Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[hadit]

No, I'm not making things up, I am making a point. And you almost got it. Now say to yourself, "I don't know the Catholic mind and I should not accuse them of what I think they are doing wrong."

Oh, I agree with that, and I hope you have seen me willing to understand your position instead of simply accusing you of things that are not true. I ask questions and you provide answers superior to those I get from a lot of others who don't bother to understand what they're insisting on. Now, will you stop with the mind-reading schtick? It's unbecoming.

 

[ding]

I'm saying that there's no need for two of the powers that you say Catholic priests have. The rest I have clearly laid out, yet you refuse to acknowledge any of that, only insist I said something different.

That's not how you started this conversation. You said there was no need for priests today. Not sure what you think changed.

there is no need for priests today, because nowhere in Scripture does it give a human being the power to summon Jesus from heaven with an incantation to provide His body and blood.

Maybe go back and reread the OP for the history of the first Christians regarding the eucharist.

 

[ding]

I'm not ignoring it. You're big on reading in context, so let's look at the context in which Jesus said that. What had He just gotten done doing that was very, very remarkable? Let's look in John 6.

26: Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27: Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

Remember that? He had just finished miraculously feeding thousands of people. Now He's telling His disciples not to seek after physical food, but to seek after "food that endures to eternal life", or Himself. Notice that He's NOT telling them to literally consume His flesh and blood. He's speaking metaphorically. Now, back to Scripture.

30: So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31: Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”

32: Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33: For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

So, He's NOT speaking of literal bread, but of spiritual nourishment. The manna was a foreshadowing of His sacrifice. It fed the Israelites for a time, then they needed more. Jesus' TRUE bread fills completely and lasts forever.

34: “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35: Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

Do you maintain that Jesus literally fills the bellies of those who seek Him? Do they never again go hungry? Of course, they go hungry. Otherwise, you would say that you had communion as a young person and never felt hungry again. So, He's OBVIOUSLY speaking metaphorically here.

48: I am the bread of life. 49: Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50: But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52: Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53: 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. 54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57: Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58: This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59: He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

If Jesus meant for the people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, the Jews would have torn His body apart right there, eaten it and lived forever.

Since they did not and He had no expectation that they would, He's obviously speaking metaphorically. Why do you maintain this must absolutely be taken literally, no other conception allowed, while you twist, bend and distort to avoid being called a priest by God? In fact, you insist only PART of the passage be taken literally, otherwise you would indeed never need to eat again and would live forever. Why is it that you grab that ONE part of it and insist it has to be taken literally while you happily let the rest be metaphorical? It makes far more sense to acknowledge that Jesus is speaking metaphorically through the entire passage.

You aren't ignoring it? You certainly aren't following his command. All I see is your rationalization for not following his command because what he commanded shocks you.

It's funny that you don't even address or quote the relevant scripture.

You aren't the first person to be shocked by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He lost a lot of disciples over that command.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51
2. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
3. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53
4. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
5. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
6. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63
7. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

 

[ding]

I do "make sacrifices". Lots of them. But you don't have a clue as to what that term means. Your way of thinking is all mixed up.

Good for you. Everyone makes sacrifices. Not everyone benefits from them. Most make their sacrifices grudgingly. I couldn't be happier for you to believe I don't know what I am talking about. My obligation has been satisfied. I'd actually prefer you dismiss it and not benefit from it.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Good for you. Everyone makes sacrifices. Not everyone benefits from them. Most make their sacrifices grudgingly. I couldn't be happier for you to believe I don't know what I am talking about. My obligation has been satisfied. I'd actually prefer you dismiss it and not benefit from it.

I haven’t a clue what you are taking about and neither do you. You seem to want to shoehorn a belief in Catholicism with sacrifice and with the Bible using child and human sacrifice I guess I can somewhat understand your fascination with glorifying human sacrifice.

 

[Meriweather]

You have it all set up so it can only be a one-way conversation. The priest is already set up as superior with authority over the penitent. I can tell already that a Catholic would have no idea what to do if the priest confessed sin from the pulpit or personally. A Protestant would know immediately what to do if his/her pastor came to them and confessed sin. Does not the priest have responsibility to the congregation, or is he "higher up"? Remember that Jesus said the greatest in His kingdom are those who put themselves last.

Priests confess to other priests. Be sure and tell us what you find wrong and just awful about that.

 

[ding]

I haven’t a clue what you are taking about and neither do you. You seem to want to shoehorn a belief in Catholicism with sacrifice and with the Bible using child and human sacrifice I guess I can somewhat understand your fascination with glorifying human sacrifice.

I've been clear. If you aren't following it, I can't help you. Especially since you keep coming back to animal sacrifices which I haven't even mentioned. Maybe this will help...

"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of belief in a higher power, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the life of a believer, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Belief in God thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."​

William James​

 

[hadit]

That's not how you started this conversation. You said there was no need for priests today. Not sure what you think changed.

I've modified what I'm saying because I'm listening to what you Catholics are saying. Meriweather is doing a good job explaining what they do. I still oppose the things I said I oppose but in other ways, a priest is not that different from a minister of a congregation.

Maybe go back and reread the OP for the history of the first Christians regarding the eucharist.

The Catholic Church didn't adopt transubstantiation as a policy until the 1200's.

 

[hadit]

Priests confess to other priests. Be sure and tell us what you find wrong and just awful about that.

Now you're just being petulant. Protestant leaders are not expected to confess to higher ups; they are expected to have accountability partners who confess to each other and hold each other accountable.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Priests confess to other priests. Be sure and tell us what you find wrong and just awful about that.

This "go-between" nonsense is amusingly juvenile.

 

[Meriweather]

Oh, I agree with that, and I hope you have seen me willing to understand your position instead of simply accusing you of things that are not true. I ask questions and you provide answers superior to those I get from a lot of others who don't bother to understand what they're insisting on. Now, will you stop with the mind-reading schtick? It's unbecoming.

As I explained in the earlier post: I needed to get your attention. I was making a point you just weren't getting. At last you got it. It wasn't about "reading your mind" it was about getting your attention. And, I'll post as I wish, unbecoming to you or not.

 

[Meriweather]

Now you're just being petulant.

Actually, I was grinning. Now who is trying to read minds?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I've been clear. If you aren't following it, I can't help you. Especially since you keep coming back to animal sacrifices which I haven't even mentioned. Maybe this will help...

"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of belief in a higher power, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the life of a believer, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Belief in God thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."​

William James​

I gather from the opinions of a guy I don't know and care about is that suffering is good and warranted and even necessary because in the "end" it will all be worthwhile when we all are fed grapes by nubile young virgins while worshipping the creator. I listened to a former black minister last week who touched on this belief system as it pertains to his tribe of black people, many of whom are believers. He said that the system was rigged to make black people think slavery and Jin Crow laws were their sacrifice and to accept it and endure it.

Quite a revelation to me. I had never thought of it in that way.

This showed me that the church needed and wanted to convince the people that suffering and sacrifice were not so that they would be able to achieve greatness because of their perseverance but for "God" because he liked it. After all, he wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son, and God sacrificed his own son. Thus, the church duped commoners to accept suffering at the hands of the church leaders and other humans as a good thing.

 

[hadit]

You aren't ignoring it? You certainly aren't following his command. All I see is your rationalization for not following his command because what he commanded shocks you.

It's funny that you don't even address or quote the relevant scripture.

You aren't the first person to be shocked by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He lost a lot of disciples over that command.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51

Okay, how long ago did you stop aging and never felt hungry again?

1. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
2. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53

He also said you would live forever and never be hungry again.

1. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
2. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
3. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63

That's right, the flesh is of no avail, yet here you are, insisting on the flesh and blood, not the Spirit. Again, be consistent.

1. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

How long ago did you realize you're not getting hungry anymore and that you stopped aging? If you're going to insist one part of that passage has to be taken literally, you should at least be consistent and take the rest of it literally, not picking and choosing which parts are which to justify your beliefs.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I've modified what I'm saying because I'm listening to what you Catholics are saying. Meriweather is doing a good job explaining what they do. I still oppose the things I said I oppose but in other ways, a priest is not that different from a minister of a congregation.

The Catholic Church didn't adopt transubstantiation as a policy until the 1200's.

Usually, I only debate Christians (Catholics) occasionally because I have heard it all in Catholic school and also through years of debate with Calvinists, Christians and Catholics as a hobby. The reason there are scores of denominations is because of many disagreements among the believers. For a time Christians essentially ruled the world and rather ruthlessly for centuries. They came up with laws against blasphemy to destroy dissent. That wasn't to ward off atheists but to ward off people believing in different versions of Christianity because that would eventually lead to the demise of Catholicism itself.

Does anyone here think that Muslims like being Muslims, especially the women who are still subjugated like Catholic women used to be? They will say they like it but that is only because severe punishment or death is in store if they say they don't believe.

It's against that backdrop that this Catholic cult still persists

 

[ding]

Okay, how long ago did you stop aging and never felt hungry again?

"The flesh is of no avail." ~ Jesus

John 6:62-63

 

[ding]

He also said you would live forever and never be hungry again.

Which is true for my spirit.

John 6:62-63

 

[ding]

That's right, the flesh is of no avail, yet here you are, insisting on the flesh and blood, not the Spirit. Again, be consistent.

Not me. Jesus. Jesus insists.

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ~ Jesus

John 6:53

 

[ding]

How long ago did you realize you're not getting hungry anymore and that you stopped aging? If you're going to insist one part of that passage has to be taken literally, you should at least be consistent and take the rest of it literally, not picking and choosing which parts are which to justify your beliefs.

According to Jesus it's because I eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood that I have life WITHIN me.

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ~ Jesus

John 6:53

 

[irosie91]

Not me. Jesus. Jesus insists.

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ~ Jesus

John 6:53

you getting squeamish? picky eater?