"Dwell in my love. If you heed my commands you will dwell in my love as I have heeded my Fathers commands and dwell in his love."

If a person seeks eternal life by worshiping and eating a lifeless thing made by human hands they are not only wasting their time, that practice is insuring that they will never receive the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life in this life.

If you do not conform to the divine commands as Jesus conformed to the divine commands you cannot have the eternal life promised for obedience to the divine commands in you.

One of Jesus' commands was to, "Do this..." The Eucharist, like all Sacraments, is the visible sign of the invisible reality. I can testify that it is not a waste of time, but a time of deep communion/worship and nourishment of grace and spiritual strength. We gather together with Christ--and then we go forth into the world to love and to serve (the other commands of) the Lord.

 

[hobelim]

If you do not conform to the divine commands as Jesus conformed to the divine commands you cannot have the eternal life promised for obedience to the divine commands in you.

One of Jesus' commands was to, "Do this..." The Eucharist, like all Sacraments, is the visible sign of the invisible reality. I can testify that it is not a waste of time, but a time of deep communion/worship and nourishment of grace and spiritual strength. We gather together with Christ--and then we go forth into the world to love and to serve (the other commands of) the Lord.

The command of Jesus to "Do this" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the eucharist or what you are saying and doing at Mass. Eucharistic adoration is a brazen violation of divine law and a desecration of the teachings of Jesus. The only thing a person in such a defiled state can do after imitating such a practice is spread poison among their family and friends and neighbors.

One thing you have to include in your speculations is the fact that according to the gospel of John the only mention about eating flesh and blood, figurative for receiving the words that are both spirit and life and form the body of his teaching, was before the last supper but during the last supper the only one given bread dipped in wine was Judas as a way for Jesus to identify his betrayer.... and as soon as Judas received the bread, Satan entered him.



If you are devoted to celebrate mass and you can see nothing whatever wrong with worshiping a lifeless object made by human hands as if it could impart spiritual life, perhaps it is because you died in the very day you first bowed down in deranged adoration before it and have since descended into the netherworld, the realm of the dead.

 

[Meriweather]

The command of Jesus to "Do this" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the eucharist or what you are saying and doing at Mass. Eucharistic adoration is a brazen violation of divine law and a desecration of the teachings of Jesus. The only thing a person in such a defiled state can do after imitating such a practice is spread poison among their family and friends and neighbors.

Jesus' command has everything to do with the Mass and the Eucharist, it is why we celebrate it. I understand that for those who see the bread as only bread would feel adoration inappropriate. It is different for those who perceive the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. We remember. We celebrate. We believe.

One thing you have to include in your speculations is the fact that according to the gospel of John the only mention about eating flesh and blood, figurative for receiving the words that are both spirit and life and form the body of his teaching, was before the last supper but during the last supper the only one given bread dipped in wine was Judas as a way for Jesus to identify his betrayer.... and as soon as Judas received the bread, Satan entered him.

Bread--nor anything else--is dipped in wine during the Passover meal. A bitter herb or vegetable is dipped twice (but not in wine). A vegetable or herb is dipped once in salt water signifying tears that have been since wiped away; it is dipped a second time into a sweet mixture of fruit and nuts signifying the sweetening of the Israelites' suffering. This happens at the beginning of the meal, before the breaking of the bread.

If you are devoted to celebrate mass and you can see nothing whatever wrong with worshiping a lifeless object made by human hands as if it could impart spiritual life, perhaps it is because you died in the very day you first bowed down in deranged adoration before it and have since descended into the netherworld, the realm of the dead.

In the Eucharist, bread made by human hands, becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This Christ said, and this we believe. In it there is a lifting up, a transcendence, the life promised to us by Christ.

 

[hobelim]

it is why we .... We remember. We celebrate. We believe.

the Eucharist, bread made by human hands, becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.... and this we believe. In it there is a lifting up, a transcendence, the life promised to us by Christ.

How many of you are there?

Y'all have confused being placed under the condemnation of God with an uplifting experience.

Nothing made by human hands could ever become the body, blood, soul or divinity of Christ.

Believing in such a thing does not make it less of a lie.

"Lord, to whom shall we go? your words are words of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God."

What you believe contradicts the words of Jesus and what the disciples confirmed that they believed in john 6:68 about flesh and living bread from heaven being symbolic for the words that he spoke as Jesus clearly explained in John 6:63..

How could you possibly expect to avoid the condemnation of hell in either this world or the next?

 

[Meriweather]

[ Christ.... and this we believe. In it there is a lifting up, a transcendence, the life promised to us by Christ.

How many of you are there?

Y'all have confused being placed under the condemnation of God with an uplifting experience.

Nothing made by human hands could ever become the body, blood, soul or divinity of Christ.

Believing in such a thing does not make it less of a lie.

"Lord, to whom shall we go? your words are words of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God."

What you believe contradicts the words of Jesus and what the disciples confirmed that they believed in john 6:68 about flesh and living bread from heaven being symbolic for the words that he spoke as Jesus clearly explained in John 6:63..

How could you possibly expect to avoid the condemnation of hell in either this world or the next?

At last count there were over a billion Catholics in the world. I think that may qualify as a 'we.'

John 6:63 hammers home what Jesus said earlier. In earlier verses he was saying "my" flesh and "my" blood...In 6:63 it is 'the' flesh. Two different subjects.

Christ's words of eternal life were "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood", which he teaches is present in the bread and wine. There is no contradiction--and no condemnation.