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 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.

You are still that person who wants a heavenly afterlife. Who wouldn't? Your arguments are that I can have what you believe in so long as I believe what you do, and if I don't then I go somewhere else after I die.

I'm sorry but that sort of belief system is preposterous and just because primitive people envisioned a heavenly paradise doesn't mean it is true. It is a no-brainer that people would want what you believe in.

 

[Meriweather]

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

You don't think one needs to literally be incorporated into The Way, the life of Christ?

 

[Meriweather]

That is a claim.

It is testimony. You can claim you don't believe it.

 

[Meriweather]

You are still that person who wants a heavenly afterlife. Who wouldn't? Your arguments are that I can have what you believe in so long as I believe what you do, and if I don't then I go somewhere else after I die.

I'm sorry but that sort of belief system is preposterous and just because primitive people envisioned a heavenly paradise doesn't mean it is true. It is a no-brainer that people would want what you believe in.

All I want from a "heavenly afterlife" is to serve God. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but He can be a hard taskmaster, but so worth it.

Also, I live in a family of atheists, so don't go playing the mewling, "as long as you believe as I do" card. I trust in God, his love, his mercy who accurately discerns the human heart. Think of the surprise awaiting you in His presence.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

It is a given that believers argue with me as if I am some garden variety nonbeliever who doesn't know much and if I only knew the truth I would be like them and believe in their bible god. I have given you and others my background and after my conversion to a nonbeliever which was mind wrenching I set out on a course top find out why people believe what they believe.

Like it or not, you believe in the Christian God because it is all about YOU. In other words, selfish. It says "I am getting out of here alive and in a paradise because I am special because I believe the story. Other people may not and that is their problem. I believe."

I am blunt and direct and if Christians don't like it, I really don't care. I am not here to coddle believers and if a believer thinks it's an attack, maybe they should examine why they believe and why they get upset when someone challenges them.

As to your addiction question, you are wrong on the science. A religious entity called Alcoholics Anonymous has a twelve-step program which is all based on Christianity. They won't divulge their success record but it stinks. it is no better than people quitting on their own. It is about a 10-15% success rate. So much for your Christian God.

St. Judes has a program based on cognitive powers. No "god" involved. Their success rate far surpasses Alcoholics Anonymous. BTW, St, Judes is NOT a religious organization even though the name would suggest they are.

It is the MIND that we need to concentrate on. If someone believes that Brahman will help him stop drinking or drugs and he firmly believes that he did, then did Brahman do it, or did the individual? It was his belief that did it. You don't see any Brahman or Thor standing there holding the guys hand back from doing meth.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

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

That is just too bad if your feelings about your beliefs are hurt.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

It is testimony. You can claim you don't believe it.

Testimony is/are claims. Don't try to make this like it's some trial and people are right here and now giving testimony under penalty of perjury. NONE of those people were made to prove their claims or visions. In those primitive days, people were believed. Visons and superstition were accepted as fact.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

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

This is the common refrain. Anyone who is now an atheist never did believe. People use this all the time on Matt Dillahubty and former pastors and priests.

 

[ding]

And it was right after He did what miracle that He spoke of bread and wine sustaining life?

Not exactly. He told them he was the bread of life.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

He told them he came down from heaven.

"I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me."

So Jesus is the bread of life and he did come down from heaven.

And none of that negates what he commanded and you ignore even though the first Christians didn't ignore it.

 

[ding]

Exactly what I said, you neatly proclaim one part to be literal and the rest to be spiritual only. I don't deny the Word, I seek to understand it, ESPECIALLY the things that Jesus said.

That is not exactly what I said. You seek to confirm your bias. Your understanding is at odds with what Jesus commanded and the first Christians followed.

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

The Real Presence is taught by St. Paul. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

The Real Presence was taught by the twelve apostles. “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred” (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or Didache, 9:5).

The Real Presence was upheld by early Christians.

It was upheld by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the first century: “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 90 AD).

It was upheld by St. Justin Martyr in the second century: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, circa 150 AD).

It was upheld by St. Clement of Alexandria in the third century: “The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of the Children, circa 202 AD).

It was upheld by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century: “Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, circa 350 AD).

 

[ding]

What is there to get? Nonsense? Claims? Writings of unknown people?

Reason and experience. I couldn't be more happy that you don't believe it or practice it.

 

[ding]

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

Ritual cannibalism, you know.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that.

 

[ding]

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?

In the name of Jesus Christ and under the authority of Jesus Christ. It was his command which you find repulsive and reject. But what is more concerning is that you don't believe Jesus is capable of performing this act and don't have enough faith in Christ that he will transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ for no other reason than he is asked to do so by people who have enough faith in him that he will do so if asked.

 

[Crepitus]

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that.

"believe that"?

What else would you call it?

 

[Meriweather]

That is just too bad if your feelings about your beliefs are hurt.

My feelings are not hurt. I expect respect. Just as I do/would in a Chinese Temple or on a Nez Perce reservation's holy ground. I expect the same for Catholic holy ground. Expectations, not feelings. I am sure you and hadit understand the difference.

 

[Meriweather]

Anyone who is now an atheist never did believe.

Nonsense.

 

[ding]

"believe that"?

What else would you call it?

There's an entire OP that explains it. Or maybe you could even google it.

 

[hadit]

You don't think one needs to literally be incorporated into The Way, the life of Christ?

How can a man enter again into his mother's womb?

 

[Crepitus]

There's an entire OP that explains it. Or maybe you could even google it.

I read the sophistry in the OP.

It's still just ritualized cannibalism no matter how many fancy names you hang on it.

 

[ding]

I read the sophistry in the OP.

It's still just ritualized cannibalism no matter how many fancy names you hang on it.

I'm glad you got that off your chest. It must have been unbearable for you.