[JoeT777]

“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; 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 )

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

JoeT

[dwashbur]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[Wondergirl]

Please cite your source, Joe.

Also, please say that in everyday English.

[JoeT777]

Please cite your source, Joe.

Also, please say that in everyday English.

Uhmm? Source of what?

[Wondergirl]

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?

[dwashbur]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[JoeT777]

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

[dwashbur]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[dwashbur]

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]

[Wondergirl]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[dwashbur]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[Wondergirl]

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?

[dwashbur]

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.

[De Maria]

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