The True Eucharist

Sapphires | Jonathan Cahn

[WhatNot]

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.

Luke 22:14-20

TODAY'S MISSION

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.

[RnMomof7]

Even Peter didn't get it! But he had faith in Christ, even if he lacked understanding at the moment. But Christ said it anyway, because he knew it would stick in their minds and then at the Last Supper (and fully at Pentecost) only THEN did it become clear to the Apostles what Christ meant way back when he talked about being the Bread of Life.

Claud the entire Passover meal is a prefigurment of Christ..down to the broken mazza...And even then they did not "get" it..not one of them objected to His words at that dinner did they? Not one of them said."wait how can I eat your body you are standing right here" not one of them said "Lord it is unclean to drink blood " not one of them said a word..they understood this was symbolic they understood what he really meant at that meal. They understood the cutting of a covenant....and that He was making a covenant with them.This was a covenant meal.

[RnMomof7]

Interesting you have alot of knowlege..you would not happen to be Ward too would ya?:>)) I sent that mail to the Calvinists,at first to seek advise . I did not feel it was anything near what Ward had written it was..but sometimes our judgement is colored..later I realized it was a good thing the mail was in the hands of others in case someone decided to tamper with its contents.

That mail was not posted untill well after Ward left FR..and only then because the intent of the writer (me) was in question...I would point out that I have some unpleasnat LONG mails from Ward that I did not post and do not feel free to post...on the other hand I am free to post WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN

So who else are you zshhh..is it "legal "to post under more than one identity on FR ??

[the_doc]

I did not authorize this publication of material from my e-mail.

I sent my stern message to you via private e-mail because I knew it was unsuitable for the public Forum. Heck, I knew it would be only inflammatory to most RCs. I'm not an idiot, Brian.

Ah, but since you were inflamed by it, you wanted to use it to try to inflame other RCs against me. You wanted to be publicly inflammatory against me. (This is why you have now posted certain parts of the e-mail, of course.) I wanted to avoid any unncessary public inflammation on either side. I was using the very seriousness of my complaints against RCism to try to appeal to you in earnest. If nothing else, my earnestness was seen in the fact that I confronted you privately. I was not grandstanding. You are the one who is grandstanding.

I never retracted anything in my e-mail, of course. Now that you have published what I specifically told you must not be published, I will still not retract anything, of course. I will simply say that you are the one who is showing a bad spirit. It's funny how that works (see below!).

I can't retract what I said to you in private, since what I said in my e-mail was true--and I can prove every word of it to any really honest FReeper.

And I can't apologize for my words, since you did need to hear the Truth whether you wanted to hear it or not--which explains why you hated it. (In other words, I was sincere when I told you upfront in the "infamous e-mail" that I am concerned about you. Of course, you chose not to post that part of the e-mail. It didn't suit your publicly inflammatory purposes against me.)

And now, I cannot apologize for these inflammatory words appearing on the public discussion thread because I specifically insisted that you not publish them. (This was not cowardice on my part. But they were not intended for the wider audience [grin].)

Well, you knew that you should not publish this material, and yet you did it anyway.

The reason why I say you knew you shouldn't publish it is because you and patent repeatedly sought my permission. I thoughtfully frustrated you by my refusal fully consistent with proper decorum on these public threads. In your frustration, you have just decided to go ahead and break the rules. You seem to think that a FreeRepublic administrator will overlook your rule-breaking and pretend that I am the rule-breaker.

Well, maybe that's what will happen. Frankly, I don't care about this for myself. I do have better things to do. No matter what happens, you can't win in a personal spat with someone who like me. My pride is not at stake. At all. And I do have a life and ministry outside FR.

That being said, I do think FR could wind up losing. My point here is that I don't think it's a good idea for FR to decide this particular matter in your favor. The RCs seem to have the idea that this forum exists for them to say things which Protestants find disgusting and to get Protestants banned for daring to respond with disgust--even privately!

(Remember: I pointed out in my e-mail that you RCs always try to get us historic Protestants banned when you don't like our strident positions. You ought to chill out and look again at the record of the RCC. It's really, really bad. This is beyond dispute.)

[Claud]

Of course it was a covenant meal. The question is, what was the nature of the new covenant? Theologically it is always fitting for the lesser to prefigure the greater. Christ greater than Moses, the New Jerusalem greater than the old--I trust you would agree thus far.

Now it is difficult to see how bread lacking the Real Presence is in any way "prefigured" by the manna--since the manna, dropping as it did from heaven, was actually far more miraculous than bringing out plain old bread. That's more "defigured" than "prefigured". If on the other hand, God Himself became miraculously present in the bread, then that would certainly be a greater bread from heaven, and a fitting example of prefigurement.

Perhaps it would be better for me to ask for positive textual evidence of this passage being symbolic. By positive evidence, I don't mean "it can't happen", I mean a clear statement within John 6 or the Last Supper narratives that Our Lord was speaking symbolically. I have presented some evidence on the literalness of it, now I want to know what you have on the other side which doesn't revolve around you not believing it personally.

[editor-surveyor]

"They left because they couldn't believe what he was saying, which only makes sense if he was saying something unbelievable."

No claud, they left forever, not because they were confused, but because what they understood didn't mesh with what they wanted Christ to be. They wanted an Earthly king who would put Israel back as the great world power that it was under Solomon. - This point is made in the chapter.

The fact that the bread and drink represented something spiritual, rather than tangible and carnal put them off; they had no eyes or ears for the spiritual.

[history_matters]

You haven't provided a Scripture to show that Mary is dead, so you have no Biblical basis for your opinion. It is just your own brand of extra-Biblical speculation.

[CCWoody]

You, of course, forget one "Ward Smith of Virginia" whose freepmail you sent to a number of people: OP, Jerry, Woody, Xzins, Doc, others. And then you EGGED them to POST it.

I don't ever remember getting a copy of it. I'm fairly certain I didn't. I usually remember such things.

[the_doc]

Oh, come on eastsider, we need to get back on topic.

As a saint, I really am interested in decency and order. :)

[White Mountain]

Your #247:

Tell "Ward" that when these guys are converted, they won't act this way any more. I'm very sad that he was treated this way, and have told him so. There are so many who know from personal experience whereof he speaks.

[eastsider]

Good luck, doc! : )

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I have a close friend who is a federal judge, and we have extensively discussed the federal regulations regarding harassment by electronic communications. We know how to file such charges and make them stick, if need be.

I have found that Catholic internet apologetics draws a certain enemy, the borderline personality type, and I have already had to use these regulations or the threat thereof, to terminate such threatening and harassing electronivc communication.

FReepmail falls under the guidelines of these regulations.

Let those reading this be forewarned.

[White Mountain]

Should FR private mail be used for things that are too strident for the public forum? That is not its purpose.

[editor-surveyor]

"You haven't provided a Scripture to show that Mary is dead"

Or Paul? How about Joseph? Or Mary Magdalene, or pilate?

Are they all still alive? or were they all caught up? - Inquiring minds want to know!

[history_matters]

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen.

Eternal Father, for the sake of the sorrowful passion of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There are certain sins among the saints that are only corrected and addressed by bringing their behavior to the light of day. The spiritual homicide of priestly pedearasty was only addressed by taking that which was private and making it public. So too the abusive behavior of some using private FReepmail must be made public, so that the acts of those with borderline personality disorders masquerading as saints preaching the gospel, may be laid bare.

All here now know you for what you are.

Only the spritually blind are deceived by your efforts at obfuscating that which is indefensible.

And only the spiritually dead will defend the acts and words of one so obviously troubled as you.

Do not contact me further via FReepmail or any other form of electronic communication. Such efforts by you will rightfully be interpreted as harassment by electronic communication, which will not be tolerated. I advise any others here who have been so harassed by the_doc that such harassment is a violation not only of Christian charity, morality and decency, but also applicable state and federal statutes. Of course, public postings on a forum such as this, per my consultation with a federal judge, do not come under these regulations.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. You are a seriously troubled individual, and I pray that God will bless you abundantly and heal you, illuminate your darkened intellect, and HAVE MERCY on your soul.

You have been warned. I have to share the gospel with you, but I do not have to tolerate violation of Christian decency and morality and federal and state regulations.

[Revelation 911]

Let those reading this be forewarned.

so noted and logged

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Biblical Sources:Here

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Great link. I had not seen that before. Thank you.

Maybe now that that other untidyness has been attended to, we can get back to debating True Eucharist.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Early Christians on Real Presence: Here

[Aquinasfan]

"And I happen to be a saint."

Great line, doc. : )

Ah, the fruit of "eternal security" (a.k.a. presumption).