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

[Meriweather]

Okay, manna was a physical thing God provided for the sustenance of His people. The Bread of the Presence was bread that was made holy by God's presence but was not transformed into God's flesh, it was simply bread that David and his men ate because they were hungry. There's no mention that God was displeased with them, not like the man who died simply because he touched the Ark to steady it. You have multiple times used these examples to bolster your contention that bread and wine are physically transformed into flesh and blood, but these were not transformed. They were simply physical objects given for the benefit of God's people.

Yes, once David and his men at the Bread of the Presence reserved for the priests. They ate holy bread, bread that was made holy by God's presence. Is your point that it was just bread, and the holiness of it was not present for David and his men? Or, is this a suggestion the Bread of the Presence wasn't made holy? I am not sure I understand your point. For me, the fact that David and his men ate the Bread of the Presence is a foreshadowing of what was to come--that Holy bread will one day be the food of all, not just priests.

There are many things that Jesus took from the physical realm to the spiritual. Adultery is a physical action, but He said if you even think a certain way, you're guilty. Murder is a physical action, but He said if you even think a certain way, you're guilty. God is far more concerned with the heart than the body, and remember, the flesh counts for nothing.

Another analogy I often use is that a nursing mother feeds her baby with food from her own flesh and blood that is transformed into milk. Yet the idea of God feeding his people with all that he is, all that is in him is something strenuously to object and deny?

 

[hadit]

You are the poster child for one who believes everything some unknown person who wrote the bible encountered what they say they did for no reason other than it is in the bible and evidence that they saw, heard, did or anything else does not matter. It's in the bible.

Let's be careful here. I've heard this complaint so many times, that God has to do some great miraculous thing to prove He exists before someone will believe. The problem with this is man's stubbornness to accept something he doesn't want to accept. Case in point, the Holocaust happened what, 70 years ago? There are vast amounts of photographic, audio, and eyewitness evidence that it happened. The camps are still there and can be visited. It is perhaps the most documented atrocity in human history, yet there are many who today deny it ever happened.

Here's the truth. God could come down to the 50-yard line in the Super Bowl, proclaim Himself Lord of all, do all sorts of miraculous things, and what would be the response? "Hey, neat special effects", and within a decade or so, vast numbers of people would refuse to believe it ever happened. I call it, "Do a trick" theology, and God would have to show up over and over again, doing tricks to convince the stubborn that He exists. The "evidence" that you're looking for is something you discount or ignore, which is the changed lives and testimonies of those who not only encounter Jesus but put their faith in Him. You readily cast aside the testimonies of millions throughout the years and ignore them.

Be careful what you insist must happen before you believe. You might just get it.

 

[Crepitus]

It's true. Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Ummm... I'm pretty sure they still do.

Ritual cannibalism, you know.

 

[hadit]

Yes, once David and his men at the Bread of the Presence reserved for the priests. They ate holy bread, bread that was made holy by God's presence. Is your point that it was just bread, and the holiness of it was not present for David and his men? Or, is this a suggestion the Bread of the Presence wasn't made holy? I am not sure I understand your point. For me, the fact that David and his men ate the Bread of the Presence is a foreshadowing of what was to come--that Holy bread will one day be the food of all, not just priests.

No, the bread was holy because of God's presence, yet it was just bread. It wasn't God's flesh.

Another analogy I often use is that a nursing mother feeds her baby with food from her own flesh and blood that is transformed into milk. Yet the idea of God feeding his people with all that he is, all that is in him is something strenuously to object and deny?

Sure, but that milk displays transformation. It doesn't remain flesh and blood, it becomes something different. Yet the Church goes to great lengths to assure everyone that the bread and wine only transform in the spiritual realm and that's why you can't tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated.

Now, again, why do you insist that only a Catholic priest is able to command the transformation? There's no evidence in Scripture that such was required. The body met, shared a meal and remember Jesus' sacrifice. Catholic priests didn't come along until long after.

 

[Meriweather]

And you believe that only a Catholic priest who utters a certain incantation

No. That is not what I believe because you are twisting something holy and sacred into an "incantation", a lie that is yours alone and and is deeply offensive.

I believe that we are offering prayer and our sacrifice to God. Here is a paragraph that leads into the Consecration: (bold, mine to emphasize, we the community are at prayer and offering our most perfect sacrifice.

To you, therefore, most merciful Father,
we make humble prayer and petition
through Jesus Christ, your son, our Lord...
​

WE go on to become participants of the Last Supper, hearing the words and the blessings Jesus spoke. The past comes into the present, the present into the past. (Which is how Jews view Passover).

When we are discussing the Eucharist, we are on holy ground.

Why limit God and not allow Him to transform the elements if that's what He wants to happen? Basically, you should be able to go into any communion service and your faith would transform the elements IF THAT IS WHAT GOD WANTED FOR YOU.

Does a single person make up the Kingdom of God? Why would God choose to have a single person go off and do this on his/her own. We are members of a Kingdom. We are members of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ does not consist solely of me and Christ. We gather, many parts but one Body, one Kingdom.

Answer this: Why do you want to make it less than what it is?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Exactly, living bread. Why then insist that He inhabits unliving bread? Better to leave it where He put it, in the spiritual realm.

That the Eucharist remains bread and wine, subject to the physical laws of this universe. They degrade if they are not consumed because they are not transformed into anything else. You could not tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated if they were placed before you. On the one hand, you say that the elements were actually physically transformed, while on the other, the Church goes to great lengths explaining that the physical form doesn't change at all.

While I know that Catholicism is just one big cult (note I didn't say I "think" it is) I am glad that I was an altar boy and a firm believer up until my mid to late twenties. That experience let me see how people can become completely brainwashed because I was too. I believed everything the nuns, my family members, and society told me which at that time was heavily Catholic.

I remember the priest doing his thing by blessing (consecrating) the wafers and people sticking their tongues out, all of the believing that somehow a priest had that sort of power because that is what people were told by those "in authority". Of course, it was just a primitive ritual like much of Catholicism is with the Stations of the Cross, an ash mark on your forehead, rote prayer with beads like some aborigine with a necklace made of teeth, solemn processions of silent humans walking down an aisle, the smell of death (intense) being waived by yours truly.

It is not about LIFE. It is a religion of death and extolling the virtues of dying. people would be arrested and incarcerated today if they dared start a similar cult.

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus also declared that anyone who comes to Him will never be hungry or thirsty. How can we in good conscience insist that He is speaking spiritually one moment, then must be taken literally the next? People had problems with a lot of His teachings. Born again, how?

Do you believe that when Jesus said, "Go and baptize..." he was speaking spiritually and no one was supposed to get wet, as Baptism is spiritual? There is also they laying on of hands during healing. Do you believe that is meant only to be a spiritual laying on of hands, and no one should actually touch the ailing person?

In many ways each Sacrament is composed both of what is physical in this world and what is the reality in the spiritual realm. Doesn't it seem that Jesus' words and teaching often encircles both as we are both a physical people and a spiritual people, made up of both to become one. I find it amazing and so uplifting that in Jesus' words we see how both are together--they are not dissected and set apart. That's the world God has created for us, and that is who God created.

 

[hadit]

No. That is not what I believe because you are twisting something holy and sacred into an "incantation", a lie that is yours alone and and is deeply offensive.

I call it that because in essence, that's how you're treating it. I know you don't think so, but that's how it comes across. You believe that before a priest says this, the elements are merely bread and wine, but when he says it, they've transformed. Why not just allow Jesus to do the transformation Himself? Would you accept that the Eucharist is transformed through your faith alone without the need for a priest to utter the words?

I believe that we are offering prayer and our sacrifice to God. Here is a paragraph that leads into the Consecration: (bold, mine to emphasize, we the community are at prayer and offering our most perfect sacrifice.

To you, therefore, most merciful Father,
we make humble prayer and petition
through Jesus Christ, your son, our Lord...
​

WE go on to become participants of the Last Supper, hearing the words and the blessings Jesus spoke. The past comes into the present, the present into the past. (Which is how Jews view Passover).

When we are discussing the Eucharist, we are on holy ground.

I believe when we are discussing communion, we are discussing something very sacred indeed, and I believe it is open to all who call on the name of the Lord, not just to those approved by the Catholic Church.

Does a single person make up the Kingdom of God? Why would God choose to have a single person go off and do this on his/her own. We are members of a Kingdom. We are members of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ does not consist solely of me and Christ. We gather, many parts but one Body, one Kingdom.

Answer this: Why do you want to make it less than what it is?

Ah, but I am not. I am not requiring that only a Catholic priest can compel the transformation. If that is what happens, Jesus can do it on His own without a special person commanding it.

 

[Meriweather]

I have a problem with that, because the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to say just the opposite, that the consecrated Eucharist cannot be distinguished by observation from unconsecrated, that the transformation is NOT to the physical structure of the elements, but in the spiritual realm only. You are here saying the opposite, that their physical characteristics DO change, at least in this case. In fact, you had a negative visceral physical reaction when I talked about the consequences of bread physically turning into flesh and wine physically turning into blood, but here you are speaking approvingly of that actually happening.

Both are true. Look up Eucharistic miracles. The consecrated hosts do retain the appearance of bread and wine. Yet, there have been miracles where the appearance has changed.

 

[Meriweather]

What is your personal opinion of "inspired" by your god and where is your evidence of this?

God inspired me to write something once. I find the books of the Bible inspiring. Again, God in our midst, that tiny whisper, not thunderbolts, earthquakes, and big storms. Study the Bible for its tiny whispers.

 

[hadit]

Do you believe that when Jesus said, "Go and baptize..." he was speaking spiritually and no one was supposed to get wet, as Baptism is spiritual? There is also they laying on of hands during healing. Do you believe that is meant only to be a spiritual laying on of hands, and no one should actually touch the ailing person?

In many ways each Sacrament is composed both of what is physical in this world and what is the reality in the spiritual realm. Doesn't it seem that Jesus' words and teaching often encircles both as we are both a physical people and a spiritual people, made up of both to become one. I find it amazing and so uplifting that in Jesus' words we see how both are together--they are not dissected and set apart. That's the world God has created for us, and that is who God created.

Of course, there is both physical and spiritual. There is bread, which symbolizes the body of Christ, and wine, which symbolizes His blood. I also believe that the action of laying on of hands does not heal someone, but their faith and the expression of that faith combined with the faith and prayers of those around the person, lifting them up to God is what God commands for healing. I don't contend that the hands of the church elders who are praying become mystically transformed into anything else and that they can no longer allow them to get dirty or anything like that. I also don't believe the water becomes anything else when someone is baptized. It's just water. Does the river or pool transform into anything other than a river or a pool when someone is baptized? No.

 

[Meriweather]

Exactly, living bread. Why then insist that He inhabits unliving bread? Better to leave it where He put it, in the spiritual realm.

Asked and answered many times. "This is my body.....This is my blood."

That the Eucharist remains bread and wine, subject to the physical laws of this universe. They degrade if they are not consumed because they are not transformed into anything else. You could not tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated if they were placed before you. On the one hand, you say that the elements were actually physically transformed, while on the other, the Church goes to great lengths explaining that the physical form doesn't change at all.

What are you attempting to prove? And why is it of vital importance to you to prove it?

I trust in Jesus and feel no need to take his words and prove something else. It's been amazing, too.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Let's be careful here. I've heard this complaint so many times, that God has to do some great miraculous thing to prove He exists before someone will believe. The problem with this is man's stubbornness to accept something he doesn't want to accept. Case in point, the Holocaust happened what, 70 years ago? There are vast amounts of photographic, audio, and eyewitness evidence that it happened. The camps are still there and can be visited. It is perhaps the most documented atrocity in human history, yet there are many who today deny it ever happened.

Here's the truth. God could come down to the 50-yard line in the Super Bowl, proclaim Himself Lord of all, do all sorts of miraculous things, and what would be the response? "Hey, neat special effects", and within a decade or so, vast numbers of people would refuse to believe it ever happened. I call it, "Do a trick" theology, and God would have to show up over and over again, doing tricks to convince the stubborn that He exists. The "evidence" that you're looking for is something you discount or ignore, which is the changed lives and testimonies of those who not only encounter Jesus but put their faith in Him. You readily cast aside the testimonies of millions throughout the years and ignore them.

Be careful what you insist must happen before you believe. You might just get it.

When I am alone or working in the yard or not doing anything else, I listen to debates between Christians and atheists. Matt Dillahunty is one of those I listen to frequently although I have heard every debate between Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and scores of others, with some of them being former pastors turned atheists. Matt was asked what it would take for him to become a believer again. He was a bible scholar and Baptist before and used to preach to others.

Your question is hypothetical and also vague. When someone says "God" it is often a sleight of hand because they switch back and forth between a generic "God" and a Christian god concept when convenient. So, what God are you referring to? The Christian one? Allah? Thor, Ra, Mithra, Zuess, or some god that came and went centuries ago?

You say Jesus has changed the lives of many people and of course, I have heard this claim a million times over. Why is Jesus not seen or heard when people make the claim that "Jesus turned my life around"? No one ever sees him when Tom a lifelong addict says he found Jesus and quit. When you delve into it you find that it is his BELIEF that Jesus turned his life around that did it. You could insert Allah, Brahman, Norse Paganism, etc.

So, what god would it be on that Super Bowl field if "God" appeared? Not one reader here would say it was any god but their own. How could you tell? The pictures of Jesus in Medieval times make him look like an unattractive dark-skinned Middle Easterner. Today he looks like a handsome movie star.

What would it take? I dunno. What if he started by saying he cured childhood cancer today and people in the stands called their friends who were desperate for their cancer-ridden child to be cured and thousands of people in the stands murmur that children with cancer immediately got up and danced.

But no. The imaginary god does none of that. The world operates as if there is no god and all is the luck or bad luck of the draw. Tens of thousands killed in earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, disease, war, and criminals. When Joe Bloke CLAIMS that Jesus made him stop doing X we readily believe it and yet millions of kids are tortured or raped by maniacs every day or die of disease or cancer and you god sits idly by.

We are what we believe we are and if John quits drugs, extramarital sex, or smoking it is his BELIEF that some strawman god named Brahman or Alalh did it.

 

[hadit]

Asked and answered many times. "This is my body.....This is my blood."

You must be born again, how? Jesus said many things that don't make sense if taken strictly literally.

What are you attempting to prove? And why is it of vital importance to you to prove it?

I'm doing this because I'm exploring the Catholic belief that a priest can command Jesus to give His actual flesh and blood for consumption.

I trust in Jesus and feel no need to take his words and prove something else.

I don't either, but I also am careful to try to understand the whole of Scripture in context. I try not to lift just one verse out of a lengthy sermon, for example.

It's been amazing, too.

Yes, following Him is amazing.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

God inspired me to write something once. I find the books of the Bible inspiring. Again, God in our midst, that tiny whisper, not thunderbolts, earthquakes, and big storms. Study the Bible for its tiny whispers.

That is a claim. Insert Brahman now.

 

[Meriweather]

You are the poster child for one who believes everything some unknown person who wrote the bible encountered what they say they did for no reason other than it is in the bible and evidence that they saw, heard, did or anything else does not matter. It's in the bible.

You credit me with too much faith. In fact, if I am a "poster child" it is for one who does her own experiments on what scripture teaches. I am also aware that not all the Bible teaches is about me and my life. The Bible contains the wisdom of the ages. It points to pitfalls and it points out the glorious.

I am wondering if the difference between the two of us is that I had a tough time growing up. It's even tough being an adult. I wasn't paying attention at Mass and at school because I wanted a heavenly afterlife. What child cares about that!? What I wanted was to know how to make it through THIS life. And through the Bible and the Catholic faith I found The Way. What about you? Did you have such an even life that you had time to pick apart the Bible and the Catholic faith? Nothing better to do? I am sincerely curious.

 

[Meriweather]

No, the bread was holy because of God's presence, yet it was just bread. It wasn't God's flesh.

Had the incarnation yet taken place? God is Spirit. Long after David, the Word became man. This had not yet taken place in the time of God's presence in the Tabernacle. I thought you understood this.

Now, again, why do you insist that only a Catholic priest is able to command the transformation? There's no evidence in Scripture that such was required. The body met, shared a meal and remember Jesus' sacrifice. Catholic priests didn't come along until long after.

A Catholic priest "commands" nothing. I'll no longer respond to any post that uses such words as "command" and "incantation". As I explained earlier, this is holy ground. I expect it to be treated as such.

 

[hadit]

When I am alone or working in the yard or not doing anything else, I listen to debates between Christians and atheists. Matt Dillahunty is one of those I listen to frequently although I have heard every debate between Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and scores of others, with some of them being former pastors turned atheists. Matt was asked what it would take for him to become a believer again. He was a bible scholar and Baptist before and used to preach to others.

Interesting. Do you go the next step and listen to former atheists who set out to disprove God's existence and come to faith instead?

Your question is hypothetical and also vague. When someone says "God" it is often a sleight of hand because they switch back and forth between a generic "God" and a Christian god concept when convenient. So, what God are you referring to? The Christian one? Allah? Thor, Ra, Mithra, Zuess, or some god that came and went centuries ago?

I, as a Christian, have a concept of who God is, but I am very aware that my concept is very limited, and God showing up would by necessity not be His complete being. I could not comprehend His totality. Quick, visualize a 4-dimensional object. You can't, it would have to be a 3-D representation of it.

You say Jesus has changed the lives of many people and of course, I have heard this claim a million times over. Why is Jesus not seen or heard when people make the claim that "Jesus turned my life around"? No one ever sees him when Tom a lifelong addict says he found Jesus and quit. When you delve into it you find that it is his BELIEF that Jesus turned his life around that did it. You could insert Allah, Brahman, Norse Paganism, etc.

That sounds a lot like you're saying true addiction doesn't exist, that any addiction can be cured by an addict simply wanting to stop. Science and medicine disagree with that.

So, what god would it be on that Super Bowl field if "God" appeared? Not one reader here would say it was any god but their own. How could you tell? The pictures of Jesus in Medieval times make him look like an unattractive dark-skinned Middle Easterner. Today he looks like a handsome movie star.

You're talking about Jesus' physical body. I have little doubt that God would make whatever physical representation of Himself something that our limited beings can comprehend and we would know who He is.

What would it take? I dunno. What if he started by saying he cured childhood cancer today and people in the stands called their friends who were desperate for their cancer-ridden child to be cured and thousands of people in the stands murmur that children with cancer immediately got up and danced.

Ah, yes, the old, "Get rid of pain and suffering" ploy. That would work, as I said for a few decades then He would have to do something all over again. People have been healed from devastating diseases and injuries for a very long time, and what is the response? Ignore them or claim it was a spontaneous thing the body just decided to do on its own.

But no. The imaginary god does none of that. The world operates as if there is no god and all is the luck or bad luck of the draw. Tens of thousands killed in earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, disease, war, and criminals. When Joe Bloke CLAIMS that Jesus made him stop doing X we readily believe it and yet millions of kids are tortured or raped by maniacs every day or die of disease or cancer and you god sits idly by.

He's allowing us to choose how we behave. The alternative is for Him to create us as robots with no mind of our own. Would that be preferable to you, to have to obey God with no power to decide for yourself?

We are what we believe we are and if John quits drugs, extramarital sex, or smoking it is his BELIEF that some strawman god named Brahman or Alalh did it.

That flies in the face of those who are truly addicts and cannot quit through sheer willpower. It sounds like you're saying there is no true addiction, that anyone can quit anything if they just want to. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Meriweather]

That experience let me see how people can become completely brainwashed because I was too.

Could it be that you weren't brainwashed, you just missed the boat?

 

[Meriweather]

I call it that because in essence, that's how you're treating it.

No, I am not. I will not respond further to this post. It is holy ground and I'll not have it desecrated.