Posted on 04/26/2002 9:01:52 AM PDT by 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.
History set the rules if it is not in the bible it is not true..I was glad to have him join the sola scripture crowd
And to get back to the topic of this thread, I will say that your doctrine of drinking literal human blood and eating literal human flesh is actually a weird example of this (even though it is by no means what appalls Protestants the most about the RCC).
This would also appear to be why the RCs got OP banned from the Forum for so much as stating your own RC position clearly a week or two ago. Your own doctrine is offensive to you when someone points out what you are saying.
I cheerfully default to the non-nauseating spiritual explanation offered by the Protestants. Remember: The Lord Jesus said He used metaphors, not to instruct His enemies, but to confound them. And when we Protestants consider your interpretation of the Lord's Supper in that light, and place it alongside every thing else Rome has taught and done, we Protestants are sobered.
That's why we speak to you about it publicly in some cases and privately in other cases.
Good for you. You're in agreement with all those who also walked away from Him in John Chapter 6.
You Protestants love to take scripture literally when it suits you, and symbolically when it doesn't.
John Ch 6: It's a hard saying, isn't it, doc?
Sola scriptura is your claim, and it has failed you. I have set no rules, but of course you know that already, so do please read and interact with oremus and those posts.
And while you're at it, where's the scripture which supports Sola Scriptura? It has to be there, or your theory falls flat on it's face.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
So history do you REALLY fear they Lord...ask any Calvinist and they will tell you that they do! :>))
This quote from your post is factually incorrect. Roman Catholics did not get Opie banned, and Opie did not clearly state the Roman Catholic position.
Don't hold your breath. LOL
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.....now that applies:>)
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.