Check out some similar questions!

arcura · Sep 3, 2008, 10:38 PM

The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, said
(From the NKJV)
Matthew 26: 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body.''
27. Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I Cor 11: 27. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.
29. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Questions…..
Do you believe what Jesus said that the consecrated bread and wine do become the body and blood of Him?
If not, why not?
:) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)

Galveston1 · Sep 4, 2008, 02:29 PM

Here we go again! Did Jesus speak in the present tense? Yes. Was His blood still in His veins? Yes. Was His body still in one piece? Yes. Simple logic or reason tells us the statement was symbolic.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 4, 2008, 03:03 PM

With God is all things possible, yes,

arcura · Sep 4, 2008, 06:47 PM

Galveston1 ,
No that is in no way symbolic.
Jesus blessed then was holding and distributing the bread and wine that He said are His body and blood.
He also said to do this in remmebrance of me.
That is to say that the consecrated bread and wine are His body and blood.
The passage beginning from 1 Cor 11:27 affirms that if a person who partakes of it in and unworthy manner is GUILTY of the Body and Blood of Jesus Chrsit.
That IS telling us in another way that the consecrated bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Jesus of which he said those who partake of it He WILL raise them up on the last day.
He said that He is the bread of life and that His body is food INDEED and bis blood drink INDEED.
He did not say they were symbolic.
The word Jesus used "INDEED" does not mean symbolic it means the opposite of that.
I think you know that about INDEED.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria · Sep 5, 2008, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Here we go again! Did Jesus speak in the present tense? Yes.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

You might want to study your English tenses again. The words "I will give" are not in the present tense.

Was His blood still in His veins? Yes. Was His body still in one piece? Yes.

But as He previously said, He wasn't ready to give them up yet. He said, "the bread that I will give is my flesh".

Simple logic or reason tells us the statement was symbolic.

A true reading of the Chapter shows you that He was speaking in real terms. That is why the Jews and many of His disciples said, "this is a hard saying, who can take it." And they left.

Why? Because they believed He was speaking in real terms. Not in symbols.

Sincerely,

De Maria

arcura · Sep 5, 2008, 08:16 AM

De Maria,
Exactly right.
I like the way you said that.
Fred

Galveston1 · Sep 5, 2008, 10:06 AM

The Jews understood it literally, true. They misunderstood many things about Jesus. The Host is made of flour, looks like bread, and tastes like bread. It is then blessed by a priest and so becomes literal flesh. No wonder that Voltaire said that when a man enters a church, he must leave his intelligence at the door. His observation was correct, he just did not bother to look for the truth and dismissed Christianity and religion out of hand.

De Maria · Sep 5, 2008, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

The Jews understood it literally, true. They misunderstood many things about Jesus. The Host is made of flour, looks like bread, and tastes like bread. It is then blessed by a priest and so becomes literal flesh. No wonder that Voltaire said that when a man enters a church, he must leave his intelligence at the door. His observation was correct, he just did not bother to look for the truth and dismissed Christianity and religion out of hand.

Is it that you don't believe in miracles? You don't believe in the Supernatural? Or you don't believe in the power of God's Word who created this universe from nothing?

1 Corinthians 1 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 22 For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Credendovidis · Sep 5, 2008, 08:32 PM

Well : at least Voltaire made a valid point !

If a grown up enters a church, and is supposed to believe that watery wine is blood, and wafers are flesh, and both represent the blood and body of Christ, yes than that grown up has to leave his intelligence at the door.

:rolleyes:

arcura · Sep 5, 2008, 09:14 PM

Credendovidis,
I HAVE TO prove nothing.
I have a Christian faith and that is much MORE than JUST belief.
That sort of faith is far beyond belief; it is belief, trust and a KNOWING that those without faith can not comphrehnd.
As examples I do not just believe God exists, I know it.
I do not just believe that Jesus is God the Son who rose from the dead, I KNOW it to be true.
I also know that you want scientific proof of that and I know that you will not get it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Credendovidis · Sep 6, 2008, 05:34 AM

Fred : that's old hat !

Why don't you reply to what I stated in my post, instead of reacting to my signature lines ?

Of course you do not have to prove anything. But if you don't prove anything I am fully in my right to question whatever you and others believe to be "true"!!

You know very well that I am tolerant to whatever you or others believe to be "true".
What I oppose is the idea that whatever you and/or others believe is therefore reality.
The claim that it is reality has to be proved. Not what you believe !

Have tomorrow a nice day Fred (after a good night sleep ! )

:)

De Maria · Sep 6, 2008, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Well : at least Voltaire made a valid point !

If a grown up enters a church, and is supposed to believe that watery wine is blood, and wafers are flesh, and both represent the blood and body of Christ, yes than that grown up has to leave his intelligence at the door.

:rolleyes:

From Galveston, that view is inconsistent with his/her belief in God's omnipotence.

From you, this view is consistent with your disbelief in miracles.

This is the point at which our faith means believing that which we don't see. But you said you had no problem with what we believe, right?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Galveston1 · Sep 6, 2008, 09:12 AM

No, my view on the validity of trans-substantiation does not conflict with my faith in a miracle working God. I simply disagree with the Catholic understanding of the scripture involved. What is being taught is cannabilism and eating blood (you insist that it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of Jesus). That conflicts with other Bible teaching, and the Bible is not contradictory, Cred notwithstanding.

It is not sound theology to take one scripture and build a doctrine around it. There will be supporting scriptures for every sound doctrine.

De Maria · Sep 6, 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

No, my view on the validity of trans-substantiation does not conflict with my faith in a miracle working God. I simply disagree with the Catholic understanding of the scripture involved. What is being taught is cannabilism and eating blood (you insist that it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of Jesus). That conflicts with other Bible teaching, and the Bible is not contradictory, Cred notwithstanding.

I believe this teaching and I don't believe the Bible contradicts Itself.

I guess it's a matter of faith. Do you have enough faith to believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist? Most Christians (I don't know whether this includes you), Protestant or Catholic would say, "Yes!"

The difference is, those Protestants believe in a SPIRITUAL presence. Whereas Jesus did not say, "This bread is my spiritual flesh." He said, "this bread is my flesh".

Therefore, we believe that Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

As for the charge of cannibalism. This is a tough one. Jesus is our Pasch (Our Passover):
1 Corinthians 5 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

He is the Lamb of God:
John 1 29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

And the Passover Lamb is eaten:
Exodus 12 1 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: 2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year. 3 Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb.

Show me where Scripture contradicts?

However, the dietary laws remain forbidding the eating of any blood:

Genesis 9 3 And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: 4 Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat.

Leviticus 3 17 By a perpetual law for your generations, and in all your habitations: neither blood nor fat shall you eat at all.

But all has been made clean:
Mark 7 18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? 20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

21 For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.

So do you eat fat?

It is not sound theology to take one scripture and build a doctrine around it. There will be supporting scriptures for every sound doctrine.

That is what I tell you guys all the time. You've got this thing against tradition because Jesus said,
Mark 7 8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.

But Scripture also says:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Credendovidis · Sep 6, 2008, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by De Maria

But you said you had no problem with what we believe, right?

Yes. I have no problem with that.
But what has that to do with what Voltaire stated? His point was totally valid!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

arcura · Sep 6, 2008, 02:04 PM

Galviston1,
The Catholic teaching about the Eucharist depends on far more than a verse or two.
It depends on many verses in both the old and new Testaments.
In the old Testament is the many verses regarding the Passover when the blood of a flawless lamb is painted over door posts and the body of that lamb is eaten.
In the New Testament Christ gives us the Christian Passover, Himself, the flawless lamb of God to be consumed. No symbols but the real thing as he insisted repeatedly in several verses.
The Catholic teaching on that is bible based, anchored with MANY verses.
I hope you can understand that.
Keep in mind that Christ said that if you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood you have NO life in you, but if you do eat His flesh and drink His blood He WILL raise you up on the last day.
He said that when we do that we become ONE with Him.
For the sake of your soul, believe it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

De Maria · Sep 7, 2008, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Yes. I have no problem with that.
But what has that to do with what Voltaire stated? His point was totally valid !!!

As I've stated before, in summary, we have reviewed the evidence for the truth of Church Teaching. Since we have learned that the Church teaches the truth in those doctrines, we can have faith in the others which we can't verify with observable evidence.

Therefore, Voltaire is wrong. One checks his hat at the door in believing Voltaire. But in believing the Church, one is given the freedom to believe the evidence provided by the Fathers and by Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

arcura · Sep 7, 2008, 04:16 PM

De Maria,
Well said.
In addition I believe that God through His Church has given us freedom from the bondage of being wrong.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Choux · Sep 7, 2008, 05:13 PM

I don't believe that the "Last Supper" story about transubstantiation is a real teaching of Jesus... it reads like a forgery added later by those with an agenda. This is not something that the man who taught spirituality by parable would include in his view of how to make a Kingdom of God on Earth.

His teachings were about people changing their minds and hearts... not about ANYTING ELSE. :)

ordinaryguy · Sep 7, 2008, 05:47 PM

Why does it matter so much whether the wine and bread actually become flesh and blood, or are symbols that represent them? But if it is so terribly important to know, it should be fairly easy to distinguish muscle tissue from wheat flour, and blood from wine in the laboratory. Why not just test them?