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

[Paradoxical#1]

you getting squeamish? picky eater?

I must say that even was about 10 as an altar boy I thought eating a wafer while kneeling was extremely creepy.

 

[irosie91]

I must say that even was about 20 as an altar boy I thought eating a wafer while kneeling was extremely creepy.

try that position with a soft boiled egg---in an egg cup---with
a teaspoon

 

[Meriweather]

This "go-between" nonsense is amusingly juvenile.

How are you identifying "go-between"?

 

[hadit]

"The flesh is of no avail." ~ Jesus

John 6:62-63

Well then, why are you insisting that you really eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood? Look, you take one part of a passage very literally and refuse to accept any other concept while equally insisting that the other part is metaphorical. You and I both know it makes more sense that He is speaking metaphorically throughout the whole passage.

 

[hadit]

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

He also said:

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

How long ago did you realize you aren't hungry anymore? If you take one part of the passage literal, you should be consistent with the rest of it.

 

[hadit]

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

And I've posted other parts of that same passage where the same person said He was the bread of life. Why do you still get hungry?

 

[excalibur]

Those who were given the power to heal and who were healing many, of course, just like the woman had faith that she would be healed if she could just touch Jesus' robe. That does not justify the invention of a whole new priesthood.

Now, if you use this to justify the Catholic priesthood, why are not Catholic priests known for mass healing like the Apostles were known? They have, according to you, the power to compel Jesus to submit His body and blood for sacrifice again as well as forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin. Jesus Himself made the case that the power to forgive sin was greater than the power to heal, then proceeded to demonstrate that He had both the greater and lesser power, yet we're supposed to accept that priests have the greater power and not the lesser?

Peter showed there was a successor priesthood when he ordered selecting a replacement for Judas.

Acts 1:

So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

​

 

[Meriweather]

Well then, why are you insisting that you really eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood? Look, you take one part of a passage very literally and refuse to accept any other concept while equally insisting that the other part is metaphorical. You and I both know it makes more sense that He is speaking metaphorically throughout the whole passage.

Let's return to Exodus. Manna was known as bread that came down from heaven. Then, there is the Bread of the Presence, made holy because in the Tabernacle, it was in the Presence of God. Next let's pick up John's account where Jesus says, "I am the living bread that comes down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Let's ask ourselves: Was manna, the bread that came down from heaven eaten? (Yes) Was the Bread of the Presence (made holy by the presence of of God in the Tabernacle eaten? (Yes)

Which is the more logical next step: Jesus' saying that those who have no personal memory of him should still eat bread in memory of him....or, Jesus saying, first people ate bread that came down from heaven; then priests ate bread made holy by God's presence; then Jesus saying he was the living bread from heaven, and that now all can eat his actual flesh in bread and drink his blood in wine--and, if people believe and do this, they will have eternal life.

Jesus raised bread saying, "This is my body" and the Cup saying, "This is my blood." There have been Eucharistic miracles which have turned to flesh identified as deep heart muscles and blood type B. Did the bread and wine start like this, or like the Bread of the Presence, through the power of the Holy Spirit did they become this during Consecration of the Mass.

How deep, how strong, is one's faith. Each person must answer this for him/herself.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

How are you identifying "go-between"?

Priest

 

[Meriweather]

Priest

Why do you see him as not needed?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Why do you see him as not needed?

When I was young, I asked myself why he was and came up empty, unless you insert dogma and claims.

 

[Meriweather]

When I was young, I asked myself why he was and came up empty, unless you insert dogma and claims.

Yes...the unless is vital.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Yes...the unless is vital.

To YOU it is. To ME, it is meaningless. Humans are the ones who claim that "God" wants this or wants that, or means this or means that, and they can twist and turn any verse in the bible any way they deem necessary to do whatever it is they want. This is why there are hundreds of different denominations, all of whom insist their dogma is true and correct.

You are one who believes every syllable of the bible is god ordained and possibly use John 20:21-23 or some other bible verse. I may have stated this on this forum before but if not, the main reason I stopped debating Christians is that they force the nonbelievers to accept the bible as the word of god as they believe it is.

Numerous other denominations either ignore the verse(s) you rely on or interpret them differently or use the YESBUT out that there is another verse that says such and such. Therefore, you and I, or anyone else can debate bible verses until hell freezes over and get nowhere and for me, it is arguing about something I don't believe at all. It would be like me debating a Muslim who memorized the Koran and he or she keeps tossing verses at me as if God inspired them.

 

[Meriweather]

You are one who believes every syllable of the bible is god ordained and possibly use John 20:21-23 or some other bible verse. I may have stated this on this forum before but if not, the main reason I stopped debating Christians is that they force the nonbelievers to accept the bible as the word of god as they believe it is.

I am? News to me.

What I try to do is go back to the intent of the original author to his original audience. I check with various scholars, particularly with rabbis when it comes to the Old Testament. I go back to the earliest commentary I can find, but also check the most recent. Not everything in the Bible applies to me and my life. It tells the accounts of God in the midst of His people. I didn't live back then. Still, some of the things that applied to every day life back then also apply to every day life now.

Out of curiosity, which syllables do you believe are not ordained by God?

 

[Meriweather]

Numerous other denominations either ignore the verse(s) you rely on or interpret them differently or use the YESBUT out that there is another verse that says such and such. Therefore, you and I, or anyone else can debate bible verses until hell freezes over and get nowhere and for me, it is arguing about something I don't believe at all. It would be like me debating a Muslim who memorized the Koran and he or she keeps tossing verses at me as if God inspired them.

Yes, people interpret verses differently, and many of those are because they use the King James English. English can change meanings, sometimes in dramatic ways. Plus, English is a language that evolves--this evolving doesn't affect Hebrew as it is a different type of language.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I am? News to me.

What I try to do is go back to the intent of the original author to his original audience. I check with various scholars, particularly with rabbis when it comes to the Old Testament. I go back to the earliest commentary I can find, but also check the most recent. Not everything in the Bible applies to me and my life. It tells the accounts of God in the midst of His people. I didn't live back then. Still, some of the things that applied to every day life back then also apply to every day life now.

Out of curiosity, which syllables do you believe are not ordained by God?

NO syllable was ordained by any god. It is ALL man written. Your belief that a god played any part is just that. A belief.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Yes, people interpret verses differently, and many of those are because they use the King James English. English can change meanings, sometimes in dramatic ways. Plus, English is a language that evolves--this evolving doesn't affect Hebrew as it is a different type of language.

Doesn’t matter. You have zero proof that the Hebrew is the word of any god. You have a belief.

 

[BackAgain]

ding

Can you transubstantiate your OP?

 

[Meriweather]

It is ALL man written.

Yes, Captain Obvious. It is all man written. So?

 

[Meriweather]

Your belief that a god played any part is just that. A belief.

Shrug. When God plays a part in one's own life, it is impossible to dismiss the parts He plays in others. It's why I am always highly recommending seeking and finding God before studying the Bible.