Jesus Alone, Is the head of the Church...but he delegates his authority to men

https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/jesus-alone-is-the-head-of-the-church-but-he-delegates-authority-to-men/ ^ | 05-22-18 | Bill Randles

[Elsie]

What no one seems to want to tackle is the FACT of what the wafer and the wine turn into before it leaves the human body...

Is that REALLY what we want our Savior to be??

[Elsie]

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

[daniel1212]

What does "This is my Body" mean?

Indeed, just what does it mean? Does it mean that the body and blood which He said to consume was literally that which would be crucified and poured out , which certainly looked, felt behaved, and would taste and test as real human flesh, as the only body of the incarnated Christ did and would, and purely literal understanding of "take eat, this is my body which is broken for you" requires?

If taken literally, there is nothing in the words at the Last Supper that teaches that what the apostles consumed was anything less than actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond the Christ "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...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..." (1 John 1:1,2). And thus would scientifically test as corporeal flesh

. Or did "this is MY body" refer to what looked, felt, smelled, behaved and would taste and scientifically test merely as inanimate objects (bread and wine), down to the smallest particle, but which had ceased to exist at the "words of consecration, but becoming the “the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross" of the Catholic christ. Until that is, the non-existent hosts manifests decay, at which point the Catholic christ no longer exists under the appearance of the non-existent bread or wine.

If you deny this then you do not know much of Eucharistic theology. And claimed "special miracles" such as bleeding hosts will not help you, since such are not what transubstantiation means, and which metaphysical nonsense is required because Cath priests cannot produce bleeding hosts, etc. as a practice.

Moreover, since even the smallest particle of the species of bread and wine are (imagined) to be the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” then such may become airborne, and end up who knows where.

In contrast the the Catholic metaphysical Christ, the metaphorical understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture. . And such use for eating or drinking is what the apostles would have been familiar with, to which the Lord's representative use of bread and wine for His body and bread is correspondent to, versus the foreign concept of requiring physical consuming human flesh for spiritual purposes. A few more examples from Scripture pertinent to this aspect are:

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist a plain-language reading of such words requires in the gospels, then they should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:

• “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

• The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

• David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

• And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

• While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

• But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

• And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4) More at link .

[daniel1212]

What a cruel hoax, which even made much use of fabrications .

[daniel1212]

In other words, it ultimately comes down to, ‘Because I say so,’ not ‘because the Apostles said so.’ Ultimately, if Roman doctrine contradicts what Jesus and the Prophets and Apostles actually taught—ESPECIALLY in regards to justification and worship—the Romanists CAN’T be the ‘one true church.’ And all the shouting in the universe from the usual suspects can’t change that.

Notice that in Catholic theology one needs to submit to Rome to assuredly know what is of God:

RC: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;

...the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium

.in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Thus, to avoid circularity,

..when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility;

But what is the basis for Catholic assurance that there church is what it claims to be, the one true infallible church? It is because she has Rome has presumed to infallibly declared she is (if conditionally infallible), thus,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that [according to infallible us] the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the premise is false, so is the conclusion] (Providentissimus Deus;Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII)

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." "We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will." - Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae - Papal Encyclicals

[ealgeone]

Are you telling me that for salvation I have to submit to the authority of one non-Scriptural office, which has historically been held by, and is currently also being held by some very, very evil men?

That is exactly what Roman Catholicism teaches.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

The wide ranging scope of this proclamation has been diminished or minimized by Roman Catholics. Unam teaches that every person, including presidents, governors, rulers, etc, are to be subject to the pope. Think about the implications of that statement.

When Unam is brought forward to Roman Catholics in light of the on-going debate over their current pope, RCs dismiss Unam Sanctam....yet, they maintain that Christians have to be a member of the RCC and follow the pope.

Roman Catholics don't practice what they preach....for if they did there wouldn't be the incessant posting of articles against the current pope.

Too bad the internet wasn't around for Luther!

[ealgeone]

Context omegatoo....context is your friend in understanding the New Testament.

Allow me to illustrate.

The five accounts we have of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

I have attempted to highlight the critical parts to help the reader understand the context of the passage.

Matthew 26:26-29	Mark 14:22-24	Luke 22:14-20	John 13:21-26	1 Corinthians 11:23-26
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”	22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”.	14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.	21When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” 22The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.23There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” 25He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.	23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Key Phrases/words:

Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).

29.11 ἀνάμνησις, εως f: (derivative of ἀναμιμνῄσκω ‘to cause to remember,’ 29.10) the means for causing someone to remember—‘means of remembering, reminder.’ ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν ‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 347). New York: United Bible Societies.

[Luircin]

What no one seems to want to tackle is the FACT of what the wafer and the wine turn into before it leaves the human body...

Is that REALLY what we want our Savior to be??

***

The sacramental union in that sense is not the Lutheran understanding, and much ink was spilled in the 1500s clarifying that.

[Luircin]

Too bad the internet wasn’t around for Luther!
***

I can just imagine the meme war that would be happening...

[Luircin]

How many of my conversations on this board have come down to this?

Me: “But God himself says-”
Romanist: “SHUT UP HERETIC!”

[omegatoo]

I have no idea what your point is, you asked me to provide passages, so I did.

A person can speak literally and figuratively at different times, even in the same conversation, if that’s what you are getting at.

But this:
“Jesus COULD NOT have”
is bothersome.

Jesus broke Mosaic law several times, never did He sin. He ate with sinners, He consorted with taxpayers, He worked on the sabbath, He discounted dietary restrictions, He ‘blasphemed’.

He made it clear in the discourse on divorce and marriage, that Mosaic laws were made for the weakness of men, not necessarily because God wanted those behaviors. Therefore, breaking Mosaic law is not necessarily a sin. It is never a sin if God tells you to do it.

The point of the ‘eat no blood’ prohibition is that people would claim to eat the flesh and blood of animals or their false gods in order to gain their power and become joined to that god or animal. It was part of “Have no false gods before Me”.

God commands us to eat His flesh and blood for exactly that reason. He is not a false god. He wants us to be joined to Him in a profound way. He made Himself flesh and lived and died on earth to give us that way.

The prohibition in Mosaic law was precisely to prohibit perversion of the unique bond that He was to eventually provide for us to Him.

God planned ahead that way sometimes.

Also, ANYTHING that Jesus led anyone to do could not POSSIBLY be a sin.

Love,
O2

[omegatoo]

I was supplying passages about Jesus’ assertions that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, as requested.

I believe in Transubstantiation, but it is hard to argue against at least Consubstantiation from these passages.

In the long run, those 2 aren’t that far apart. I don’t think when we get to the pearly gates St. Peter is going to say, “there was bread in there too(or not), so you can’t come in!”.

Love,
O2

[metmom]

Jesus broke Mosaic law several times, never did He sin. He ate with sinners, He consorted with taxpayers, He worked on the sabbath, He discounted dietary restrictions, He ‘blasphemed’.

Then by your reasoning, Jesus was a liar.

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Your comment, more than ever, shows that the Jesus of Catholicism is NOT the Jesus of Scripture, who fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly.

He HAD to have. He could not have broken the Law and remained sinless.

He was ACCUSED of Law breaking, but that was because the pharisees added their own nonsense to it and He violated THAT. But violating man made commands is no big deal. It's not sin.

Nor did He *blaspheme*. He spoke the truth and the truth is no blasphemy.

[Salvation]

Jesus was instituting the New Covenant.

[boatbums]

Jesus was instituting the New Covenant.

Guess someone forgot to tell that to the Holy Spirit then?

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:28,29)

[HarleyD]

One needs to be very careful in assuming God has “ordained” a particular person through our actions. Just because a group of “believers” get together and “ordain” a minister, elder or deacon, does not mean that person is sent by God or that God gave us some "authority" and power to send a person out. Rather it is no different that Jethro instruction to Moses to appoint judges to assist him so he wouldn't "wear himself out" (Ex 18). It is for OUR benefit.

You are correct to say that it is believers responsibility to appoint elders and deacons. But the reason we do so is just like Moses; we can't do everything. The leaders of the Church realized that they could not take their valuable time "to wait on tables". Like Jethro's advice to Moses to appoint qualified men, the New Testament scriptures also lays down qualifications for those posts. We measure men and women against the scripture and appoint them accordingly. We ASSUME the men we appoint have been ordained from God based upon their past actions. If a person fails to live up to those qualifications, then they should be removed. But it is a big mistake to think that we have been granted some sort of mystical power to ordain people on earth. This is a very wrong Catholic notion.

God has not relinquish His sovereign control over us or "delegated His authority" for which we should be thankful for. He knows what is in our hearts.

[pastorbillrandles]

True Harley, Ordination is only recognition of what God has been doing in a person’s life. Far be it from me to have communicated anything more than that. The reason for the qualifications in scripture are that the church might jude ministers and either accept or reject them.

[Elsie]

It’s SO much simpler to just eat it and drink it and REMEMBER what it was for...

[Elsie]

I was supplying passages about Jesus’ assertions that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, as requested.

Someday; archeologists will find the missing verse(s)...  John 20:29a-29b

 

 

Ok Thomas; now that you've stuck your finger in my side; lick it off; for it ain't gonna get any better than this.

The future holds just a wafer and some wine for folks.

[Elsie]

I don’t think when we get to the pearly gates St. Peter is going to say...

Anything.

---

Revelation 21:21-25

 

²¹ The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.

²² I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

²³ The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

²⁴ The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

²⁵ On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.

 

 

I don't see Pete mentioned anywhere...