Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
It is amazing how you can completely IGNORE the FACT that seven of your very public churches in Asia, that John had a message for, were TEACHING false things!
Mighty good Catholics THEY were and YOU are!
“More reading, less theories, please. “
Frankly, I don’t think reading is occurring on your side. Certainly not reading in Greek.
Verses 17-34 all deal with correcting abuses that were occurring in the body of believers in Corinth during the Lord’s Supper. It forms one single unit of thought in Greek. Paul identifies these relationship problems as follows:
Divisions among believers
Differences among believers
Treating the Lord’s Supper as a main meal - causing some believers to go hungry
Drunkenness while some go without
Humiliating those who have nothing.
ALL these problems were abuses BETWEEN believers of the body of Christ at Corinth.
Into this correction, Paul drops a recollection of Christ’s Words of His body and blood being given as a sacrifice. Paul adds the instruction to judge relationships in the body in order to explain what it means to eat in a worthy way. It is the way Paul corrects these failed relationship actions.
Christ never commanded anyone to “judge” His Body. Nor does Paul claim He did.
Please note, Christ’s Body and Blood are mentioned first. The second reference includes no mention at all of His Blood.
To make the argument you’ve made denies treating the entire unit as a single thought - as it is in Greek. Denies that it forms a single paragraph in Greek. Denies that it supports Paul’s argument as a Greek sentence structural sub-point. Denies that it completes Paul’s reason why these failed relationship actions must be corrected by the Corinthian believers. In short, your argument as an explanation leaves the second mention of a body unrelated to Paul’s entire argument.
If there is a theory or fantasy, it is your unsupported one.
Best.
There is no “clear teaching in the Bible to the contrary”. The Bible speaks of righteous people all the time.
Righteous people were sinners...as noted in the Bible.
Again, you completely ignore the catholic apologists on this issue. No Scriptural support or support from the ECF.
Excellent expository examination.
God Bless.
The admonition of the words in Acts 15 were AFTER the words of Christ. Please explain how the apostles could admonish to NOT eat blood while at the same time promoting the eating of blood without injecting meaning that isn't there.
So? Is Paul a poor writer? Confused? He inserts the reference to the Eucharist as true presence of sacrifice of Christ because it is a fact, and he mentions it as a fact.
The second reference includes no mention at all of His Blood
So? There are six references to the bread and wine pairs. There is a reference to showing the death that is done using a bread and wine. Christ's body contains blood. The Eucharist can be in bread alone. This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway.
To make the argument you’ve made denies treating the entire unit as a single thought
It is polyphonic. Let us say you and I discuss table manners: how to hold a fork, how to use napkins, etc. In the middle of that conversation I remark: "That cantaloupe is overripe". Now, you get to either believe me or not believe me about the cantaloupe, but you don't get to say that I did not mention the cantaloupe being overripe as a fact. So it is with this passage: St. Paul speaks about an ecclesiological issue of mutual charity and in it he matter-of-factly inserts a sacramental issue. Why? Since I believe St. Paul to speak without error, I conclude: because proper ecclesiology is proper sacramentology. You cannot have a body of believers without having a Eucharist making it so. That is the Catholic teaching and the passage matches it perfectly.
I know the reason. I go to Mass to be with Christ, bring my sins to Him and apply His sacrifice to me. I do that in communion with the entire Holy Church, whom I love. Those two aspects are not "alternatives". And that is precisely what 1 Cor. 11 teaches.
Over 5,000 posts… wonder if each post gets them time off in purgatory.
Glad we could help.
The admonition referred to regular meals at home.
No, they are often contrasted one to the other. Compare Psalms 13 and 14.
Except the preceding verse refers to both the body and blood of The Lord with respect to communion. The cup of blessing which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Messiah. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Messiah. While we, being many, are one bread, one body, one holy catholic apostolic church, I would not take that so far as to claim we replace communion being the body and blood of Messiah offered and received as a living sacrifice of thanksgiving and remembrance of the reality that Messiah is sacrificed.
I see the primary theme of obedience, and the adoption of the Apostles' customs and commandments.
As for "our report," I own that and you may find it in Isaiah.
As for the key verse, just prior it reads whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of The Lord In an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of The Lord, not of offending poor brethren. Read James about despising poor Jewish brethren. Although it is sin, a violation of Leviticus and Messiah's second commandment, yet it is not anything like what Paul is writing about here, being guilty of the body and blood of Messiah. Think instead if a Jew who violated a sacrifice at the altar in an unworthy manner to get the sense of it, and why it is a sin unto death. Remember Nadab and Abihu.
That was so weak and nonsensical it would only make sense to a cultist.
” So? Is Paul a poor writer? Confused? He inserts the reference to the Eucharist as true presence of sacrifice of Christ because it is a fact, and he mentions it as a fact. “
No, Paul forms an argument. He does not drop in facts for no reason.
“So? There are six references to the bread and wine pairs. There is a reference to showing the death that is done using a bread and wine. Christ’s body contains blood. The Eucharist can be in bread alone. This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway. “
I don’t remember seeing a passage of Scripture ever that indicated the Lord’s Supper was celebrated without both elements of unleavened bread and wine. Please refresh my memory of that passage. It is late after driving home from a very distant city and perhaps my mind is spent. Thanks in advance for providing it.
“This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway.”
My point is irrelevant, as is yours. God’s Words through Paul are all that counts. God leaves out the blood in the second instance for a reason, not because He is forgetful. It isn’t there. He chose for it to not be there. It’s absence is necessary, since there is no local assembly of the body and blood of Christ. It is the local body of Christ.
“In the middle of that conversation I remark: “That cantaloupe is overripe””
It appears you believe Paul has a very short attention span! OR that God stutteringly remembers things to insert in case He forgot to put them in somewhere else. Or perhaps that you have a low view of Scripture and what inspiration means. Or perhaps that you are unfamiliar with hermeneutics. Or a combination?
“You cannot have a body of believers without having a Eucharist making it so.”
SURE you can. Theoretically, a ship with 12 crew gets shipwrecked on an island. One is a believer. He shares Christ with the crew. Five believe. These 5 plus the original one form a local body of Christ. Unfortunately, there is no bread or wine on the island. They remain a local expression of the body of Christ. They worship together, pray, fellowship, bear one another’s burdens, etc.
“That is the Catholic teaching and the passage matches it perfectly.”
And you just demonstrated eisogesis as your primary approach to Scripture. Thank you for finally coming clean. Not that I didn’t see it already. Hopefully, now everyone else will as well. You found an idea you wanted to find. Unfortunately, it isn’t there.
Best.
The Grateful Dead did not perform at Altamont. They refused to go on stage because of the violence. What favor did you do for them ?
Well spoken SR.
Dude.....do us all a favor. Ditch the catholic talking points and take a class on Biblical hermeneutics.
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.