Posted on 04/13/2014 7:37:12 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
Read it in Greek. It doesn’t say what you were taught. Read it in context and what it literally says ties the whole passage together. No fathers needed or early Protestants. Just God’s Word delivered Through the faithful Paul.
God’s word according to you. It doesn’t say what Zwingli taught.
You view would not only contradict the words of Christ and St. Paul but those whom Paul and other apostles taught, and those they taught...
All making the error of the real presence in Holy Eucharist until they were finally corrected the sixteenth century - at least according to some.
It’s not a credible theory.
“God’s word according to you. It doesn’t say what Zwingli taught.”
Sorry. I read Greek from my years in seminary. It says exactly what God inspired. He inspired those words in Greek. You can claim it says something else that you pre-decided as a Roman, but you have to add words to do so. You also have to take it from its context.
Now, it simply does not matter to me what you choose to believe about this passage.
It only matters to me that I choose to take God at His Word here. I’ve studied the passage including in the original languages. I believe what it actually says and not what someone else wants to make it say. That is how it should be since we are exhorted to be firmly convinced in our own mind. This is part of “loving God with ALL our mind.”
Given that Romans have held these beliefs since a couple hundred years after Christ, I have no illusion that you and I will resolve the difference. That’s OK. It isn’t up to me. We are only having this discussion because you want me to believe the extra things you believe... but it doesn’t work that way.
No, since the beginning - as scripture and history plainly prove. You have nothing contrary until the sixteenth century.
…it only matters to me that I …I’ve … I believe
Some are their own church with their own creed and dogma.
Pax tecum.
I should add… not just Romans. Christians everywhere: Asia Minor, Jerusalem, Greece, France, Spain, Germany, Egypt, Africa… Everywhere.
“No, since the beginning - as scripture and history plainly prove. You have nothing contrary until the sixteenth century.”
I know you believe this, but it is false and I cannot. You have a missing 100-200 year period that demonstrates that very many Roman teachings were not part of the Apostles teaching. You can magically fill in the gaps by being a “true believer in Rome.” I cannot. It is dishonest.
“…it only matters to me that I …I’ve … I believe. Some are their own church with their own creed and dogma.”
I cannot speak for “some.” I can tell you I take God’s commands seriously. He says to “love God with ALL our mind”. I cannot outsource my mind and hold true. He commands us to study to show ourselves approved and to know how to handle the Word of Truth. I do. I cannot slack off to please you or anyone else and be true to His commands.
“I should add… not just Romans. Christians everywhere: Asia Minor, Jerusalem, Greece, France, Spain, Germany, Egypt, Africa… Everywhere. “
The issue is never whether a belief was held. Many false beliefs are held by Rome.
The issue is never where a belief is held. Spiritual truth is never decided by geography.
The only issue is whether something is true. The belief your posts espouse has been weighed and found wanting by millions of believers.
There is no missing period. You have the real presence in scripture and in all the history and writings and liturgy and praxis of the Church since then.
What's missing is your view - until the 16th century. And only then in parts of protestantism.
“love God with ALL our mind”.
How in the world does this justify an error in interpretation and practice?
And held by billions.
Your position requires those taught by the apostles to have got the very focus of their liturgy and sacraments wrong from the beginning, all over Christendom; the Greek fathers of the Church misinterpreting the Greek that you now know better . The whole of Christian believers, wrong, for 1500 years, until Zwingly set it right.
It's worthy of a Dan Brown novel; but not a critical thinker.
"This do" in memory of Him.
(1) Gotta' problem with that?
(2)If so, one can take any of those (problems) to Christ for He is attributed also to having said to do that [Matthew 11:28-30] too, provided we now consider Christ to be as one with his heavenly Father.
Which latter consideration I have no problems with...of any "substance".<---pun intended.
Still problems? See (2) [above]<--oh, there's another One?<---make it three?<---why yes, Three it is<---pun #4, if the first attempt is understood enough to "count" <---do we hear 5?
“This do” what?
It’s a simple question.
Regarding the Holy Eucharist, what is it we are to do?
aMPU --- did you notice that never was a definition of what "discerning the body" meant from the perspective of your Inquisitor antagonist, until the various sentences and judgments of condemnation (of a most personal nature) were pronounced?
So just what is it (from your perspective) D-fendr, that must be discerned?
Is it when the priest holds up the bread and says to the effect "this is" the body?
If so, then you do well, for that is what is being (or just had been) consecrated.
It was in this, when not taken as important, when considered nothing more than just another piece of bread among all the rest of the meal partaken of, or partaken of before all others (of a local church body) had yet arrived, which communal meal (in Paul's own time) they would be gathered together to share, which was that which Paul was speaking towards, along with quite importantly adding admonition against persons partaking without examining their own selves in light of Christ, (with this last paraphrase/interpretation "in light of Christ" being my own inclusions admittedly exported from sense gained of what be spoken of elsewhere in scripture which would entail additional lengthy documentation -- mind if we skip that additional for now?)
Yet if one is looking for "transubstantiation" there as Paul speaks of "discerning the body" it must be of the metaphysical variety, and that finding of the metaphysical derived from later definitions, imposing those not only upon the texts, but of the earliest centuries church traditions also, for it is difficult to see Christ speaking other than metaphorically-literally in regards to his own then-human form flesh.
He was right in front of them -- not then alluding to doing magic trick of turning his then human flesh into bread -- for the bread was extant and had been itself visible in it's own "form" right in front of them, all along also (the bread did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere) yet instead He was referencing very directly then extant Jewish religious memorial feasts -- showing Himself to be that bread, the manna, and the Lamb of the first Passover also, which itself was presaged by Abraham being directed to offer up Isaac as sacrifice --- and the ram, right at the last possible moment be known as available, provided by God as Abraham had faith God would provide, although as the text leads myself to believe --- Abraham was willing to slay his own son ----- which is what God Himself has fulfilled by having His only begotten die in the place of ourselves, the ransom given for us, given FOR us all, by the One who's own awesome Holiness demands justice and due wages be paid. In Full.
He is the Alpha & the Omega
The one I know of (in English language) as Jesus Christ, He is the one who paid the price, even as he received our own wages due to us for sin, becoming even them (sins) in His own flesh bodily. (2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 53:9)
Is this not discernment enough? Then read on, there is more.
aMPU, I believe, from his own words which I have read upon occasion, here on FR for years now --- likely shares much the same belief as I expressed just now, though may have his own differences with me on this-or-that other, and is likely as not also capable of bringing yet more related information (for the scriptures are quite rich in depth, indeed) as those may come to mind.
Later usages (other than in scripture itself) of the phrase "discernment of the body" (but still in the primitive church, such as in those first decades after the Apostles themselves 'had loosed this mortal coil' of their own earthly existences) towards that same passage could include a speaker referring to those who thought Jesus was just a ghost or something all along --as in Him never living and breathing in actual fleshly form, or the more limited original Arianism which claimed the Risen Christ was not bodily present, walking, breathing, even eating and drinking, but was then as specter.
These errors mixed in, along with lack of discernment of the body of the church and it's teachings, with that particular "lack" being a problem (in Paul's time also) of persons joining in or attending the 'love feasts' as they were then called, as just another meal, which too casual approach neglected the very purpose of the consecration & sharing of bread broken (for us), and that most central feature be one of the "teachings" inclusive as Paul wrote of them -----up to that time in which Paul did so. Later additions to those teachings do not necessarily come under the same category of "discerning the body", even as I do believe (for I have experienced it) a mystical Presence discernible most acutely in one's own spirit -- but so much so there be some bodily "sense" of His Spirit too, all of this concurrent with the taking of communion. Yet--- that is not the only way, time or place of setting which one can commune in spirit with Him, I mention as part of my own personal testimony, which does correspond well with many others touching upon the same things -- as it is written shall be.
Other than my own more "personal" testimony of what I have sensed or discerned upon occasion, if the rest of what I write here as to earliest practices is not believed by yourself --- Bring the (NT) texts. Bring the Didache. Let us see there what is being said -- but spare us much of the rest which comes only much later.
Let us start there, at the beginning, then cleave to the more original understandings primarily, bearing those firmly in mind when or if moving forward to other "sense" of what is or is not being "discerned", unless you would care to share personal testimony as towards your own discernment (or lack thereof) --of the body-- which if this latter condition (your own personal testimony) then never mind me t'all, but preach it brother and testify, sing out and don't let anyone stop you from sharing as to what you yourself may have "discerned".
Otherwise, just what is it which you are talking inquiring about?
Literally the flesh and blood? Well yes, it was written so is therefore literal in that sense, but which as He explained was to be spiritually discerned;
The words [ho rhēma] that I [hos egō] have spoken [laleō] to you [hymeis] are [eimi] spirit [pneuma] and [kai] life [zōē].
ho -
usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, thatsarx -
flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beastsou
the body
the body of a man
used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
born of natural generation
the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answerWhat else have you "discerned"?
Have you discerned (like a lucky Lanciano) the wafer turn into soylent green?
Or does the "accident" remain just as it was in appearance, indiscernibly changed in "accident" [species] of it's outward form, yet "transformed" in it's (Aristotlian philosophy defined) "substance" which according to the Council of Trent, the substance spoken of be under the forms of the bread and wine? Do you agree with the description of transubstantiation given at Trent?
What now? Will you tell us that it is the accident [species] which is changed? Not according to Trent my FRiend, for they said there that the accident itself remains unchanged, with [again] the transformation taking place "under the forms of the bread and wine" as compared to changing the otherwise discernible to one's physical senses -- "forms" of the bread and the wine.
See http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx and go tell them they are wrong...or not "discerning" well enough to suit yourself, if here as to the immediate above you not agree with me as to what your own ecclesiastical body teaches.
After which you may then again don the Inquisitor's apparel, if you must absolutely insist upon doing so...
Meanwhile, I will wear that mask, cape, gown and tall hat, and subject you to much the same methodology with which you have here hectored aMPU.
So just what are these [below] questions, all about?
Perhaps you could explain why not.
How about you, D-fendr ---
Perhaps you could explain why not.
I did notice that for all the verbiage, you never answered the simple question.
When writing of the Risen Christ walking and living in his human form -- I failed to include as intended intendedto inc limit that walking/talking living much as otherwise "normal" flesh & blood human to the time (40 days, wasn't it?) from time of His Resurrection, to time of His Assumption, after which he was no longer walking the earth in form of the man he was born into this earthly realm as.
I answered the question. Extensively. It was answered also, before you asked, even in that which you posed the question to.
Now give answer for yourself.
“There is no missing period. You have the real presence in scripture and in all the history and writings and liturgy and praxis of the Church since then.”
That some see it in Scripture is simply an interpretation that was back filled as exogesis in later centuries.
“What’s missing is your view - until the 16th century. And only then in parts of protestantism.”
No problem. God’s Word is as complete and living today as it was earlier. It says what it says. I accept exactly what it says without the hokey pagan stuff.
“How in the world does this justify an error in interpretation and practice?”
No error in taking God at His Word. That is simply an opinion.
“
“And held by billions.”
The facts of exaggerated roman membership numbers have been posted here by many.
Truth is never decided by majority vote in Scripture.
“Your position requires those taught by the apostles to have got the very focus of their liturgy”
No, there is no liturgy that was not changed and can be proven to be used during the time of the Apostles.
“and sacraments wrong from the beginning,”
No, same response. It does not withstand historical examination.
“all over Christendom;”
Back to arguing based on geography, I see. Still never the basis of truth.
” the Greek fathers of the Church misinterpreting the Greek that you now know better .”
Eisogesis is not limited to English speakers such as the views you espoused here. Human nature never changes.
“The whole of Christian believers, wrong, for 1500 years, until Zwingly set it right.”
Time doesn’t decide truth either. All variations of logical fallacies.
Given that Rome lost the Gospel, it is not surprising that other truth was obscured when paganism was incorporated into her.
It astounds me that it is not enough for me (as expressed in your posts) to seek to obey God’s commands and obey my conscience as He desires.
And yet your argument was "by millions of believers". If you don't wish to compare numbers, then don't claim numbers.
It does not withstand historical examination.
So, let's go historical examination. What do you have supporting your view of no real presence in the Holy Eucharist?
No your post did everything but answer it.
How about a simple answer to a simple question: At the last supper, Christ said do what in memory of Him?
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.