Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
|
The Eucharist of Catholicism versus the Lord's supper of Scripture in the life and teaching of the NT church in Scripture Preface: Roman Catholicism teaches that at the Lord's supper the bread and wine became the "Real Presence," which (though apparently originally an Anglican term) meaning that they were “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) Thus the statement, “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) Even though "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker: "Explaining Transubstantiation") The explanation of which unique miracle draws from Aristotelian metaphysics and Neoplatonic. However, the offering of such is held to be a propitiatory sacrifice for sins at the hands of a special class of sacerdotal priests: “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.” (CCC 1414) “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session) This ritual sacrifice is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx) And as Jn. 6:53 is taken literally, then it is imagined that by this consumption of “lifegiving flesh and blood” believers thereby obtain life in themselves. ...when the minister says, "The Body of Christ" or "The Blood of Christ," the communicant's "Amen" is a profession in the presence of the saving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, who now gives life to the believer. ...The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper his Body and Blood as broken and poured out constitute the irreplaceable food for the journey of the "pilgrim church on earth." (USCCP: "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion," paragraphs. 4,14) This “sacrament” is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx) In the light of the profound nature of this alleged miracle sacrifice and its critical constant importance (especially if necessary to obtain spiritual life as per the Catholic interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54) and centrality, and the doctrine of transubstantiation in Catholicism, along with the function of clergy to administer it, then many manifest descriptions of the priestly sacrificial ritual, and doctrinal teaching on transubstantiation would be be expected in the life of the NT church in Scripture (Acts onward) which are interpretive of the gospels. Which is simply not the case, while only metaphorical explanation easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture, both with its use of metaphorical language as well as the means of obtaining spiritual life. This study will therefore compare these claims with what the Holy Spirit makes manifest in the life of the NT church, but we must begin with words of the institution of the Lord's supper found in Matthew and Luke. |
||
|
Scriptural record |
Scripture in contrast with Catholicism |
Summation |
|
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20) Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28) |
The incarnated Lord refers to His body which was to be crucified and the blood that was to be poured out. And which was not like that of a Christ who was not manifestly incarnated, but who looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood. Therefore if taken purely literally, the "words of consecration" "this is my body which is given for you," "my blood of the new testament which is shed for many," then the elements would also look like, and taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood. In addition is the incongruity of the disciples understanding and believing in transubstantiation in essence when they even found the death of Christ unfathomable, and were prone (Peter) to protest objectionable things. Moreover, even "this cup is the new testament in my blood"is figurative language, and as another use of metaphorical language by the Lord the "this is my body/blood" words are easily corespondent to other metaphorical uses of eating and drinking in Scripture (see below). And to what was prophesied of the Lord, that He was "bruised [dâkâ'=break/broken: Job 19:2, Ps.94:4-5 (2), Isa_19:9-10 (3)] for our iniquities" and "poured out his soul unto death" (Is. 53:5,12) |
For Catholics taking such words as "this is my body which is given for you: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" literally does not mean that what they consume is manifestly the incarnated body and blood of the Lord Jesus, which substantiated His claims to be the Messiah, but it is one that is held by Catholics to be the "The presence of Christ's true body and blood" but which "cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q75_A1.html) In contrast, at the Lord supper the Lord referred to His flesh and blood as that which would be manifestly crucified, that of the incarnate Christ, not which looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as an inanimate loaf of bread. Those who afterward believed on the Lord without seeing Him are still placing faith in God who was manifest in the flesh, and seen in His resurrection as so, not an inanimate object. But such can represent Him, and it is the metaphorical concept that alone easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture. See here by God's grace. |
|
The Acts of the apostles And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:46) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11) Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:26-27) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28) And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32) |
In the entire book of Acts with its 28 chapters the only possible description of the Lord's supper is simply that of breaking of bread, and yet this infer a a meal rather than a morsel of bread ans sip of wine. And there is no mention of it being ministered specifically by clergy, and whose primary active charge and function was that of preaching the Word, which word is what is said to build them up. (Acts 6:4; 20:28,32) Pastors are simply and interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28) called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), denoting both position and function. Thus if anything, the Lord's supper in Acts corresponds to a simple communal meal done in commemoration of the death of Christ, and no more. |
Although breaking of bread may refer to the Lord's supper, nothing in Acts describes or teaches the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, or as offered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so as in Catholicism, or which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests. Yet Acts abounds with feeding souls by preaching the word of God, and of baptism, along with healing and deliverance, with souls obtaining spiritual life by believing the gospel, and living by the word of God, as the Lord Jesus in John 6:57 said believers were to, as He lived by the Father, with the doing of it being His "meat." (Jn. 4:34) |
|
The book of Romans I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:14-16) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea. (Romans 16:25-27) |
Despite the overshadowing centrality and critical importance of the Catholic Eucharist and the doctrine of transubstantiation, any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing in this primary doctrinal book of 16 chapters. In which the gospel is explained as being the power of God unto salvation (Rm. 1:16) with 11 chapters on justification and election, and the meaning of baptism, and on overcoming faith, followed by exhortation on practical application, and greetings to brethren by the apostle Paul, who longs to see and help establish them in the faith. |
Nothing in Romans describes or teaches the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests, (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so, as in Catholicism. |
|
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: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Corinthians 5:11) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16),17 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:18-21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:21-22) For 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: And 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. After 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32) Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) |
1 Corinthians is the only letter to churches (aside from the mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) that manifestly describes the Lord's supper. In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 an allusion to the Lord's supper is seen by some, but the word for "is" in "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" is not in the Greek, and most translations, including the Catholic NAB, have the correct "was," while even Pope Benedict argued that "the Last Supper was not a Passover meal." (http://catholiclane.com/dating-the-last-supper-excerpt-from-jesus-of-nazareth-part-2-by-joseph-ratzinger) In 1 Corinthians 10 it is described as being the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21) Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 the Corinthians are told they actually are not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, since some are selfishly eating independently while others were hungry, which was to "shame them that have not." Therefore we see that the reason they were not truly coming together to "do this in memory of me"/eat the Lord's supper was because they were ignoring other members of the body of Christ for whom He died, (Acts 20:28) which was the very thing they were supposed to be effectually remembering/showing. Paul thus reiterates the Lord's words referring to bread and wine as His body — the interpretation of which we are looking for in the life of the NT church— and His command to show/proclaim His death until He comes, and that partaking of the Lord's supper unworthily, not recognizing the Lord's body, was punishable even by death. And which death some had experienced as a result of selfishly eating independently, ignoring other believers "for whom Christ died" (1Co. 8:11, which is a major emphasis for the former prosecutor Paul) thereby hypocritically failing to recognize the body of the Lord, whose unselfish death for them they were supposed to be effectually remembering/showing (see "remembering" in 1 Co. 15:2) by this communally sharing of bread inclusively as one body of blood-bought members. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17) That the focus was that of the church as the body of Christ which was not being discerned, versus the nature of the elements, is not only contextually manifest here but by its continuance in the next chapter. |
While 1 Corinthians does not necessarily exclude the Catholic concept of the Lord's supper, it nowhere describes the Lord's supper as that of priests offering up a ritual sacrifice for sins, which is to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, and does not interpret the words of consecration according to Catholic transubstantiation theology. Instead, the fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ contextually refers to the communal sharing of food by the body purchased by the sacrifice of Christ in effectual remembrance of that sacrificial death and love behind it. To act contrary to this by ignoring/mistreating these members was contrary to what the Lord's supper was supposed to proclaim, and was a failure to recognize the body of Christ as consisting of those for whom Christ died. |
|
The books of Second Corinthians Galatians , Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, First Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, First Peter, Second Peter, First John, Second John, Third John, Jude, Revelation For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (Ephesians 5:29) And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (Colossians 2:19) If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:2) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21) Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18) Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21) Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-21) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:5,7) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:12,18) Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:1-2) Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:12) Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. (James 5:3) And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. (Revelation 10:9) These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; (Jude 12) |
Despite the breadth and scope of teaching in these church epistles, including the nourishment of believers, the titles and functions of pastors, the basics of Christian life, the feeding and nature of the body of Christ, literal and metaphorical eating, yet apart from the mere mention of the "feast of charity in Jude (which infers more than a morsel of bread and sip of wine) any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing. |
In contrast to the overshadowing centrality and critical importance of the Catholic Eucharist and the doctrine of transubstantiation, any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing in these letters to the churches, much less describes or teaches it as a sacrifice for sins which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests, (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so, as in Catholicism. |
The following paragraph is illustrative of a Catholic Church mindset:
Was Jesus human (Yes - 1 Timothy 2:5)? Was He a sacrifice (Yes - Romans 3:25)? Was He a human sacrifice (Had to be if He was human)? Is human sacrifice allowed by God’s law (No - Deuteronomy 12:30-31)? Apparently you have another “contradiction” to deal with. God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants.
Instead of picking at each of your missaplicatuions of The Word of God, I will offer this simple to follow reasoning:
The Bible, all the way back in Genesis, tells us the Life of the creature is in the blood. The blood is not the Life, the LIFE is in the blood.
If you are a descendant of Adam your Life in the Blood is inherited from a man with a sin nature which was activated in the Garden by disobeying God.
What Life did Jesus inherit IN HIS BLOOD? HINT: it was not the sin nature bloodline of Adam. The LIFE in the blood of JESUS was God Life, not Adamic life. Hence Jesus would not be a 'human sacrifice' since the Life in the blood was what was sacrificed on the cross for you and for me.
The Catholic Church inculcates its adherents to the belief that the Catholic Priest brings JESUS from Heaven to the Catholic Altar, to continue the 'human sacrifice' JESUS finished at Calvary.
1) The life in Jesus's blood was not human in origin so it carried no sin nature throughout His flesh. Jesus Himself verified this to His disciples when He said that Satan was coming for Him but there was nothing in HIM that satan could latch hold on. The Resurrection proved absolutely that there was nothing in Jesus which satan could lay claim to, no sin nature inherited from Adam; Jesus did not sin for His seed remained within HIM, the God seed of God LIFE in the blood of Jesus.2) Jesus asserted that no man takes His life from Him, hence only GOD can make the sacrifice which JESUS accomplished on the Cross of Calvary; no Catholic or any other priest can make the sacrifice or direct the sacrifice be continued because it is not a human sacrifice it is GOD sacrificing HIS LIFE IN HIS BLOOD of Jesus for our redemption. And He tells us He did it ONCE, for all, forever ... the God-life need not be continually sacrificed because God-Life has its origin in the Eternal One, not a carnal nature. The flesh of Jesus was inherited from Adam, but the Life in the Blood of Jesus was from GOD ONLY.
3) JESUS taught His disciples, before He went to the Cross, to break bread and sip the wine as a remembrance for what He was about to do for us all the next day. JESUS never told His disciples that the bread and wine were the means to get HIS GOD LIFE in them. He gave thatunfathomable misdirection to the seekers after signs (quoted by Catholics often, always misapplied as their proof text for the pagan ritual satan has mutated the Remebrance into for Catholiciism). HE did teach them that by faith they are born from above; eating the body, blood, soul, and DIVINITY of GOD, to renew the life of God in someone is a fraudulent twist satan has applied to the REMEBRANCE Jesus established even before He sacrificed The God-Life in His blood for us. It implies God cannot keep His Life in someone born from above, so the faithful must do it for God by obedience to Catholic Church dogma on the sacramental trail of institutionalized religion. That is the fraud of works based religion.
And finally: "God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants." This absurdity is offered in defense of Catholic argument that God countermanded HIS directive to not eat the blood of the creature. Hence the apologist is defending a notion that God is double-minded and does not know the end from the beginning because He changes His Mind. Clearly, without the Catholic mindset, the assertion in that sentence is ONLY possible if God obeys the Catholic Church commands to God to come from Heaven and be continually sacrificed on the Catholic Altar so Catholic Priests can be empowered by feeding the god to the faithful followers of Catholiciism.
“Have been extremely busy, but I’m sure you haven’t missed my response which is coming ...”
I didn’t miss it because I knew what was coming.
“The following paragraph is illustrative of a Catholic Church mindset:”
Yes, irrefutable truth and logic.
I wrote: “Was Jesus human (Yes - 1 Timothy 2:5)? Was He a sacrifice (Yes - Romans 3:25)? Was He a human sacrifice (Had to be if He was human)? Is human sacrifice allowed by God’s law (No - Deuteronomy 12:30-31)? Apparently you have another “contradiction” to deal with. God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants.”
You wrote: “Instead of picking at each of your missaplicatuions of The Word of God, I will offer this simple to follow reasoning:”
I “misapplied” exactly nothing. Not a single one of the verses I posted says anything different than what I said: Jesus became a man, therefore, He was human. He was a sacrifice. The OT prohibits human sacrifice. Thus, using your logic about consuming the Eucharist, a violation of the law has taken place, and NOT ONLY THAT, but it was God Himself who violated His own law. This is all according to your logic.
“The Bible, all the way back in Genesis, tells us the Life of the creature is in the blood. The blood is not the Life, the LIFE is in the blood.”
Oh, there we go. You said you would, “offer this simple to follow reasoning”, but instead you’re actually going to create a new argument trying to defend your previous mistake. You clearly can’t deal with the argument I post. And, let me remind you, I had said, “…there’s an excellent chance you’ll just dismiss it because you have no actual response that doesn’t expose your own claim of “contradiction” to be nonsense …”
Well, to me, it was pretty obvious how you wouldn’t actually address what was posted, so, since I have already addressed your only real argument about the Eucharist, I’ll just see if you can get together whatever it is you need to reply to what I posted:
“Was Jesus human (Yes - 1 Timothy 2:5)? Was He a sacrifice (Yes - Romans 3:25)? Was He a human sacrifice (Had to be if He was human)? Is human sacrifice allowed by God’s law (No - Deuteronomy 12:30-31)? Apparently you have another “contradiction” to deal with. God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants.”
“This absurdity is offered in defense of Catholic argument that God countermanded HIS directive to not eat the blood of the creature.”
Deuteronomy 12:30-31.
“Hence the apologist is defending a notion that God is double-minded and does not know the end from the beginning because He changes His Mind.”
No. No one here is defending that. It’s hysterical watching you tie yourself into bizarre knots to avoid the obvious: God’s laws for man do not apply to God. And, if He so wishes, He can dispense with an OT law in NT times (hence, we can eat pork).
“Clearly, without the Catholic mindset, the assertion in that sentence is ONLY possible if God obeys the Catholic Church commands to God to come from Heaven and be continually sacrificed on the Catholic Altar so Catholic Priests can be empowered by feeding the god to the faithful followers of Catholiciism.”
There’s only one sacrifice. And it is re-presented. You’ll keep posting falsehoods, however. After all, “To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
Oh, and thanks so much for proving me 100% correct on the fact that you wouldn’t deal with the issue of Deuteronomy 12:30-31.
Oh, and I noticed you - perhaps out of desperation? - called in the anti-Catholic cavalry. That’s okay. Someone in your position might feel like he or she had no other choice but to throw out 7 or more lifelines when (apparently) unable to deal with verses from scripture.
The way I look at it, if you can’t (apparently) bring yourself to deal with those verses, then I am certainly under no obligation to wait around forever. You (apparently) waited around for two days before you posted the non-answer that posted, so it isn’t looking too good for the idea that you might actually engage what was posted. Maybe you’re hoping one of your confederates will take up your case?
LOL ... but a sad commentary that you insult Christians even before they would post following your posts. The folks I pinged are fellow Christians who already know the LIFE is in the blood. Apparently, you fear their comments might be read by others? I posted what I wrote in the interest of readers of the thread, not to follow your twisted misrepresentations of The Word Of God. And just for your personal edification, what I posted is aimed as a refutation of your several misuses of The Word of God in your effrot to defend the Catholic Mass paganism of eating the sacrifice to get the god-life inside the adherent.
“LOL ... but a sad commentary that you insult Christians even before they would post following your posts.”
No insult - just the truth. And it isn’t about “before they would post following your posts” but the fact that you (apparently) felt the need to post to them.
“The folks I pinged are fellow Christians who already know the LIFE is in the blood.”
And that’s why you posted to them, right? So then why didn’t you post to them in post #555?
“Apparently, you fear their comments might be read by others?”
No. In fact, if you’re saying that I must be afraid of someone seeing their comments, then why don’t you post everyone one of your posts to them? Are YOU afraid someone will see their comments?
“I posted what I wrote in the interest of readers of the thread, not to follow your twisted misrepresentations of The Word Of God.”
So now you’re claiming all the people you posted to were “readers of the thread”?
“And just for your personal edification, what I posted is aimed as a refutation of your several misuses of The Word of God...”
Your comments contained no actual refutation. Apparently you’re working under the mistaken notion as to what a refutation is.
“in your effrot to defend the Catholic Mass paganism of eating the sacrifice to get the god-life inside the adherent.”
And you still can’t deal with Deuteronomy 12:30-31. Maybe one of your confederates can help you - if such a thing is possible.
Deut 12:30-31? Invincible haughtiness is confusing you ... perhaps a Christian will take time to explain your confusion over that passage, but I doubt it since your reaction is so predictably arrogant, haughty, and insulting. Do you think yourself clever?
“Deut 12:30-31? Invincible haughtiness is confusing you ...”
Well, since I’m not confused in the least, no.
“perhaps a Christian will take time to explain your confusion over that passage,”
Oh, meaning not you? Interesting tacit admission there.
“but I doubt it since your reaction is so predictably arrogant, haughty, and insulting.”
If you can’t do it or won’t, just say so.
“Do you think yourself clever?”
It doesn’t really matter if I do or don’t. All that really matters here is that you were wrong. Again. As is almost the case.
Actually on this aspect there is no contradiction, for what Deuteronomy 12:30-312 (cf. Dt. 18:10; Le 18:21; 20:2; Jer 7:31; 32:35) forbids is man making children sacrifices in their ignorance or regardless of their will, which is not the same as a Son choosing to die, and not by self-inflicted mortal means, but by voluntarily allowing men to do what they will.
The captain of a army may determine to rescue men from a POW camp, which will someone to infiltrate its headquarters to kill the commander as well as create a distraction and keep enemy forces focused on him as long as he can, and face certain death in so doing, so that others of his team can launch an attack on the rest and free the POWS.
The one who chooses to be that man does not do so out of compulsion, or ignorance, but freely chooses to lay down his life, knowing what the enemy will do. This is not what the prohibition of child sacrifice is against
The Catholic Church inculcates its adherents to the belief that the Catholic Priest brings JESUS from Heaven to the Catholic Altar, to continue the 'human sacrifice' JESUS finished at Calvary.
And they affirm it is the same but deny that Jesus is still being offered continually as a sacrifice.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. - Trent The Twenty-Second Session, cp. 2; http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html
1265. What is the Sacrifice of the Mass?...Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross.
1269. How does the Mass re-present Calvary? The Mass re-presents Calvary by continuing Christ’s sacrifice of himself to his heavenly Father. In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father.
1277. Does the Mass detract from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross? The Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Mass in no way detracts from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross because the Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, to continue on earth until the end of time...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins; but now the expiation is experienced by those for whom, on the Cross, the title of God’s mercy had been gained. (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981).
We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...That the holy sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; but also a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.. (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth (New York: Christian Press, 1905), pp. 173-175).
I said: “No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.”
You said: **“vladimir998 the Nebraska”. You created that to compare with “God the Son”. “Nebraska” = “Son”. That was your comparative analogy, Zuriel. Own it.**
I can’t own it. Search my posts and find “vladimir998 the Nebraska”. It is your creation.
I posted:
vladimir998 of Nebraska
and
Nebraska the vladimir998
I saw your phrase here:
**Oh, and I noticed that you completely “dodged” the fact that you were COMPLETELY WRONG on your “vladimir998 the Nebraska” argument.**
....and was going to correct it then, but was too busy with other thoughts at the time.
Is “Nebraska the vladimir998” an improperly worded description?....yes, and it was intended to be.
So also, is “God the Son” an improperly worded description.
“Son” indicates a beginning (the only begotten Son. the firstborn of every creature).
God has no beginning.
**No, that it is NOT why you don’t find it in scriptures. You don’t find it because it simply wasn’t employed or needed at the time. Later, as disputes over the Trinity arose, language regarding the Trinitarian Persons was refined.**
So the Master teacher just wasn’t that effective? He needed help from fallible men to define the Godhead?
In John 4:23,24, the description isn’t about the infinite things that God can do. It’s a description of God himself, that harmonizes with the descriptions of God’s invisibility found in John 1:18, Col. 1:15, and 1John 4:12.
Your quoting of John 1:1 and 14 attempt to ascribe the ‘Word’ to the Son only, when all through the book of John, the Son testifies that the words are not his but the Father’s. The Son is the physical mouthpiece speaking: “...whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” John 12:50
I asked you to find at least one divine attribute that the Son possessed, that he did NOT receive from the Father. You failed to come up with one.
I have more, but it’s past bedtime.
“I can’t own it. Search my posts and find “vladimir998 the Nebraska”. It is your creation.”
Oh, my gosh - your analogy was so ludicrously wrong that I couldn’t remember it in it’s original state of complete wrongness! You’re right: You actually did say ‘Nebraska the vladimir998’ rather than ‘vladimir998 the Nebraska’. I have to apologize to you because it was such an incredibly bad analogy that you made that I literally could not remember it in its original form and just naturally gave it more sensibility than you did. Yeah, it was that bad! My goodness it was ten times worse than I remembered it!
“Is “Nebraska the vladimir998” an improperly worded description?....yes, and it was intended to be.”
Maybe you intended to word it wrongly, but as an analogy it didn’t work. And that’s the issue. God the Son is a perfectly fine expression. “Nebraska the vladimir998” is not.
“So also, is “God the Son” an improperly worded description.
“Son” indicates a beginning (the only begotten Son. the firstborn of every creature). God has no beginning.”
God has no beginning. And since the Son is God, He has no beginning. He is eternal just like His Father and just like the Holy Spirit. He is eternal. Eternal has no beginning. Eternal is just always present.
“So the Master teacher just wasn’t that effective?”
He did not teach everything in writing and never claimed to.
“He needed help from fallible men to define the Godhead?”
He needed no help, but men did, and He used an infallible Church to do the teaching, not fallible men. Next, you’ll make the mistake of saying the Church is made up of fallible men and therefore is a fallible teacher, right?
“In John 4:23,24, the description isn’t about the infinite things that God can do.”
Who is saying it is?
“It’s a description of God himself, that harmonizes with the descriptions of God’s invisibility found in John 1:18, Col. 1:15, and 1 John 4:12.”
You’re driving your truck fast to no where.
“Your quoting of John 1:1 and 14 attempt to ascribe the ‘Word’ to the Son only, when all through the book of John, the Son testifies that the words are not his but the Father’s.”
Word and word are two different words. One is Word. The other is word. See a difference?
“The Son is the physical mouthpiece speaking:”
No. The Son only BECAME physical. He always WAS, but later became man too. Get it right.
“...whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” John 12:50”
Whatever your point is you’re not making it.
“I asked you to find at least one divine attribute that the Son possessed, that he did NOT receive from the Father. You failed to come up with one.”
No, you keep failing to make sense. You wrote: “The challenge for you is to prove that the Son of God had/has any one divine attribute, that he did NOT receive from the Father that dwells in him continually.”
And I VERY CLEARLY explained to you: “No, that is not my challenge at all. Jesus is God. I have no reason (no challenge) to attribute to Him anything that His Father did not have other than His humanity. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty thinking.”
You apparently want me to defend a doctrine I do not believe in and have never once expressed a belief in. Again, that’s a logic error on your part and not mine.
“I have more, but it’s past bedtime.”
You might post more, but it will probably be no more helpful than what you have posted so far.
You will never get the poster of that ‘apparent contradiction’ to admit any error on his part. IH runs deep with that one.
In your opinion....
**God the Son is a perfectly fine** man-made **expression.**
Fixed it.
**And since the Son is God, He has no beginning.**
So you don’t believe that begotten means begotten, and firstborn doesn’t mean firstborn? Got it.
**He did not teach everything in writing and never claimed to.**
He just made sure that there are at least 50 instances where you find the phrase “the Son of God”, and no phrases of “God the Son”. That’s a pretty thorough point that he drove home. He witnesses that he is from his Father, and his God.
**You’re driving your truck fast to no where.**
I know your riding a hot air balloon that is driven by every wind of man-made tradition, so you can’t help but give non-answers.
**Word and word are two different words. One is Word. The other is word. See a difference?**
No, because I don’t see God the Father, and the Son of God as two separate and distinct persons, with one giving the words to speak, and the other being called the Word (with none of the words he speaks being his own).
“..the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) is such a good, harmonious, description. One that parallels John 1:14 quite well.
So your view of the Godhead, in the eons before God made man, has a Father who isn’t even one second older than a separate and distinct person that is called the Son. And of course there is the other God; the Holy Ghost, even though the scriptures say he proceeds from the Father. And even though there is no “God the Holy Ghost (Spirit)” phrase in the scriptures, He is, by man’s interpretation, co-equal, and separate and distinct.
Who is the author of confusion?
`
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.