Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Oh wait, so the words are the spirit, oh wait, the water, no, no the blood, no, the flesh...no, you just have to believe, etc., etc. Gee!
And then it says a couple of verses further (Jn. 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."
So, all this eating and drinking is useless...
Now maybe you can begin to see why they say "John's" Gospel is heavily interpolated.
My tag used to read "I know nothing." And that's the truth.
If you are interested in the specific material aspect and want the Western description in philosophical terms see "substance and accidents." The bread and wine retain their accidents, but are changed in substance. In the East, the Real Presence just is.
But how do you get spirituality transferred from your stomach to your heart/soul???
By the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
It's a Sacrament, like Baptism. You might as well ask: When you get wet, how do you get spirituality transferred from your skin to your heart/soul?
And at the end of John 6 that the Catholics like to quote so much to support their cannibalistic rituals, Jesus says this....
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
It gets back to the free and loose rules of interpretation that Catholics use, cherry picking which sentences to take literally out of one passage and which ones to take figuratively. All depending on what doctrine they wish to support at the moment.
In the direction you lead others to all is metaphor. Including the Incarnation.
I stand corrected.
In other words, you don't know...
The blood was offered to the disciples. Jesus had no reason to drink his own blood, hello! he didn't have to do that in memory of him, LOL.
Would Jesus have commanded them to drink it in violation of the Law?
He told them to violate the Law in other instances.
The only way this works if it was still wine and the disciples understood it to be such and the ceremony was one of remembrance, just as the Passover meal was of the first Passover
First Passover, like any subsequent Passover is a real meal, not just the remembering of the lamb. They eat the same thing they believe Passover Jews ate. Besides, the comparison is moot; the Passover sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice. For sin sacrifice, a goat (instead of a lamb) is used on Yom Kippur, and the goat is usually not killed.
I answered your question specifically. By the words of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
If you know further, then it is in your answer to the same question about Baptism.
Absolutely. I just made the same point. You beat me to it. To even think that Jesus would partake in this is the joke of the week.
Yes, every last one of them was a protestant advancing an agenda against Rome. The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don't want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That's just a fact, my friend.
"Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39."
Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one. They lived in the Hellenic culture of the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean. No matter how much you or protestant translators want "estin" to mean "represents" or "stands for", that simply isn't true. Estin means "is" just as "alithees" means true or real, not "kinda" or "sorta" like.
"Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?"
You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you? Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope. Some, Orthodox and Protestants do not. To the extent that a pope has declared that the bread and wine on the altar table is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that a local council of The Church declares the same thing, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that The Church lives out such a belief in its fullness as the People of God, the clergy and monastics and the hierarchs gathered together, then I believe and embrace it. That "ecclesia", which is no institution but rather the Body of Christ, is what is infallible.
Is this the same "John" who says in 6:65 that "no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father"? Where does hunger and thirst come in? The decision has already been made...
Do you believe Jesus' own words?
No, Sola Scriptura is. That's what I said.
How low will the RCC teachings go ..
Not so low as to intentionally change what you said and then go off the rails about it.
>>>>"As you read it."
WRONG! the pur [sic] Word of God AS IT IS.
Without reading it?
HIS WORD is spiritually discerned
I see lots of different discernment claiming the same spirit. Who determines which is real?
Dismiss 'man's words? Absolutely. While YOU DISMISS GOD'S Word.
My quote is "dismissed His Words - the Scripture I posted....And you mine." I was referring to the phrase before it "the Scripture I posted. " I.e., scripture not "man's words" as you seem to have misread it.
It's difficult to communicate this way, repeating what I said to correct what you then say I said.
And, I am Spirit filled, well equipped with only HIS WORD written on my heart - just as He commanded. HEAR and OBEY JESUS/The Word.
As you see it. I'm sorry, but I am not communicating on this forum in this post with God Himself, but with you. You are communicating what you believe, speaking for yourself. I am going to, hopefully safely, assume that you are not claiming to speak for anyone but yourself and certainly not God.
Thank you for your reply. I do hope you will not mangle and change my statements next time.
“”The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don’t want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That’s just a fact, my friend.””
Saint Thomas Aquinas illustrates this so well referring to some of the great Church Fathers like Chrysostom ,Ambrose and Augustin
And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ’s Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the words, “Immediately there came out blood and water” (Jn. 19:34): “Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ’s own side.” Hence our Lord Himself says (Mat. 26:28): “This is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.”
Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): “This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.” And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): “When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him.” And hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.”
Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made,” viz. bread; “and many grapes flow into one thing,” viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!”
And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.-Summa Theologica
He said He wouldn’t drink again of the fruit of the vine until it was fulfilled in the kingdom.
He drank and recognized it as wine.
He still would have sinned if He demanded that the disciples drink it intending it to be blood.
God is the one who instituted the prohibition against drinking blood and it was reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem.
God never changed His mind on the issue.
Scripture interprets Scripture. It must be consistent.
Since the disciples were still under the Law at the time of the Last Supper, they would not have drank the cup even suspecting that it was blood as that would have violated the Law and made them unclean. And Peter states in Acts that he had never eaten anything unclean.
Not to mention that the Council of Jerusalem which again reiterated the prohibition of eating blood, with no exceptions, the Catholics claim was presided over by Peter.
Communion being a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth just as the Passover meal they were eating when Jesus instituted communion represented the original Passover in Egypt that they did to REMEMBER is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
If Catholics think that eating the wafer is somehow going to save them, they are basing their salvation on their works and their effort instead of the finished work of Christ on the cross.
Jesus died once for all. It's over and done with. He is not the perpetual sacrifice, He is the great high priest, living to make intercession for us, the only priest we need.
Catholics can't even get who Christ is and what He's doing right. Sheesh....
Wrong. Most CATHOLICS on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.
Being Catholic does not necessarily equate to being Christian and being Christian does not equate to being Catholic.
Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics. Called Christians....
By that criteria, the Real Presence is true. It's in the Gospels and epistles, Christ's words make it very clear, all consistent with each other and Paul warns specifically against the view you hold.
Now what?
Why did you quote the next line of my comment? It certainly would’ve given understanding to the above.
“Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.”
And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!
All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one.”
I didn't know.
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language?”
One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker.
Every language mixes the literal and symbolic and makes postie, literal statements not meant to understood as such or shall I believe the nation of Babylon gave birth to men or the nation of Israel got drunk and puked?
If you can speak for “all Christians” please tell me how many gouged out an eye or chopped off an offending hand?
(Maybe Origen just with missed with the cleaver?)
“You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you?”
I just knew it was all my fault!
Papal infallibility is indeed a “notion” conjured from thin air-headed reasoning in way that would humble David
Copperfield.
“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”
The broad and specious road has plenty of room on it.
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.