The True Eucharist

Many churches focus on the "eucharist," which for them means the bread of the Lord's Supper. Other believer's don't think the concept of the eucharist is Biblical. But the concept of "eucharist" is Biblical. The word "eucharist" comes from the Greek "eu" meaning "good" and "charis" meaning "grace" or "blessing." The eucharist at the Last Supper was not the bread itself, but the blessing Messiah said over the bread. The blessing is one said in Jewish homes to this day: "Baruch Atah Adonai Elohaynu Melech Ha Olam, Ha Motzee Lechem Min Ha Aretz" - "Blessed are You O Lord Our God, King of the Universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth." This is the true eucharist.

The true eucharist is never eaten, it is given. It is a blessing of thanks to God. It's not the bread, it is the blessing over the bread. And this distinction can change your life. Life doesn't consist of the things you have, but the blessings you say over them. You only truly have what you bless and give thanks for. Give the blessing of thanks over your, bread - your parents, your family, your friends, your situation - over everything, good and bad. And your life itself will be truly blessed, for such is the true eucharist.

Prepare a private communion service today, with you and Messiah. Lift up to Him those things that need to receive His blessing - your loved ones, your job, your ministry.

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Gentlemen, it is here, in verse 63, that the Lord himself tells us that he is speaking in metaphor. - Please read all of the chapter in the same sitting!

That interpretation however undermines the sense of the whole passage. Christ discourses about his flesh and blood, people react in shock, then (according to your interpretation) Christ tells us his statements are all metaphorical in verse 63.

Now, following your own advice of reading the entire passage, if Christ himself confirmed the metaphorical interpretation, why in verse 66 do "many disciples" still walk away from him forever? They walked away for a *metaphor*??

I'm really lousy with names. I knew I had a run in with the_doc on another thread at one time, but could not recall the context or the things said. I just found it...it was in this post of this thread: [PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

The OPies defended his abusive manner on that thread too, incidentally.

Again, Dr., IF doc's theology is correct, then his description is also correct -blunt that it may be, it would be correct.

Hey, at least he didn't suggest that you were 'humping his leg' such as our friend Rev (one of your most ardent defenders in this matter) did of our friend Woody!

His words were carefully chosen and they were blunt!

Again, if the doc's theology is correct (that should be the issue), then his descriptions would indeed be correct.

All else is just a 'straw man' constructed such that you don't have to take seriously his words of warning and impending doom!

respectfully,

Jean

>>>>>Again, if the doc's theology is correct (that should be the issue), then his descriptions would indeed be correct.

If he were truly a saint - as he claims - he would not choose the words he did. His post is prima facie evidence that he is not correct, and your failure to condemn his words makes it clear where you stand. I am amazed you consider those to be carefully chosen words, for if you are correct they were carefully chosen for one, and only one reason. To be the most insulting words he could think of. They were clearly not chosen to actually reach someone. If you are correct, you only make it more clear how spiritually depraved he - and you - are.

patent

Bluntness is not always comfortable, but it is far different than hate..especially when the intent is to save

Claud siding with the heretics again...;).... I actually agree with RnMom on this one, and think it utterly fruitless to talk about "tone" and "hatefulness." Frankly, I don't care whether someone is a raving maniac or not, and I pray God I have the presence of mind in the face of blistering personal invective such as that of the_doc to just fire back with facts.

I said it before and I'll say it again. St. Augustine didn't compose City of God based around him being personally slighted or persecuted--he just went and demolished the pagan arguments one by one. Let's have a little more of that spirit here--we decrease so that He may increase.

How does the issue of whether the_doc's theology is correct make his personal insults acceptable Christian evangelization?

You are a disgrace to your profession, of course.

What exactly makes a Catholic a disgrace to the medical profession?

How does being Catholic make me an idiot who would rather go to hell? or Satanically screwed? or a superstitious religious dork?

How can you in good conscience defend the indefensible?

You are as much to blame as he for defending his indefensible behavior.

You know his behavior is gravely sinful, but in typical OP pride refuse even to apologize for his behavior.

And in typical OP fashion, he has not appeared here to defend what he claims to be defendable words.

I gotta go with you on this one Brian, I'm just a plain bible believer, I never read Jesus talking like this even to the folks he threw out of the temple or the religious leaders of the day, He didn't care for what they stood for and soundly put them in their place, but He sure didn't talk like this. No sir, the_doc you need to say your sorry and admit this was wrong, these kind of words against someone you strongly disagree with cannot be defended in any way.

BigMack

I'll ask you the question I posted to Dr. Brian Kopp, when the Bible says in Psalm 91:4a He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; Does this passage mean that God is a chicken?

No. Because what it doesn't say is "the Lord is a true chicken".

or when Jesus said "I am the bread of life" Does that mean that Jesus is a loaf of bread?

No. Because what it doesn't say is "I am a true loaf of bread."

On the other hand, there's this:

John 6:55: For my flesh is true flesh, and my blood is true drink. The Greek there is aléthés = "true".

Also, the folks who are holding to a metaphorical explanation of this passage have to explain why the word for "eat" in this passage in the Greek is not some soft, metaphorical term like "consume" or "imbibe", but a very fleshy trwgwn="gnaw". How do you gnaw spirit?

Lets take just two of his insults:

you are idiots and cannibals to boot
It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork.

Please explain for me exactly why those words were "carefully chosen" as you say, and exactly what those "carefully chosen" words were meant to accomplish. Also, please explain the "correct theology" that would make his "descriptions indeed correct" as you claim. I look forward to hearing what correct theology justifies calling someone a dork or an idiot, at the very least.

Awaiting your response,

patent

a 'straw man' constructed such that you don't have to take seriously his words of warning and impending doom!

Actually, this all started when the_doc tried to claim that early Christians interpreted John 6:52-68 metaphorically, not literally.

When I posted irrefutable proof that the early Christians DID interpret John 6: 52-58 literally, the_doc said that he didn't give a fig what the early Christians all said. He also stated that the reformers corrected 1500 years of the early Christians' errors.

When he saw this was an untenable position, and that he was clearly losing (as usual) the debate, he resorted to ad hominem attack, invective, insult and slur.

However, if it excuses you from examining the Truth to think that his insults are nothing more nor less than an attempt to save my immortal soul, so be it.

I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful.

No sir, the_doc you need to say your sorry and admit this was wrong, these kind of words against someone you strongly disagree with cannot be defended in any way.

Thank you Big Mack. It is good to know there are others of good will watching this thread.

The acts of the_doc and his defenders will say a lot about not only their spiritual character but their discernment of spirits also.

Thanks. I am still waiting for the opportunity to debate any meaningful point on transubstantiation.

Well you're in luck--I'm buckled in and ready to go! :)

Unless you got a point you'd like squared away first, how about we deal with that strange little Greek term trwgw "eat" or "gnaw" in John 6? In my Concordance here, that word occurs otherwise in the NT only 2 other places besides John 6.

John 13:18-"the one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me"
Matt 24:38:"For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking"

Both of these uses refer to literal eating and drinking of food, and one would therefore expect that same sense here unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

"you are idiots and cannibals to boot"

If your theology of the Eucharist, which would have a wheat wafer and a cup of alchoholic wine literally transform into the actual body and the actual blood of Christ, is incorrect then you are continually resacrificing Christ and declaring his once for all sacrifice on the cross not quite sufficient and you are literally eating human flesh. In both cases, you are indeed a 'foolish person' ('idiot'/websters) as well as technically a cannibal.

Personally, I prefer the phrasing used in the Heidelburg Catechism that the RCC Mass is a condemnable idolatry! Nonetheless, the_doc's description would still be accurate.

"It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork."

Feeling the need to make a 'sign of the cross' to make your prayers 'super special' or the mindless repetative babbling of the Rosary are both stubborn and supersticious. If this is a correct summation of these two examples of many, you would be considered a stubborn and supersticious annoyingly stupid or foolish person ('dork'/websters via 'jerk'/websters).

It may not be 'nice', but it would be accurate.

Jean

Thank you Big Mack. It is good to know there are others of good will watching this thread.

Your welcome, but lets not jump into bed together just yet :) I like the calvinist's believe you are dead wrong in what you believe, and over the last year have pointed this out with verses many times on TNS, I just take a different path, I post verses disclaiming what the catholic church teaches, I try to let God do the talking, my words mean very little, and will soon be forgotten, If you accept them then fine, if not, its your right, I have attacked in the past, and it didn't work and was wrong of me to do so, If you won't listen to my take on what the bible is telling you so be it, if you won't listen to Gods rebuke IMO, you sure won't listen to me. (I've pissed into a fan before and didn't like the results:)

BigMack

"When I posted irrefutable proof that the early Christians DID interpret John 6: 52-58 literally..."

Your citations of early church fathers' use of Biblical terminology (flesh, blood, body...) hardly prooves their literal definition of such.

I am ~very~ reformed and have attended a ~reformed~ church my entire life. At every 'Communion' our pastor uses those very same words -even better- he requotes the exact phrasing from the scriptures! Does that mean he beleives the bread and wine (grape juice in our church) to be the literal body and blood of Christ who is physically reigning and sitting at the right hand of the father as Stephen himself testified? That would be rather silly!

"I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful."

Are you called to be faithful to your 'tradition'? Or the Bible?

If the former, then you are doing a pretty good job, if the latter -you fail miserably!

Jean

I looked at your profile and see that you are a Catholic. So am I.

I think we are in agreement on theology. The first post you sent me was something that Whatnot had asked me. I just had their question highlighted in bold and then asked them to reread the quotes in post 44 to find the answer. I got excited thinking I was going to have a juicy debate, but they have disappeared on me!

LOL. Not one word of what you said justifies using the words he did. Again, I look forward to hearing what correct theology justifies calling someone a dork or an idiot, at the very least.

All you provide is a claim that his theology is correct, but even it that is true there is no theological justification for the personal insults that you claim were so "carefully chosen." Keep trying.

patent

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.