“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”

The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.

Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.

What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….

This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….

[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.

"So, what of James' statement? Put it in context. James, Cephas and John were apostles to the CIRCUMCISION. Paul was the apostle to the Uncircumcision."

Thank you for your post, Ruy Dias de Bivar. Christ founded only one Church, and it has a universal mission.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Mt 28:19)

The Greek for "all nations" is Ta Ethna, which, as I understand it, literally means "all Peoples" or all ethnic groups. Therefore, Jesus gave the Apostles a universal mission to all peoples, not just the Jews.

There is no distinction in the Church between Jewish and Gentile Christians. As the Letter to the Galations which you quoted tells us:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28)

The Christian communities were not segregated by Jews and Gentiles. Remember that St. Paul confronted St. Peter because Peter had commited the mistake of not eating with the Gentiles.

He spoke of theings AFTER abraham was circumcised when works were still necessary.

A key point of Paul's Letters to the Romans and the Galations is that Justification is not by works of the Law, but rather by grace through faith working in love. The central point of the masterpiece that is the Epistle to the Romans is a correct explanation of the relationship between God and man. Man cannot save himself, he must be saved by God, who provides Salvation, a gift which man no more deserves than he deserves to be born in this life. It is a freely given gift. However, the point of being justified by Grace through faith is that we must DO whatever it is that God asks of us. The relationship is based upon Grace, not upon a contractual agreement. As Scripture tells us, The just man LIVES by faith.

"James' letter was written "to the 12 tribes scattered abroad."

The Scripture that has been delivered to us through the Church is written to all. On section does not apply to Jews, and another to Gentiles. The Letter of St. James is no more addressed only to Jewish Christians than the Letter to the Romans is addressed only to the Romans and the Letters to the Corinthians are addressed only to the Corinthians. The Scriptures were preserved and canonized within the Church precisely because the Church discerned that the writings were inspired and had a universal message for all Christians.

"And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Act 15:7)

Here we see that Peter too was an Apostle to the gentiles. In fact, he goes on to assert that God makes no distinction between persons, and that both Jews and gentiles are saved in the same fashion.

"And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Acts 15:8-11)

Notice also that he summarizes the central argument of Romans and Galatians by definitively pronouncing the Church's ruling on the controversies that St. Paul had been combating against the Christians in favor of Judaizing the gentile converts. The point is, according to St. Peter, we should not put the burden of the Jewish Law upon the gentile converts.

***faith only is false doctrine faith without works is dead**** " HOT DOG! I've been waiting for this opening!"

Bremenboy's point, with which I can concur, is that the Bible never says we are justified by faith alone. Quite the opposite. In the Letter to the Romans, St. Paul says we are justified by faith and not by works of the Law, so the only thing that is excluded there is works of the Law, whatever those may be. Love, for example, is not excluded from this statement--there is no alone after faith. The formulation "faith alone" only occurs once in Scripture, and that is where it says we are not justified by faith alone. The teaching of Justification by faith alone is not Scriptural, rather it was invented 15 centuries after the time of Christ by Martin Luther, who added his teaching to his translation of the Scripture. No one in the first 15 centuries of Christianity taught that Justification was by faith alone.

"When was Abraham justified! When he offered up Issac or when he believed GOD? Gen 22 is the offering of Issac. OR... Gen 15 when Abraham believed GOD .."And he believed in the LORD and he counted it to him for Righteousnes." Seven chapters difference! Let the Bible speak! "How was it reconed? When he was in circumcision, or in UN-circumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." When was Abraham circumcised? Chapter 17! Way before hwe offered up Issac!"

Let the Bible speak indeed. Justification is not a onetime event, it is an ongoing process. When was Abraham Justified? Scripture tells us of multiple occasions.

"For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (James 2:21)

Scripture here tells us that Abraham is justified on more than one occasion. Ultimately, Ruy Dias de Bivar, we will be judged by how much we conform ourselves to the image of Christ. We will be judged according to our works, and it is those who persevere to the end who will obtain the promise.

"And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise." (Hebrews 6:15)

Salvation is a gift from God, we cannot earn it. Faith is the foundation of our relationship to God, but Scripture nowhere says we are saved by faith alone. On the contrary, it contradicts that proposition directly.

Bremenboy, I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

+++Bremenbody, I can see certainly identify with your concern over the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as it contradicts Scripture and is a doctrine that can easily be abused.+++

Show me where it contradicts scripture.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment::9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Faith and belief are the flip sides of the same coin

Jesus never taught salvation by works, in fact he taught just the opposite

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

What is the will of the Father?

Scripture says this is His will for men

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The will of the Father is that we believe, so what does Jesus say to the man that thought his works would earn him salvation ?

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

That mans WORKS which he did in the name of Jesus were called SIN (iniquity) by Christ. Why?

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Thank you for the wonderful quotes from Scripture. They all point to metaphors that Christ employed to explain Himself. They all take the format of metaphor followed by explanation of the metaphor, just as Jesus did with the parables. The Eucharistic references, however, do not take this format, it is clear to me that the literal and correct reading of the passages is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In response to your questions:

Of course John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me .

Jesus preformed a miracle where thousands were fed bread. He then went away from the crowd.

The crowd followed him, but not because they sought Christ as teacher or Savior, not because they knew he was the Christ, but because they wanted to get their stomachs full of bread.

Read the rebuke of Christ to them

Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

It was then He began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) and not for His presence or teaching. They only wanted their temporal needs met.

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that Faith was a work of the Father

Then then decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. It was THEY that brought up the manna (bread) Not Christ

Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jesus clarified where salvation comes from;

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven

He was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life.. HE on the other hands was sent from the Father to give them eternal spiritual life.

They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them physical life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna, justy as they were looking for an earthly savior not a divine salvation.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life, not a temporal one

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The entire message is on salvation by faith .

The listeners did not get it , they were hung up on another point .

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Notice the focus of the crowd was not on Him being the BREAD or eating Him but that He said he came down from heaven ( a claim of divinity )

Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jesus here declares that the manna was a TYPE of Christ.. The manna gave physical life, His flesh is for the eternal life of men

Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Keep in mind He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved. He has already taught that the man that is taught by the Father comes to him and are saved. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, by internalizing the fact of the atonement in faith is not a good reading and it is not the understood by the new church

This is from jamison
"Here, for the first time in this high discourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial death--for only rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutes Him the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element IN HIM WHICH POSSESSES THE LIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.--"From this time we hear no more (in this discourse) of "Bread"; this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place" [STIER].

Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc

To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental.

This was clearly a metaphorical teaching to Jews looking for a Physical savior like Moses, and for physical bread to meet their physical hunger. Jesus always used symbols that the Jews understood to make spiritual points.

The Eucharistic context of the last supper is clear and unambiguous. Christ offers us His Body and Blood, and commands to eat. This is the literal meaning of the text, and he does not explain it as a metaphor. "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26-28)

What would make you think this too was not a metaphor?

Please look at the circumstances of the Last Supper .

Remember that they were celebrating the passover at that meal. The unleavened bread that they used was a substitution for the manna in the desert.

We know that the manna was a type of Christ. Here at the table stood the fulfillment of that manna typology.

The Jews had been commanded to "remember" the salvation from the slavery and the flight into the desert each year by celebrating a ritual meal called the passover.Part of that passover was the unleavened bread substituting for the divine manna

Completing the salvation types the Jews celebrated in blindness was the lamb that would be eaten at that meal, the fulfillment of the type of Christ slain so the blood could be placed on the doorpost so the angel of death would pass over them.

Here just before the betrayal of Christ and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and the Passover promise Jesus stood to officiate at the meal.

So He took the bread ( the substitute for the manna, a type of Christ) and he broke it, just as the traditional passover meal demands, but now Christ reveals the TRUE meaning of the practice with His words "This piece of bread is my body "( a fulfillment of the typology)

There are 3 pieces of bread at the meal ( we now know that is to represent the Trinity ) The middle piece is broken in 2 and one of those pieces is wrapped in fine linen and "hidden" (just as the body of Christ was wrapped in linen at his death and hidden in a tomb).That is a type of Christ . Jesus was broken on the cross for our redemption (I Corinthians 11:24) and wrapped in linen for burial (Luke 23:53).

After the cups are drunk the hidden bread is brought out

It was after this point that Jesus changed the tradition and the Passover ritual and instituted the 'the Lord's Supper'.

He took the Afikomen bread ( The hidden bread laid aside earlier) and gave thanks (Matthew 26:26): "Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, the Creator Who brings forth bread from the earth", according to the Jewish Haggadah.
Then He broke the Afikomen bread and passed round the third cup of wine, called the Cup of Blessing or the Cup of Redemption. Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20).

Jesus was revealing the mystery of the Passover meal to his disciples.He was showing them that He was the manna in the desert, that He was the lamb that was slain and who's blood would save them. It was His flesh that would be broken as the unleavened bread had been in the ritual meal. He was telling them that He was the fulfillment of the Passover. So now the Old covenant with His people would be closed and a New Covenant one opened. This New and everlasting covenant had His body broken, His blood spread over the "doorpost". Now they were to eat that bread, no longer to celebrate the exodus from Slavery, but to celebrate and remember His death , His broken body, His shed blood . The passover typology was to be fulfilled and a new commemoration to take its place.

If you notice there was no discussion of the change in the ritual by those present, no one asked him if the was 'really" his body.

They understood that it was not literally His body, as his body stood before them whole and alive. They had heard Jesus teach that He was the manna in the desert that is symbolized in the traditional passover.

Jesus was replacing one memorial meal from the Old Covenant with a new one for the New covenant.

As you shake your head no to this, consider that Jesus was physically present to them, his body was whole, no "parts " missing for them to "eat". His blood was circulating through his body. He Himself partook that meal, did He eat his own body and drink his own blood too?

The Lords Supper is a Holy encounter with God. a time of recollection and meditation on what he has already done for His children. .

Ruy Dias de Bivar,

That's a very interesting post. It's clear, as you point out, that many Jews continued to keep the Law, while the gentiles were not required to do so. One could infer that there was, in a sense, a dichotomy of practice between many of the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians.

"Good points except for the following. The Apostles in Jerusalem were still preaching a Jewish form of Chrisitanity."

Just to be clear, the Apostle James is preaching Christianity, pure and simple. While it is clear that many Hebrew Christians are still observing the Jewish Law, as you noted in your post, the Apostle James says to St. Paul: "As touching the Gentiles which believe WE HAVE WRITTEN AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY observe no such thing." James clearly recognizes the importance of not imposing Jewish Law upon the Gentiles, both here and at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

My assumption regarding Acts 21: 18-20 was that the Apostles Paul and James were following the precepts St. Paul described in 1 Corinthians 9: 19,20
" For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law."
This policy was underscored by St. Paul himself, when he had Timothy circumcised so that he might accompany Paul among the Jews, after the Council of Jerusalem.

St. James is not instructing the Apostle Paul to take the Nazarite vow as some sort of misguided works salvation(!), any more than St. Paul was trying to impose a "works salvation" on Timothy. St. James rejoiced to hear about the conversion of the Gentiles, and makes it clear that they are not to be forced to follow the Law. Rather, the point of St. Paul's going up to the temple and taking a Nazirite vow was to dispel a false rumor about St. Paul.

"Now, when you run the book through THESE verses you can see that James was written as a legalistic tract "To the 12 tribes scattered abroad." No wonder it took almost 300 years for this small letter to be accepted by believers as scripture, as Martin Luther said, "An epistle of straw."

Ruy Dias de Bivar, Do you not believe that the Letter of James is Scriptural?

The point of this of course is that demonstrates why sola scriptura is a flawed principle that does not work. Following traditions invented by men 16 centuries after the time of Christ, it leads to a flawed interpretatin of a major doctrine that is the exact opposite of the Faith handed down by Christ through the Apostles to his Church. This clearly demonstrates that sola scriptura is a flawed doctrine. The Church was founded by Christ, and exists in History. We know much about what the Church has always believed, because the beliefs of the Church have been documented over the past 2000 years. Christianity was not invented 16 centuries after the time of Christ.

The point of all of this is to show how oral "tradition" can become flawed, where the written word stands forever.

I find it interesting that you used a scripture text to prove tradition is correct :)

The fact is there was no doctrine of transubstantiation until the 1200's and the reading of the early church Fathers does not indicate they had a belief in it

For example in Clement's A.D. 194 Stromata (I:1 & I:10 and IV:26):, he notes "The Saviour, taking the bread, first spoke and blessed. Then, breaking the bread, He presented it so that we might eat it according to reason, and that knowing the Scriptures we might walk obediently.
Moses says Melchizedek King of Salem, Priest of the Most-High God, who gave bread and wine -- furnished consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist."

Here, there is no Transubstantiation noted but only the Protestant belief of the real Spiritual presence of God at the Lord's Supper .

In" Against Marcion IV:40", Tertullian writes "The Law prefigures His passion.... Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery: 'It is the Lord's Passover' [Leviticus 23:5].... When He [ Jesus ] so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the Passover, He considered it His Own Feast... Having taken the bread and given it to His Disciples, He made it His own body by saying, 'This is My body' [and not 'this now becomes My body'] that is, the figure of My body. Yet there could not have been a figure, unless there were first a veritable body."
He continues continues "In order however that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah [63:1] who asks, 'Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosra, with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of His might? Why are Your garments red, and Your raiment like his who comes from the treading of the full wine-press? '.... He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red -- as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the winepress from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice like men stained in blood..''

Tertullian's" On the Resurrection of the Flesh" (ch. 37), where he writes "'The flesh profits nothing' [John 6:63].... We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear and to ruminate [or 'chew the cud'] on Him with the understanding and to digest Him by faith.

In his 25th-27th Tractates (on John 6:35-63), Augustine rhetorically asks believers: "Why do you prepare the teeth and the belly?" And then he himself answers "Believe -- and you have eaten!" Further: "We at this day receive visible food. But the Sacrament is one thing; the virtue of the Sacrament, another.... It was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas, but yet he took it.... See to it, then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense!.... He who does not keep on dwelling in Christ, doubtless neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood -- [although he may press the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth].... What is it, then, that He adds? 'It is the Spirit that makes alive; the flesh profits nothing!' [John 6:63] Let the Spirit be added to the flesh!.... We eat not...merely in the Sacrament, as many evil men do.... We eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, so that we abide as members in the Lord's body, to be enlivened by His Spirit."

. It was not until . 831 AD that (by Radbertus in his book The Body and Blood of the Lord) one first finds the notion suggested that "the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed into the flesh and blood of Christ" -- so that once the priest has consecrated it there is "nothing else in the Eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ."
Transubstantiation was never at any time accepted by any part of the Church Universal ,whether Early-Patristic, Post-Nicene, Greek, Roman, or Proto-Protestant (alias Culdee or Waldensian etc.) until specifically the Roman Church proclaimed it dogmatically as an article of her own changing faith, at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26: 26-28)

"What would make you think this too was not a metaphor?...The unleavened bread that they used was a substitution for the manna in the desert.

No it's not. The unleavened bread recalls the passover and the Jews fleeing from Egypt, not the manna in the desert. There is no metaphor in Mathew 26:26-28. Jesus says that it is His Body and Blood, and I believe Jesus. That is the point of Justification by Grace through faith, we must believe what God tells us, and obey Him. Christ is the Lamb of God. You have to eat the paschal Lamb itself, RnMomof7.

"They understood that it was not literally His body, as his body stood before them whole and alive."

No they didn't. Where are you getting this? You are inserting something into Scripture that is not there. The Bible never says what you just claimed. Quite the opposite:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor 11: 25-30)

None of what you have said precludes what these Scriptures say. The Scriptures clearly say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord.

"As you shake your head no to this, consider that Jesus was physically present to them, his body was whole, no "parts " missing for them to "eat". and did so even as His blood was circulating through his body."

Give me a break. His presence fills the entire Universe, even as he lay in the manger at Bethlehem. He is God, and He is all powerful. When He says something is His body, it is His Body.

" He Himself partook that meal, did He eat his own body and drink his own blood too?"

Where are you seeing this? The Scriptures tell us on at least four occasions that Jesus said that the Eucharist was His Body and Blood. I see nothing about Jesus eating the Eucharist in any of the Scriptures. Where are you seeing this? Please show me a verse that says Jesus ate the Eucharist.

Scripture is clear, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The assertion that it is merely a symbol is without Scriptural basis and contradicts the direct meaning of Scripture.

"Of course John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me."

I've never even mentioned John 6. I've been discussing Matthew 26: 26-28.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."; And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

This same teaching is presented four times in the Scriptures. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Scripture clearly tells us so. There is no support in Scripture for the assertion that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. It is a doctrine asserted against the clear meaning of Scripture by those who do not have faith in Scripture.

"The fact is there was no doctrine of transubstantiation until the 1200's and the reading of the early church Fathers does not indicate they had a belief in it.'

Completely incorrect, RnMomof7. The term transubstantiation was coined in the 1200's to understand the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Real Presence is the clear witness of Scripture and the Universal witness of the Church fathers.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans", 110 A.D.

This statement was written by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, on his way to be martyred in Rome. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. The Protestant contention is that the Catholic Church fell away from Christ at some point (which they never specify,) and taught false doctrine. Ignatius KNEW the Apostle John, he is writing perhaps within less than 20 years of the writing of the Book of Revelation. Do you really want to argue that the Church had apostasized by this point??

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians", 110 A.D.

""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

As I'm sure you are aware, we can cite dozens of quotes from Church authorities from the early Church that show that the Early Christians clearly understood the Scriptures to mean exactly what they say. I'll just give you one more from St. Augustine.

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." ("Sermons", [227, 21])

RnMomof7, Scripture clearly says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Historical tradition is unambiguous, the Church has always understood the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

"I find it interesting that you used a scripture text to prove tradition is correct :)"

No, I am using tradition to demonstrate that Scripture is correct. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are completely consistent.

"Transubstantiation was never at any time accepted by any part of the Church Universal ,whether Early-Patristic, Post-Nicene, Greek, Roman, or Proto-Protestant (alias Culdee or Waldensian etc.) until specifically the Roman Church proclaimed it dogmatically as an article of her own changing faith, at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215."

This is a load of baloney, where did you get this cut and paste? , I've just proved the author of that statement to be incorrect. I'm sure you've had dozens of other quotes from the Fathers quoted to you previously, and it should be quite evident what the Early Church believed regarding the Eucharist.

The Point of justification by Grace through Faith is that we must believe God. Scripture says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Doctrine on the Eucharist is that it is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. None of your quotes demonstrate otherwise.

""Of course John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me."

Johh 6 emphatically underscores the other four instances in Scripture where Jesus identifies the Eucharist as his Body and Blood. You cited John 6 after I had cited Matthew 26, indicating that you are quite aware of the significance of John 6.

While it's quite likely true that the Lord's supper is merely a memorial in those communities which are based upon the teachings of men from the 16th century, the Eucharist within the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Faith is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, just as Scripture and tradition tell us.

Paul's work is bar-none, the most amazing ever known. It is to him that we owe our gratitude for the knowledge of Jesus Christ. This was due to Paul's genuine wish that Gentiles know Christ, in addition to Jews. Peter's argument was that only Jews know Christ. Thank goodness Paul convinced him otherwise.

Huge bump!

Phl 3:4 "Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Phl 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Phl 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Phl 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Phl 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Phl 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

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.