Many different denominations do. Some not.
If you so believe, why?
If not. Why not.
Thanks,
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Hi, arcura!

Believe in it in what way, please?

Thanks!

Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Many different denominations do. Some not.
If you so believe, why?
If not. why not.
Thanks,
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred


Christ tells us, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a 'real' sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch. This is why we know it's literal or a real meat and not symbolic; it's the only food that consumes, bite by bite.

In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his 'real presence,' ”and began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:21). If you will read your book, you'll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. “And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; Because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here.” (Luke 11:31); THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The personification of Elias (Mat 12:6), He requires our faith based on His Divinity (John 6:29), “Jesus answered and said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." To glorify the Father He created in their midst a new Kingdom, what the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, had been but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ now becomes the High Priest of that Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The High-priest of the Messianic Kingdom continues the sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20) Taking that seat Christ becomes the perfect high-priest sacrificing the perfect sacrifice offering it up in the Kingdom of God, i.e. his Temple, the Church, with His own blood entering Heaven. (Cf. Hebrews 9)

One of the most important observances for the observing Jew then and now is the Pasch or Passover. It too was a commemoration or a remembrance of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. Another commemoration was commanded by God and an elaborate sacrificial Law. (See Exodus 12, 13, etc.) This is a reference to the law of sacrifices, the Old Law, the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 10, Paul tells us that the blood of the goat or oxen cleansing, but not perfectly remitting sin. Obviously had the Jews possessed a perfect sacrifice there would have been no need for Christ's redemptive sacrifice. However the Jew did understand that there is both a real and a spiritual power in the Sacrifice of the Meat and Blood. Moses' sacrifice can't remove sin because it is not a perfect sacrifice; rather ritualistic or symbolic, that is a sacrifice that leaves no sense of a “conscience of sin.” This would have been an offering did not please the pharisaic Jew. Christ offered himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. This sacrifice produces eternal life similar to the manna from God, but more still. Not a sacrifice simply feeds the belly or the intellect by one that removes totally the stain of sin. This sacrifice is so perfect it can never be repeated nor can it ever ceases, this is one in the same sacrifice of the Passion Christ, done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It's done in loving obedience of that continual perfect sacrifice, “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” The Sacrament of Communion is a continuation of Moses' sacrifice with a perfect lamb; The Real Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom,Homily 17 on Hebrews)

The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Don't you watch movies? Good grieve Charlie Brown, everybody our age has seen Charlton Heston's, 'The Ten Commandments' – you should've seen it a dozen times since its' release in 1956. What Got Yul Brynner, aka Rameses, so mad that he went chasing after Moses in a rage? Rameses' son was killed by the curse he himself uttered. Moses saw it coming and the 'BLOOD' of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door header so the curse would 'PASS OVER'. And I get this part of the story right without the use of a BOOK – who'd a thunk it! Since then, (no, not since 1956 -, since Moses) part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of 'Pesachim' which included a search the house for leaven bread. Leavend bread epresented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant and sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul's words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ's and the Twelve.

One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies that take place over the many days of festival was on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth of the Jewish month). On day 14 day, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and a sacrifice a lamb, part of which, accompanied with the blood was carried home. The first born ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. This is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice, signified by the presence of 'blood'. We know this because in Jewish sacrificial costom the presence of blood related to the meat. The point being that this would have been much better understood, along with all the nuances of a multiple of images this would represent to a Jew; especially to the Pharisees. Now, re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of the Gospel of John, Chapter 5 regards other cleansing spiritual rituals in the sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R'glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism and Catholicism. But, what's important to us is when Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appealed to the intellect of the Jews, not to their passions or heart (at least not here in Chapter 5). The question at the end of this chapter is pivotal for Christians, “But if you do not believe his writings (Moses), how will you believe my words?” The question cuts right to the heart of the Jewish tradition in Catholicism. Or, at the best, most of Moses' tradition clouded in the passage of time. It's important here because it's this tradition that Gospel of John 6 speaks to.

The Church feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul of those who hunger for Christ. The miracle of 5,000 isn't so much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened by coming into contact with these 5,000. Pasch was at hand, a Time of Atonement, a sacrificial lamb was required – stress this 'was required' no Jew worth his salt would be caught without one. This was to be a perfect sacrifice lamb bleed then burnt on the God's altar for atonement of sins. Later to be consumed by the first born of the Kingdom – among these 5,000 new adopted sons of God were a very special Twelve. Notice too, it is the men who are told to sit and that it is bread that is feed them – we're not told but likely it was the commoner's unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder.

What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the 'meat'? Why would Christ feed his Jewish bothers bread when we all know that man doesn't live by bread alone? Why would he feed us manna, especially one that had a 24 hour shelf life? – you may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil. What value is a food like that? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center, but of no real nutritional value. How long can such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Sounds like all bun to me; can shortbread take a man through an eternity without a filling meat? The bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless burger without the meat.

Christ tells these first-born of his Kingdom, 'eat meat'. He's definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee's cows who want moo miracles. You can almost hear, 'Punt the burger, and pass the Chikin”! [Sorry, I'm a sucker for corny jokes] Not, at all. Christ says Moses bread didn't save; why? The bread of the intellect isn't meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He'll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death will pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born of His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born is given us all; death will pass over.

Straight out of the Jewish tradition of Seder Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where's the beef? Christ tells us where and flat out too, and it ain't in Wonder bread, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). This is a real sacrifice containing the real presence of Christ. This is how we know this is a 'real sacrifice' and not a spiritual one of symbolic prayers.

JoeT

JoeT,
So you do believe in the Eucharist and you did a marvelous job of saying why.
Thanks.
Now I look forward to other posts on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Many different denominations do. Some not.
If you so believe, why?
If not. why not.
Thanks,
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Are you asking, Fred, whether I believe that the Communion emblems, the love feast of Christ, needs to be consecrated by the hand of man to be that which Jesus declared it to be?

paraclete,
I think I have already answered that as I did.
Here it is again.
Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Eucharist: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/eucharist)

communion - definition of communion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communion)

It is practice as a remembrance. The bread and wine do not become Jesus but is a way of remembering his sacrifice. I know the Catholic church believes it becomes holy and is holy. Yet just like baptism is just another outward celebration and remembrance of Christ and his sacrifices for us.

Jesushelper76,
Believe as you wish.
But I'll believe what Jesus says about it.
He said of the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine, "This IS my flesh" and "This IS my blood"
So it was, is, and always will be because God the Son said so and has the power to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Jesushelper76,
Thank you for your opinion on that.
That's what I'm after here, the different opinions and why.
You did not go into the way of what you believe.
Is it because the bread and wine, though if consecrated is claimed to become the body and blood of Christ still look and taste like bread and wine?
If so please thin about this.
Appearances are deceiving.
Take out a quarter coin and look at it. Heft it.
In your hand it looks like it is standing still.
But...
Scientists tell us that it is moving at about 186,000 miles per second.
The atoms that make up that coin are furiously moving.
Looks are deceiving.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Christ tells us, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a ‘real’ sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch. This is why we know it’s literal or a real meat and not symbolic; it’s the only food that consumes, bite by bite.

In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his ‘real presence,’ ”and began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:21). If you will read your book, you’ll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. “And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; Because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here.” (Luke 11:31); THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The personification of Elias (Mat 12:6), He requires our faith based on His Divinity (John 6:29), “Jesus answered and said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." To glorify the Father He created in their midst a new Kingdom, what the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, had been but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ now becomes the High Priest of that Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The High-priest of the Messianic Kingdom continues the sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20) Taking that seat Christ becomes the perfect high-priest sacrificing the perfect sacrifice offering it up in the Kingdom of God, i.e. his Temple, the Church, with His own blood entering Heaven. (Cf. Hebrews 9)

One of the most important observances for the observing Jew then and now is the Pasch or Passover. It too was a commemoration or a remembrance of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. Another commemoration was commanded by God and an elaborate sacrificial Law. (See Exodus 12, 13, etc.) This is a reference to the law of sacrifices, the Old Law, the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 10, Paul tells us that the blood of the goat or oxen cleansing, but not perfectly remitting sin. Obviously had the Jews possessed a perfect sacrifice there would have been no need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. However the Jew did understand that there is both a real and a spiritual power in the Sacrifice of the Meat and Blood. Moses’ sacrifice can’t remove sin because it is not a perfect sacrifice; rather ritualistic or symbolic, that is a sacrifice that leaves no sense of a “conscience of sin.” This would have been an offering did not please the pharisaic Jew. Christ offered himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. This sacrifice produces eternal life similar to the manna from God, but more still. Not a sacrifice simply feeds the belly or the intellect by one that removes totally the stain of sin. This sacrifice is so perfect it can never be repeated nor can it ever ceases, this is one in the same sacrifice of the Passion Christ, done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It’s done in loving obedience of that continual perfect sacrifice, “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” The Sacrament of Communion is a continuation of Moses’ sacrifice with a perfect lamb; The Real Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom,Homily 17 on Hebrews)

The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Don’t you watch movies? Good grieve Charlie Brown, everybody our age has seen Charlton Heston’s, ‘The Ten Commandments’ – you should’ve seen it a dozen times since its’ release in 1956. What Got Yul Brynner, aka Rameses, so mad that he went chasing after Moses in a rage? Rameses’ son was killed by the curse he himself uttered. Moses saw it coming and the ‘BLOOD’ of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door header so the curse would ‘PASS OVER’. And I get this part of the story right without the use of a BOOK – who’d a thunk it! Since then, (no, not since 1956 -, since Moses) part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. Leavend bread epresented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant and sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul’s words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and the Twelve.

One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies that take place over the many days of festival was on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth of the Jewish month). On day 14 day, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and a sacrifice a lamb, part of which, accompanied with the blood was carried home. The first born ate the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. This is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice, signified by the presence of ‘blood’. We know this because in Jewish sacrificial costom the presence of blood related to the meat. The point being that this would have been much better understood, along with all the nuances of a multiple of images this would represent to a Jew; especially to the Pharisees. Now, re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of the Gospel of John, Chapter 5 regards other cleansing spiritual rituals in the sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism and Catholicism. But, what’s important to us is when Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appealed to the intellect of the Jews, not to their passions or heart (at least not here in Chapter 5). The question at the end of this chapter is pivotal for Christians, “But if you do not believe his writings (Moses), how will you believe my words?” The question cuts right to the heart of the Jewish tradition in Catholicism. Or, at the best, most of Moses’ tradition clouded in the passage of time. It’s important here because it’s this tradition that Gospel of John 6 speaks to.

The Church feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul of those who hunger for Christ. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t so much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened by coming into contact with these 5,000. Pasch was at hand, a Time of Atonement, a sacrificial lamb was required – stress this ‘was required’ no Jew worth his salt would be caught without one. This was to be a perfect sacrifice lamb bleed then burnt on the God’s altar for atonement of sins. Later to be consumed by the first born of the Kingdom – among these 5,000 new adopted sons of God were a very special Twelve. Notice too, it is the men who are told to sit and that it is bread that is feed them – we’re not told but likely it was the commoner’s unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder.

What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the ‘meat’? Why would Christ feed his Jewish bothers bread when we all know that man doesn’t live by bread alone? Why would he feed us manna, especially one that had a 24 hour shelf life? – you may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil. What value is a food like that? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center, but of no real nutritional value. How long can such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Sounds like all bun to me; can shortbread take a man through an eternity without a filling meat? The bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless burger without the meat.

Christ tells these first-born of his Kingdom, ‘eat meat’. He’s definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee’s cows who want moo miracles. You can almost hear, ‘Punt the burger, and pass the Chikin”! [Sorry, I’m a sucker for corny jokes] Not, at all. Christ says Moses bread didn’t save; why? The bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He’ll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death will pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born of His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born is given us all; death will pass over.

Straight out of the Jewish tradition of Seder Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where’s the beef? Christ tells us where and flat out too, and it ain’t in Wonder bread, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). This is a real sacrifice containing the real presence of Christ. This is how we know this is a ‘real sacrifice’ and not a spiritual one of symbolic prayers.

JoeT

Hi, JoeT777!

Are those mostly all your words or the words of someone else, please?

Thanks!

Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi again, Fred!

I'm assuming that you're referring to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Is that true?

In the main church where I attend and am a member, the Eucharist is referred to as Holy Communion. It's a Missouri Synod church. We believe that, in the bread and wine, the "real presence" of Jesus is there. However, there is no consecration nor repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus.

Thanks!

Jesushelper76,
Believe as you wish.
But I'll believe what Jesus says about it.
He said of the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine, "This IS my flesh" and "This IS my blood"
So it was, is, and always will be because God the Son said so and has the power to do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So Fred let's get this straight, Jesus did the consecrating and at the same time said do this in remembrance of me. So. If I do do it as Jesus said is this not doing as he told me to do?

Hi, JoeT777!

Are those mostly all your words or the words of someone else, please?

Thanks!


These are all my words. Where I paraphrased one of the Early Church Fathers, I stated as much. When I quoted somebody I stated as much, and (hopefully) provided the appropriate quotation marks. But, you see if you write about the Catholic faith most everything imaginable has already been discussed and it's quite possible to include the ideas and thoughts of other Catholics without giving proper credit and citations. But on the whole, this is my understanding of my faith, expressed in my words. Who else do you know that makes the 'where's the beef' parody, or the 'moo miracles' parody; who else could be that corny? How much more original do you want it? Ah shucks, could you stand more corn if I was to peel off even 'more original' flakey stuff.


JoeT

These are all my words. Where I paraphrased one of the Early Church Fathers, I stated as much. When I quoted somebody I stated as much, and (hopefully) provided the appropriate quotation marks. But, you see if you write about the Catholic faith most everything imaginable has already been discussed and it’s quite possible to include the ideas and thoughts of other Catholics without giving proper credit and citations. But on the whole, this is my understanding of my faith, expressed in my words. Who else do you know that makes the ‘where’s the beef’ parody, or the ‘moo miracles’ parody; who else could be that corny? How much more original do you want it? Ah shucks, could you stand more corn if I was to peel off even ‘more original’ flakey stuff.


JoeT

Thank you for your explanation! I could see where a good part of what you posted is also on at least a couple of other sites.

I just wanted to understand and to be sure...

Thank you for your explanation! I could see where a good part of what you posted is also on at least a couple of other sites.

I just wanted to understand and to be sure...

They too, should all be mine; that is if they only appear on three sites, including this one. And they should be distinctively JoeT. If not, let me know. I need to send the poor sap that plagiarized my posts a few aspirin – I'm sure he needs it by now!

JoeT

PS - a part of this was originally posted on this forum Feb 2, 2010, 08:53 PM. I think it was the only place this particular information regarding Seder was posted. Is there somebody copying?

Clough,
Several denominations believe that and I did first learn it in the Lutheran church.
The pastor DID Bless the bread and wine.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ah shucks, could you stand more corn if I was to peel off even ‘more original’ flakey stuff.




Is that what you have been doing Joe

the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that only the RCC and its branches believe this.

the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that only the RCC and its branches believe this.
I'm not so sure about which Person of the Trinity that does the 'changing', but we do believe that the consecrated Host is the 'real presence' of Christ; body, soul and Divinity. It's not a symbolic sacrifice like the Lutherans hold; but a literal continuation of the same (real) sacrifice made by Christ.

“He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
A Eucharist that consumes, and becomes consuming, with every bite; because as Christ said, “as the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me.” (Cf. John 6)

JoeT

It's not a symbolic sacrifice like the Lutherans hold
That is not what Lutherans believe, that it's symbolic.

Wondergirl,
Quite a few different denominations believe in the Holy Eucharist.
Most notable among the Protestants are the Lutherans and some Methodists.
Then there are the many eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglicans and the various Episcopals.
That's way over 1 billion Christians that so believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Wondergirl,
Quite a few different denominations believe in the Holy Eucharist.
Most notable among the Protestants are the Lutherans and some Methodists.
Then there are the many eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglicans and the various Episcopals.
That's way over 1 billion Christians that so believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred
I'm a Lutheran preacher's kid, arcura. Lutherans do not believe in the Holy Eucharist in the same way that the Catholics do.

Wondergirl,
Oh yes they do.
That is where I learned it.
Lutherans believe that the blessed bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus.
When I was president of our local Lutheran Sunday School I was told to teach that and I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Maybe Uncle Backwards has been posting for me again. Let’s try this one more time.

the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that only the RCC and its branches believe this.
I’m not so sure about which Person of the Trinity that does the ‘changing’, but we do believe that the consecrated Host is the ‘real presence’ of Christ; body, soul and Divinity. I’ve been told Lutherans hold it’s a symbolic sacrifice. On the other hand Catholics hold that it’s a literal continuation of same (real) sacrifice made by Christ.

“He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
A Eucharist that consumes, and becomes consuming, with every bite; because as Christ said, “as the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me.” (Cf. John 6)

Changes are in red

Wondergirl,
Oh yes they do.
That is where I learned it.
ELCA or LCMS?

Lutherans believe that the blessed bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus.
It's a tad more complicated than that.

Joe,
Perhaps some of the several Lutheran Churches believe the Eucharist changes are symbolic, But Luther insisted that in is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the Missouri Synod so teaches.
When I was president of the Sunday School I was instructed to teach and I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Luther insisted that in is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ and the Missouri Synod so teaches.
There is a fine line between what the LCMS teaches and what the RCC teaches. The RCC teaches that, with consecration, the wine and wafer change completely and permanently into the body and blood of Christ. The unused elements must be consumed or saved in a safe place until another Eucharist.

The LCMS teaches that the believer receives the body and blood of Christ spiritually in, with, and under the bread and wine at the time of consumption, but the elements are still bread and wine. Elements that have been consecrated but not used are destroyed.

P.S. LCMS churches have a pipe in a room near the altar. This pipe goes vertically into the ground. Consecrated but unused wine is poured down this pipe and back into the earth from which they came. The minister consecrates as many wafers as he thinks he will need. If anything, he will underestimate the figure. Thus, if he realizes he needs more at a service, he will do a quick consecration of more and then continue giving out Communion. Rarely does the minister have left-over consecrated wafers. If he does, they too are sent down the pipe and back into the earth.

Wondergirl,
Thanks for the fine line.
The body and blood if Christ IS still consumed either way.
Fred

Wondergirl,
Thanks for the fine line.
The body and blood if Christ IS still consumed either way.
Fred
Yes, in one (RCC) physically and in one (LCMS) spiritually.

Fred,

I believe the Lord Jesus told us to remember him in his death. The bread and the wine are symbols of his broken body.. (bread) and shed blood... ( wine). I believe there is power in remembering the Lord.. and I DO .Having said that... it is symbolic. It doesn't turn into anything once it enters the body. If you can show me in the Bible that it becomes more than it is... let me know. I have never even heard it called holy Eucharist.

Why don't I believe in it? The same reason I don't believe many things in the Catholic faith... it isn't in the word of God.

classyT ,
Jesus SAID that the blessed bread and wine were and are his body and blood so they were and still are, NEVER were symbols.
I believe Jesus has the power to do that.
If you don't that is up to you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fredrick,
How is it that you take Jesus words at the last supper as literally his body and blood but you don't take literally when the Bible records that James is the Lord's brother..

I do believe it is symbolic... we won't agree on this but we can agree that there is power in the spiritual realm when we partake it... can't we?

classyT ,
Jesus had no blood brothers. The was NO word in Aramaic for bother. All male relatives were called what we today say cousins or brothers.
So that coves a lot of territory.
And when studying the bible we can see that those who are called brothers did have different parents than Mary as Joe has pointed out.
I hope that helps you understand my belief on that.
Please note that we do agree on about 95% of what scripture says and have some different interpretations or understanding on the little bit of about 5%.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Clough,
What way?
The only way that it is taught as far as I know and that is the in the Eucharist the bread and wine are consecrated and changed by the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In some denominations they have what is called communion service which does not believe or teach that.
The word Eucharist means "give thanks" communion does not mean that.
So when I speak of the Eucharist it is in regard to the belief that a miracle takes place if done according to that dogma.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's a matter of interpretation of the Scriptures, arcura. There is no one set way, nor correct way to interpret them.

Thanks!

Clough,
Oh, but I believe that there is a correct way and that way is by The Church that Jesus established and gave the keys to heaven.
It is also The Church that was inspired and entrusted to promulgate the holy bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Clough,
Oh, but I believe that there is a correct way and that way is by The Church that Jesus established and gave the keys to heaven.
It is also The Church that was inspired and entrusted to promulgate the holy bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You said it for me. I would have added that logic wouldn't have a God of Truth demanding that we be One in faith and then turn around and say it's OK to have different sets of virtuous morals, e.g. like abortion is Ok for this person, multiple wives is OK for me, etc. This unity is scripturally mandated. Christ said speaking to His Apostles, “I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.” John 17

JoeT,
Once again point well made and well said.
Thanks.
Now I'm off to bed. My bad back is really bad tonight.
Fred

Clough,
Oh, but I believe that there is a correct way and that way is by The Church that Jesus established and gave the keys to heaven.
It is also The Church that was inspired and entrusted to promulgate the holy bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred


And, what is the "correct" way that you feel is right, arcura? Please note, that I used the word "feel" rather than "think". For me, and I'm sure, many others, it is a matter of interpretation...

Thanks!

Cloug
FEEL and THINK and KNOW that the correct way is as I said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

“Do you believe in the holy Eucharist”?

I understand this question to mean do I believe that the Eucharist is bread that has transformed from the essence of bread to the body, blood and Divinity of Christ. Many have a difficulty with the Catholic understanding of this mystery, primarily because the outward appearance of the bread remains the same – there is no attestation that can be detected by the senses. Add further, many don't recognize 'transubstantiation' as a fulfillment of Christ's promise in Matthew 28:20 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=28&l=20&f=s#x); rather a substitution for Christ. These believe that that the body and blood of Christ reside in the bread and wine as a substitute, it's usually referred to as consubstantiation. Actually, consubstantiation is a misconception on just what the Body of Christ is; how can a Divine Being who existed for all eternity be a substitute for anything? Consubstantiation is the belief that in the Eucharist, after the consecration, has the substances of both the body and blood of Christ and of bread and wine; a heretical view of impanation which denies the Real Presence of Christ. This is exhibited in the Lutheran view where a hypostatic union is replaced with a sacramental union between Christ and the bread; "in, with and under the bread.”

On the other hand, Pope Paul VI best explains the 'Real Presence' of Christ in a voice that's clear:


“To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. Pope Paul VI, MYSTERIUM FIDEI, On the Holy Eucharist.

While this might seem a bit academic, we can see with the senses a real effect of transubstantiated. On Aug. 14, 1730, eve of the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary all the churches of Siena, a city in Tuscany, Italy the priests of the Basilica of St. Francis consecrated hosts for those who might wish to receive Communion following day. Placing them in a Chalice, the priests attended a vigil for the Virgin Mary that night. The hosts along with the chalice were stolen during the night. Three days later the exact number of host stolen were found in a box for alms in a nearby Church. "Those three days were like the days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection," so the Eucharist were to remain in the box for adoration by pilgrims until they deteriorated. The theory being that once they deteriorated to a certain point the real presence of Christ would leave the Eucharist.

The miracle wasn't that the Eucharist were returned, it was evident that thieves had taken the Chalice for the gold but didn't know what to do with the Eucharist, so returned them to the Church.

Pilgrims came and went, decades past, and the hosts still remained, unaffected by time. From time to time the hosts were dusted, cleaned and the cobwebs were removed. "At different stages they have been examined and they physically retain all the characteristics of a newly made host," Of the 351 Eucharist 223 remain to this day, some 280 years later. "Here two miraculous things happen," explained Father Spring pointing to the hosts consecrated almost three centuries ago. "Time does not exist, it has stopped"; and "composite bodies and organic substances are subject to withering. For these hosts, neither fungus nor elements that break them down subsist. It is a living, continuous miracle. We do not know until when the Lord will permit it."

Under normal circumstances a piece of bread would have deteriorated but instead we see here that the presence of Christ is timeless. This is clear in the John 6, where Christ said “Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world…I am the bread of life” (Source: ZENIT - Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (http://www.zenit.org/article-29332?l=english) )

One bite at a time we consume Christ so that, one by one, we are consumed into the Body of Christ.

JoeT

I can't go the transubstantiation route, mainly because Jesus was sacrificed once for all and there's no need to re-sacrifice him. There are other reasons, but that's a big one.

Having said that, I was raised a Baptist. They hammer away at the idea that basically nothing happens at communion, it's just a memorial service, totally symbolic, and the only reason they do it is because Jesus said to. Put bluntly, they have no idea what it is or what it's all about, they just do it. I can't go that route either.

Within the Lutheran view I have no idea what "in, with and under" means. I believe that, as I receive the elements and reflect on what Jesus has done for me, He meets me there and "communes" with me, drawing me close to him and giving me grace to go out and face whatever is coming my way. In that way I believe in "real presence." I don't see any need for any consecration by anybody special or any of that; I can commune with the Lord this way regardless of what kind of church or group I'm in, because it has more to do with what's in my heart than with what somebody says about it or over it.

For what it's worth.

He meets me there and "communes" with me, drawing me close to him and giving me grace to go out and face whatever is coming my way.
The "commune" as part of the word "community" was also stressed in my catechism classes -- that "we eat this bread and drink this cup" as part of a community that holds the same beliefs and that we are spiritually strengthened, knowing we are part of this community and are supported by it.

I can't go the transubstantiation route, mainly because Jesus was sacrificed once for all and there's no need to re-sacrifice him. There are other reasons, but that's a big one.

Having said that, I was raised a Baptist. They hammer away at the idea that basically nothing happens at communion, it's just a memorial service, totally symbolic, and the only reason they do it is because Jesus said to. Put bluntly, they have no idea what it is or what it's all about, they just do it. I can't go that route either.

Within the Lutheran view I have no idea what "in, with and under" means. I believe that, as I receive the elements and reflect on what Jesus has done for me, He meets me there and "communes" with me, drawing me close to him and giving me grace to go out and face whatever is coming my way. In that way I believe in "real presence." I don't see any need for any consecration by anybody special or any of that; I can commune with the Lord this way regardless of what kind of church or group I'm in, because it has more to do with what's in my heart than with what somebody says about it or over it.

For what it's worth.

Not going on this road means that to discount the Hypostatic Union, the revealed truth of a Messiah who consists of one person with two natures, to a symbol. This is the same transubstantiation that occurred at the Incarnation where Christ transubstantiated the seed of Adam to become Christ, i.e. the Eucharist. A similar transformation is prefigured by the Blessed Virgin's request during the wedding of Cana. He 'transubstantiated' the essence of the grape into water, i.e. changed the water into wine.

You should know that the Greek word used here is 'ἀνάμνησιν,' which the Latin Vulgate translates into 'commemorationem', i.e. commemoration. The reason we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood in an ecclesiastical celebration attesting to the faith in His promise and in obedience to His command.

One important ecclesiastical observance in Judaism is the Pasch or Passover; this is a commemoration too, a memorial of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. The Church of God required an elaborate observance of sacrificial rituals, (Cf. Exodus 12, 13, seqq.). Paul refers to this Law in Hebrews; “the blood of the goat or oxen cleanses, but not perfectly remitting sin.” Just as there was a real and spiritual powers in the sacrifice of the meat and blood in the traditions of Moses, Christ commands “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6:54-55) No ambiguity here, the Mass and the continual sacrifice is the commemoration of the jubilee in Christ's flesh and blood. Unless you eat His flesh and Drink His blood you will not have everlasting life. Christ offers Himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. Christ's sacrifice sustains eternal life similar to the way the manna from God sustained a temporal life in the wilderness. This sacrifice can never be repeated nor can it ever cease; the one in the same sacrifice of Christ done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It's the same sacrifice done in loving obedience of that continual sacrifice; “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” Communion is a sacraments, that is an external and visible symbol of Divine graces, necessary to obtain a certain supernatural end having a real effect. But, he says not “merely sacraments.” The sacrament of Communion isn't only symbol consumed; instead the Eucharist is taken spiritually consuming us, transforming us from an individual apart into a conjoined member of the Body of Christ.


…the Eucharist is a very great mystery—in fact, properly speaking and in the words of the Sacred Liturgy, the mystery of faith. "It contains within it," as Leo XIII, Our predecessor of happy memory, very wisely remarked, "all supernatural realities in a remarkable richness and variety of miracles." (Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei , On the Holy Eucharist)

The Eucharist is the continuation of Moses' sacrifice (thereby a connection to Moses, a fulfillment of the Old Covenant) through a perfect lamb, the Real Sacrifice, with the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Hebrews). Like the Jewish commemoration, Communion is to “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened,” (1Cor 5) while filling the spirit with a real meat that feeds the spirit. The new Tradition found in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John is a renewal of the Kingdom of God, transforming it into the Kingdom of Christ (On the command of Christ). Speaking directly of Kingdom of Christ, (the Church of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) it is her that feeds the intellect, the heart and the soul with real nourishment. Preparation for Pasch in this particular commemoration it was a perfect sacrifice, bleed then burnt on the God's altar for atonement of our sins.

He draws us to him, not weighted down with material things, but with quickened body and soul. His Sprit quickens us to him, to eat and drink symbolically to a spiritual end that restores and maintains the spirit, stirs it up, rousts it to holiness, and stimulates it to action. Augustine explains in his exposition on the Psalms 119; “The body itself also, because it is of the earth, is reasonably understood by the word pavement; since, because it is still corruptible and weighs down the soul, (Wisdom 9:15) we justly groan while in it, and say unto God, O quicken Thou me. For we shall not be without our bodies when we shall be for evermore with the Lord; (1 Thessalonians 4:17) but then because they will not be corruptible, nor will they weigh down our souls, if we view it strictly, we shall not cleave unto them, but they rather unto us, and we unto God... ”

Our act of taking is symbolic, the sacrifice conveyed is real. The substance is spiritual, not metaphoric, thus the symbol is real, and unlike any other this is where the real presence of Christ resides. It's not an 'either or' relationship; rather it is both a symbol in commemoration and the real presence.

“For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27 Cf. 11:23 seqq.).

JoeT

Please cite your source, Joe.

Also, please say that in everyday English.

Please cite your source, Joe.

Also, please say that in everyday English.

Uhmm? Source of what?

Uhmm? source of what?
The source of what you wrote. I've been reading your posts long enough to know you don't write like that. What does it say to you in 25 words or less?

Not going on this road means that to discount the Hypostatic Union, the revealed truth of a Messiah who consists of one person with two natures, to a symbol. This is the same transubstantiation that occurred at the Incarnation where Christ transubstantiated the seed of Adam to become Christ, i.e. the Eucharist. A similar transformation is prefigured by the Blessed Virgin's request during the wedding of Cana. He 'transubstantiated' the essence of the grape into water, i.e. changed the water into wine.

You should know that the Greek word used here is 'ἀνάμνησιν' which the Latin Vulgate translates into' commemorationem', i.e. commemoration. The reason we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood in an ecclesiastical celebration attesting to the faith in His promise and in obedience to His command.

First, the idea that the water into wine at Cana was a prefiguring of transubstantiation is so far beyond reaching I don't know a word for it. Second, where is "here"? That Greek word doesn't appear in John 2, which is where the Cana wedding story appears. This is quite lame, pardon my bluntness.


One important ecclesiastical observance in Judaism is the Pasch or Passover; this is a commemoration too, a memorial of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. The Church of God required an elaborate observance of sacrificial rituals, (Cf. Exodus 12, 13, seqq.). Paul refers to this Law in Hebrews; “the blood of the goat or oxen cleanses, but not perfectly remitting sin.”

Context is a wonderful thing. It also says that unlike those goats and bulls, Christ having died need die no more; he fulfilled the Passover and there's no need to repeat anything.


Just as there was a real and spiritual powers in the sacrifice of the meat and blood in the traditions of Moses,

Whoa! Where did you get THAT? What exactly does "a real and spiritual powers [sic]" mean? From the very beginning it was clear that the Passover was a MEMORIAL, a SYMBOL, nothing more. I don't know where you get this idea, but it doesn't come from the biblical material.


Christ commands “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6:54-55)

Let's get real for just a moment. If you don't think he was speaking symbolically, then why didn't he tell the people to start taking bites of him right then? If you want to literalize this statement, that's where you end up. Was ever a metaphor more obvious? I think not.


No ambiguity here the Mass and the continual sacrifice is the commemoration of the jubilee in Christ's flesh and blood. Unless you eat His flesh and Drink His blood you will not have everlasting life.

See above. This is a gross misinterpretation of his words and his meaning.


Christ offers Himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. Christ's sacrifice sustains eternal life similar to the way the manna from God sustained a temporal life in the wilderness. This sacrifice can never be repeated nor can it ever cease;

This is nonsense. If the sacrifice is complete, and Hebrews as well as several other writings tell us it is, then it already ceased. "can never be repeated nor can it ever cease" doesn't make any sense at all.


the one in the same sacrifice of Christ done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It's the same sacrifice done in loving obedience of that continual sacrifice; “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.”

What does "commemoration" mean? It means a memorial. It means a reminder. Shooting off firecrackers on the fourth of July is a commemoration. Celebrating Thanksgiving is a commemoration. Celebrating a birthday is a commemoration. In other words, it's a SYMBOL. That's what a commemoration is. Is it a commemoration or is it a "continual sacrifice"? You can't have it both ways, because they're two different things.


Communion is a sacraments, that is an external and visible symbol of Divine graces, necessary to obtain a certain supernatural end having a real effect.

The idea of sacraments is a notion that has no biblical basis at all. You're welcome to believe it, but it's hardly a biblical fact. It's a later human idea.

I've snipped the rest because I really don't care what Pope Whoever, or Chrysostom, or Augustine, or Joe Blow Down The Street says. Communion is very important to me, but the stuff you're saying about it does not come from the Bible. And a lot of it is self-contradictory.

First, the idea that the water into wine at Cana was a prefiguring of transubstantiation is so far beyond reaching I don't know a word for it.

That's funny I thought the context was clear and has been taught by the Church for nearly 2,000. The Council of Trent defined a singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body [of Christ], and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood [of Christ] -the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation.


On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. (Cf. Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii – you'll have to Google it, I used my own copy. )


Context is a wonderful thing. It also says that unlike those goats and bulls, Christ having died need die no more; he fulfilled the Passover and there's no need to repeat anything.

Most assuredly, context is a wonderful thing. The blood sacrifices offered by the Jews during ecclesiastical 'commemorations' such as those disused by Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews (more specifically see chapters 7-11) we see that the one sacrifice of Christ is a real 'blood' sacrifice. (the presence of blood signified a burnt sacrifice; the absence of blood signified a symbolic sacrifice usually found in the form of temple prayers). Nothing is repeated, it's a continual sacrifice, one that never ends.





Whoa! Where did you get THAT? What exactly does "a real and spiritual powers [sic]" mean? From the very beginning it was clear that the Passover was a MEMORIAL, a SYMBOL, nothing more. I don't know where you get this idea, but it doesn't come from the biblical material.

From the beginning it was clear that it was much more than a symbol. It's in John 6:51 when Christ said, “the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." I take it you find this a hard thing?


He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live forever."




Let's get real for just a moment.

I was never more serious.


If you don't think he was speaking symbolically, then why didn't he tell the people to start taking bites of him right then? If you want to literalize this statement, that's where you end up. Was ever a metaphor more obvious? I think not.

Now who is being silly?

JoeT

The source of what you wrote. I've been reading your posts long enough to know you don't write like that. What does it say to you in 25 words or less?

Well, you'd be wrong.


Nevertheless, in fewer than 25 words or less:

Body, blood, and Divinity of Christ, is the essence of the Eucharist. Christ is present in the Eucharist.

You need to count the words, I hope I didn't go over 25.

JoeT

That’s funny I thought the context is clear and has been taught by the Church for nearly 2,000. The Council of Trent defined a singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body [of Christ], and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood [of Christ] -the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation.

We were talking about the water-to-wine event at Cana as a prefiguring. And I really don't care what "the Church" taught, I'm interested in how the Bible sees it. John calls it a "sign" to show who Jesus was, but it has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

And I care even less about what the Council of Trent said.


Most assuredly, context is a wonderful thing. The blood sacrifices offered by the Jews during ecclesiastical ‘commemorations’ such as those disused by Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews (more specifically see chapters 7-11) we see that the one sacrifice of Christ is a real ‘blood’ sacrifice. (the presence of blood signified a burnt sacrifice; the absence of blood signified a symbolic sacrifice usually found in the form of temple prayers). Nothing is repeated, it’s a continual sacrifice, one that never ends.

Wrong. There's nothing "continual" about it. He gave his life, died, and rose. The sacrifice is complete. I have no idea how you keep getting "continual" out of that, but it's wrong. Christ was sacrificed "once for all" and it's DONE. If it "never ends" then he didn't do it right, according to the Bible. Jesus himself told us that his sacrifice was complete, over and done with, finito, with his triumphant cry from the cross "IT IS FINISHED!"




From the beginning it was clear that it was much more than a symbol. It’s in John 6:51 when Christ said, “the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." I take it you find this a hard thing?

Nope, not hard at all. Just a metaphor, a clear metaphor, one of the clearest in the entire New Testament. And when he said he would give his flesh for the life of the world, it should be obvious he was talking about his crucifixion. I take it you find this a hard thing?



Now who is being silly?

JoeT

I'm taking your words to their logical conclusion. Is it silly? Of course it is. But it's where we end up if we take your approach. Hence, your approach is, well, silly.

Wrong. There's nothing "continual" about it. He gave his life, died, and rose. The sacrifice is complete. I have no idea how you keep getting "continual" out of that, but it's wrong. Christ was sacrificed "once for all" and it's DONE. If it "never ends" then he didn't do it right, according to the Bible. Jesus himself told us that his sacrifice was complete, over and done with, finito, with his triumphant cry from the cross "IT IS FINISHED!"

David sang at the completion of the tabernacle perfecting the temple in addition to singing the praises of the coming Messiah, the first and second verses of Psalm 29 speak of the strength of God's mediator in war against evil – 'ram' denoting the strength given the faithful, i.e. 'children of God'. These aren't simply platitudes sung on the auspicious occasion of the Temple's completion and perfection. David perfected the temple when he completed his Psalm – was it over then?

When David had 'finished' the commemorated Temple was just beginning Temple worship. Mutterings of some is often heard, 'it' is finished'. This is like hearing the gurgle of 'no more can be done', the work is done , shut the doors, go home, or get in bed and pull the sheets over your head – brother it are be DONE! If it is done, we are finished for sure. The Kingdom of God didn't end on the Cross; faith and the Mystical Body of Christ were perfected for a new beginning when Christ was pulled down off the cross. So we should say “The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home? “

If so, then Christ was a charlatan, his promises were meaningless, his prophecies false. Every English bible except the Douay-Rheims uses the word “finished” as Christ last utterance. Knowing Christ is genuine, He is the Temple, the high Priest, and the sacrifice, his sacrifice consummated the Divine suffering, it perfected the His Mystical Body, it was the fruition of birth pains of His New Covenant through His voluntary blood payment for the sins of the world.

His voluntary surrender of His and in His offering of His life for the sins of the world is a sacrifice that continues. This was a priestly offering in the order of Melchisedech who was “likened unto the Son of God, continues as High Priest forever. The High Priest of the New Testament gave us His flesh, “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” He gave us Drink, “This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.” (John 6:56, 1 Corinthians 11:25)

JoeT

David sang at the completion of the tabernacle perfecting the temple in addition to singing the praises of the coming Messiah, the first and second verses of Psalm 29 speak of the strength of God’s mediator in war against evil – ‘ram’ denoting the strength given the faithful, i.e. ‘children of God’. These aren’t simply platitudes sung on the auspicious occasion of the Temple’s completion and perfection. David perfected the temple when he completed his Psalm – was it over then?

I have no idea what you just said. First and foremost: for those who don't use a Bible based on the Septuagint, it's Psalm 30. Second, David had nothing to do with the temple. Solomon built the temple; David built a palace for himself, and that's what he was dedicating in this psalm. I have no idea where a "ram" comes into anything, because it's not in any version of the psalm, but since your entire paragraph is basically gibberish, I shouldn't be surprised. There's no "mediator" in either of those verses, and David didn't "perfect" anything, especially the temple. This entire paragraph makes no sense at all.


When David had ‘finished’ the commemorated Temple was just beginning Temple worship. Mutterings of some is often heard, ‘it’ is finished’. This is like hearing the gurgle of ‘no more can be done’, the work is done , shut the doors, go home, or get in bed and pull the sheets over your head – brother it are be DONE! If it is done, we are finished for sure. The Kingdom of God didn’t end on the Cross; faith and the Mystical Body of Christ were perfected for a new beginning when Christ was pulled down off the cross. So we should say “The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home? “

This likewise makes no sense at all. You're not helping your case.

[more incomprehensible stuff snipped]

I thought I was conversing with somebody who had an intellectual grasp of Scripture. Excuse me for the error.

JoeT
Joe, Joe, Joe. Some of the sentences were unfinished, there were missing direct objects, and, as Dave said, the most recent posts don't even make sense.

Joe, Joe, Joe. Some of the sentences were unfinished, there were missing direct objects, and, as Dave said, the most recent posts don't even make sense.

Does this mean you’ll volunteer to proof my post?

JoeT

Does this mean you’ll volunteer to proof my post?

JoeT

Not possible; there's no way to decipher what you were trying to say.

Does this mean you’ll volunteer to proof my post?

JoeT
When you post stuff like this:


When David had ‘finished’ the commemorated Temple was just beginning Temple worship.
And

brother it are be DONE!
What would you expect me to do with them?

David sang at the completion of the tabernacle perfecting the temple
Most commentators agree he was singing over the completion of his palace or his private house, not the Temple.

'ram' denoting the strength given the faithful, i.e. 'children of God'.
In which verse is a ram mentioned?

Most commentators agree he was singing over the completion of his palace or his private house, not the Temple.



Since construction on the temple wasn't even begun until several years after his death, it's doubtful he was celebrating its completion.

God specifically told David that his son would build a temple for the LORD (2 Sam 7:12-13; cf 1 Kings 5:3). The word in the inscription to Psalm 30 (29 in the Septuagint) is בָּיִת, BAYIT, "house." Even Joe's beloved Septuagint reads οικον, OIKON, "house." When you add the fact that the inscriptions to the psalms are not part of the original inspired text but were added later, it adds up to: David never dedicated any temple, so there's really nothing to discuss on that front.

We were talking about the water-to-wine event at Cana as a prefiguring. And I really don't care what "the Church" taught, I'm interested in how the Bible sees it.

That is a very anti-biblical attitude:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


John calls it a "sign" to show who Jesus was, but it has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

Sure it does. It shows that with but a word, God can transubstantiate matter. He turned the water from one substance to another, the blood of the grape, wine. Later He would transubstantiate the blood of the grape into His own Blood.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (King James Version)

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.


And I care even less about what the Council of Trent said.

That is the same anti-biblical attitude as before. The Council of Trent is simply the official writings of the Church of that period.


Wrong. There's nothing "continual" about it. He gave his life, died, and rose. The sacrifice is complete.

If He were a simple human being, that would be correct. If His Sacrifice were not a religious sacrifice replacing the original Passover with the Passover of Christ, that would be correct.

However, Christ's Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Has the Lamb of God being Sacrificed for the sins of the world:
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

And the Passover is not complete until the Blood has been smeared on the doorposts and the flesh has been consumed:
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Therefore, if you don't consume the flesh and drink the blood of the Lamb of God, you have no life in you.
Numbers 9:13
But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.


I have no idea how you keep getting "continual" out of that, but it's wrong.

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


Christ was sacrificed "once for all" and it's DONE.

All have yet to come into existence. Therefore it is not yet done.


If it "never ends" then he didn't do it right, according to the Bible. Jesus himself told us that his sacrifice was complete, over and done with, finito, with his triumphant cry from the cross "IT IS FINISHED!"

That doesn't say that the Sacrifice is finished. What Jesus meant is that His immolation was complete. He had given up His life for our sins. Obviously, Jesus had not yet risen. And if Jesus did not rise, then we would be the most pitiful of men:
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (King James Version)

12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Therefore, Christ did not mean that everything was finished, since He had not yet risen.


Nope, not hard at all. Just a metaphor, a clear metaphor, one of the clearest in the entire New Testament. And when he said he would give his flesh for the life of the world, it should be obvious he was talking about his crucifixion. I take it you find this a hard thing?

Not at all. It is the Catholic Church which teaches Christ Crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You and most other Protestants have taken Christ off the Cross.



I'm taking your words to their logical conclusion. Is it silly? Of course it is. But it's where we end up if we take your approach. Hence, your approach is, well, silly.

It is your logical extension of his words which is silly. Joe's words are orthodox Christianity which was taught from the time of Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I have no idea what you just said. First and foremost: for those who don't use a Bible based on the Septuagint, it's Psalm 30. Second, David had nothing to do with the temple. Solomon built the temple; David built a palace for himself, and that's what he was dedicating in this psalm. I have no idea where a "ram" comes into anything, because it's not in any version of the psalm, but since your entire paragraph is basically gibberish, I shouldn't be surprised. There's no "mediator" in either of those verses, and David didn't "perfect" anything, especially the temple. This entire paragraph makes no sense at all.

This likewise makes no sense at all. You're not helping your case.

[more incomprehensible stuff snipped]

Actually, it is quite easy to comprehend. You are simply obfuscating to avoid the point Joe is making.

So, it was Solomon who built the temple. Then substitute Solomon for David in his statement and respond to his point. Was everything finished when Solomon finished the temple? Obviously not, the Jews still had to worship therein.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually, it is quite easy to comprehend. You are simply obfuscating to avoid the point Joe is making.

So, it was Solomon who built the temple. Then substitute Solomon for David in his statement and respond to his point. Was everything finished when Solomon finished the temple? Obviously not, the Jews still had to worship therein.

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, the problem wasn't the content, it was syntax and such. See the other responses. Second, yes, the temple was finished when Solomon finished building it. It was a place to worship, but building it is something different from worshiping in it after it was finished. Your connection doesn't make any sense. For one thing, what does "everything" mean? For another, worshiping in the temple didn't constitute continuing to build it. If that kind of redefinition is possible, we might as well all go off and take the Humpty Dumpty approach, because communication will become impossible.

We were talking about the water-to-wine event at Cana as a prefiguring. And I really don't care what "the Church" taught, I'm interested in how the Bible sees it.
That is a very anti-biblical attitude:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Wow. That is some of the most out-of-context citation I've seen in many a year. Check the rest of the discourse and find out what he's actually talking about. Furthermore, how is saying "I'm interested in how the Bible sees it" anti-biblical? I said I don't care what a corrupt medieval church taught and wanted to understand what the Bible says about it. Your accusation is doubletalk.


Sure it does. It shows that with but a word, God can transubstantiate matter. He turned the water from one substance to another, the blood of the grape, wine. Later He would transubstantiate the blood of the grape into His own Blood.

This is laughable. The water that changed to wine was real wine; it looked like wine, it tasted like wine, and so on. The claim about transubstantiation is totally different; supposedly it remains bread and wine to the senses. There's no comparison at all except in someone's imagination.
[snip]



Wrong. There's nothing "continual" about it. He gave his life, died, and rose. The sacrifice is complete.
If He were a simple human being, that would be correct. If His Sacrifice were not a religious sacrifice replacing the original Passover with the Passover of Christ, that would be correct.

That makes no sense at all. After Christ's sacrifice, we stopped doing the passover sacrifice. In other words, it's done. I'm not what you think makes it "continual". He didn't "replace" the passover, he fulfilled it. That means it was no longer necessary. Why? He said it himself: it is finished. I have no idea how you get something continuous out of any of this.


However, Christ's Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

"Is sacrificed" is a very poor translation. The tense is aorist, i.e. simple past tense, which means "was sacrificed" or "has been sacrificed." Again, all indications are that it's done. There's nothing continuous here.


Has the Lamb of God being Sacrificed for the sins of the world:
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I haven't a clue what your point is with this verse.


And the Passover is not complete until the Blood has been smeared on the doorposts and the flesh has been consumed:
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Once again, you're reading more into it than it can possibly carry. There is no connection at all between communion and smearing the blood on the lintel and doorposts. What are you going to do, smear the wine on your forehead and legs? This is all way beyond absurd.




Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.



All have yet to come into existence. Therefore it is not yet done.


Are you for real? That's not what it means. I suggest a good book on Bible interpretation.


That doesn't say that the Sacrifice is finished. What Jesus meant is that His immolation was complete. He had given up His life for our sins.

You said the sacrifice had to be consumed, i.e. immolated. By your own interpretation, Jesus said this had happened and was done. And of course, then there's the question of how you know this is what he meant when he cried "It is finished!" I think you're pulling this out of the ether; I'm just not sure why. But I think you just shot yourself in the foot.


Obviously, Jesus had not yet risen. And if Jesus did not rise, then we would be the most pitiful of men:

Irrelevant in the current context.


1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (King James Version)

12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Therefore, Christ did not mean that everything was finished, since He had not yet risen.

You keep throwing around the word "everything," but it's impossible to know what you mean by it. Jesus' sacrifice is finished; by your own words, he said that. His resurrection has nothing to do with that.


Not at all. It is the Catholic Church which teaches Christ Crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You and most other Protestants have taken Christ off the Cross.

News flash: he's off the cross. He was taken down from it the same day. You seem to think this verse means he's still on the cross, but once again it's an aorist tense, "Christ having been crucified." And I'd be careful about the attacks on protestants and others; it can get you nailed by the moderators. I don't care myself, but I have a thicker skin than some.

We didn't take Christ off the Cross; his friends did, Joseph of Arimathea and others. We proclaim him crucified AND buried, AND risen. Apparently you have a problem with us doing that, and that's your problem, not mine.

This is laughable. The water that changed to wine was real wine; it looked like wine, it tasted like wine, and so on. The claim about transubstantiation is totally different; supposedly it remains bread and wine to the senses. There's no comparison at all except in someone's imagination.

Then why have scripture at all if we are to assume that everything we object to is silly or irrelevant, or nonsense? I thought the non-Catholics got their faith straight from the Book, like a book of magic spells. And you want to relegate the few words we have of Christ as irrelevant? Do you think John would waste precious time and parchment telling us of Christ's 'party-time' if it were irrelevant? Especially that little Cana should be a subject of three, not one, but three pericope in the precious few writings we have of Christ?

The point is that water transubstantiated to wine, and in less time than it took for the waiter to fill the jugs. Matter of one essence became the essence of wine. If Christ is willing to take such strong measures as to transubstantiate water into wine to please his mother it shows what might he do to save the world; thus bread becomes the body, soul and Divinity of Christ.


Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus says to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus says to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calls the bridegroom, and said to him: Every man at first sets forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But you have kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. After this, he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples: and they remained there not many days. (John 2:7-12)

Just an irrelevant party trick?

The wine made of water wasn't just watered down wine, like you might after everybody Is a bit tipsy. This is the 'good wine', a drink that was once water. The verse tells us there's more from Cana.


He came again therefore into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain ruler, whose son was sick at Capharnaum… The ruler said to him: Lord, come down before that my son die. Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your son lives. The man believed the word which Jesus said to him and went his way … it was at the same hour that Jesus said to him: Your son lives. And himself believed, and his whole house. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he had come out of Judea into Galilee. (John 4:46-53)

Christ gave faith and hope to the father and then saved the boy from death. If we look strictly at the physical aspects of this miracle we'll miss the point. Christ reminds the father that he's not there to provide “signs and wonders” for the party goers, there is a real mystery in His presence.

There's more; you do remember Nathanael from John's 1st Chapter? Nathanael said to him: Whence do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: You are the Son of God. (John 1:48-49) Nathanael (otherwise known as St. Bartholomew), was a man Christ seemed to warm to; “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile” An Israelite under a fig tree – there's significance in being seen under the fig tree, but I don't want to confuse with more extraneous Catholic exegesis, so I'll leave it for another time.

After the Passion of Christ Peter, Thomas, Nathanael along with the sons of Zebedee went fishing. They left shore in the night and at first light saw a man on shore, the resurrected Jesus. He yelled out “Children have you any meat?” It's not immaterial that Christ had asked about meat, what had he said to them in Capharnaum; For my flesh is meat indeed?


Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No. He says to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they came to land they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus says to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught. Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus says to them: Come and dine. And none of them who were at meat, dared ask him: Who are you? Knowing that it was the Lord. And Jesus comes and takes bread and gives them: and fish in like manner. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead (John 21:4-14)

Why did they go 'fishing' for meat? Every good Catholic knows that fish isn't meat. (Just in case you don't know it, fish weren't considered meat in the same sense as red meat is. That's why when we fast on Friday's we can eat fish without breaking fast. ) By the time the Apostles got to shore, Christ had fish on the fire and bread. Where did the bread come from?

Consequently, we see the wedding ceremony at Cana prefiguring the wedding of the faithful to His Kingdom; the wine is a heady spiritual drink, Christ's blood. It is meant for the faithful, those without guile, a real meat for the soul.


JoeT

Then why have scripture at all if we are to assume that everything we object to is silly or irrelevant, or nonsense? I thought the non-Catholics got their faith straight from the Book, like a book of magic spells. And you want to relegate the few words we have of Christ as irrelevant? Do you think John would waste precious time and parchment telling us of Christ’s ‘party-time’ if it were irrelevant? Especially that little Cana should be a subject of three, not one, but three pericope in the precious few writings we have of Christ?

I don't know where you got this stuff, but you didn't get it from what I wrote.


The point is that water transubstantiated to wine, and in less time than it took for the waiter to fill the jugs. Matter of one essence became the essence of wine. If Christ is willing to take such strong measures as to transubstantiate water into wine to please his mother it shows what might he do to save the world; thus bread becomes the body, soul and Divinity of Christ.

No, the point is that Jesus had authority over creation and could make one thing into another if he wanted to. And John tells us in words of one syllable why he did it: It. Was. A. Sign. John 2:11 explicitly says it was a way of revealing his glory and who he was. Why isn't that enough for you? You insist on reading so much more into the text than is actually there. You even quoted it yourself below, yet you somehow manage to miss the inspired writer's own explanation of this miracle. Amazing.


Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus says to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus says to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calls the bridegroom, and said to him: Every man at first sets forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But you have kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. After this, he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples: and they remained there not many days. (John 2:7-12)

I have snipped a bunch of irrelevant stuff about Cana. Yes, several things happened there. A lot more happened in Capernaum. Why? Because those places are where he happened to be at the time. Not everything carries some deep esoteric message that only the elite can grasp.



After the Passion of Christ Peter, Thomas, Nathanael along with the sons of Zebedee went fishing. They left shore in the night and at first light saw a man on shore, the resurrected Jesus. He yelled out “Children have you any meat?” It’s not immaterial that Christ had asked about meat, what had he said to them in Capharnaum; For my flesh is meat indeed?

He didn't say "meat." He said PROSPHAGION, a particular dish made from fish. He was asking if they had any fish to make it with, and when they said no, he told them where to catch it. Once again, like the water-to-wine episode, it was a way of showing who he was. There was no deep "my flesh is meat" meaning, unless he was calling himself a fish.

And in answer to your question that I snipped, they didn't go fishing for meat. They went fishing for fish, which is what he asked them about. You need a better translation, because your entire argument falls on its face due to this one mistranslation.

De Maria,

The Lord Jesus Christ IS off the cross! I can't believe you have a problem with that. WOW!

Dave,

You are very impressive there sir... and here I called you slow-witted. Tsk tsk on me. :)