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.

[oremus]

THE LAMB'S SUPPER

[oremus]

MARY: HOLY MOTHER

[history_matters]

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

That does apply well to whoever taught you doctrine.

[oremus]

MARY: ARK OF THE COVENANT

[oremus]

Here's a good site for serious study:

SERIOUS STUDY

[oremus]

So far, no answers from anyone. Humph! lol

[oremus]

SOLA SCRIPTURA: BLUEPRINT FOR ANARCHY

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Some comments from a friend, which he graciously agreed to let me post here:

OP, Reformed Baptist, Fundamental Baptist WorldWide Mission...
From *** | 2002-04-30 20:21:38 replied

Dear Brian,

So "the_doc" is a "Reformed Baptist", and OP is, of course, an OP. I suppose a "Reformed Baptist" isn't a "Southern Baptist", which, or course, wouldn't be a "National Baptist", nor, I guess, an "Independent Baptist". Is that anything like an "Anabaptist"?

Maybe we're Catholics cause we're just too lazy to keep track of all the different prots. They're ALL correct, you know!! They ALL have the right interpretation of the Bible, you know!! Except that none of 'em ever agree with each other EXCEPT THAT WE CATHOLICS ARE WRONG!!

I will tell you, Brian, that my faith in the Church has been strengthened over the years watching protestants do "apologetics". It isn't that their arguments are so outlandish. Many of them are quite reasonable! Many of them seem like they could be true! On even important doctrinal issues! But, yet, they still disagree, one with the other! Imagine that! That there could be multiple reasonable interpretations of Scriptures! That it would be nearly impossible to get through the thicket of varying interpretations to the Truth. It's terrible that Jesus left us without any way to know which interpretation is correct. So many are so misguided and lost in sin (whether it's the OP version of things, or the RB, or the SB, or the... whatever interpetation that is right), and there is no way to discern among the many reasonable interpretations! The Church is overcome by error and darkness! Why, in that way, it seems that the gates of Hell have prevailed against His Church. How shall one ever know precisely what is meant by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?!?!?

Oh, wait. I forgot. We're Catholic. This isn't a problem for us. Is it?


***

Top of Page

[patent]

(This is why you have now posted certain parts of the e-mail, of course.)

Are you suggesting there is more to your freepermail? Please feel free to post them if so, if not you are full of it.

You are the one who is grandstanding.

I posted them, but despite that you don’t ping me to your latest. If you want to blame someone, blame me.

And I can't apologize for my words,

I doubt a single soul here thinks you will ever apologize for anything.

In your frustration, you have just decided to go ahead and break the rules.

Please cite whatever rule you claim is broken, and provide a link to where the folks who own this place have set that rule.

You seem to think that a FreeRepublic administrator will overlook your rule-breaking and pretend that I am the rule-breaker.

I have pinged the admin moderator. If he or she wants to punish someone for posting your freepermail, I am the one who did it. I am willing to let both your words, and my actions, be judged. You clearly were not.

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.

How so, how does the forum lose by not punishing Brian or I for posting your vitriol?

(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.)

No, he was willing to debate with your “strident positions” but you had to take it personal and attack him.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

1.) It is not factual. I.E., it ain't a true statement, it is a lie.

How is a lie if the poster didn’t know better? Do you have any proof Dr. Kopp knows the doc’s affiliation? I didn’t know it.

Next question, why do you feel the need to so quickly call people liars? Why the personal attack?

patent  +AMDG

[oremus]

And anarchy it is. The so-called "Holy" spirit contradicting himself to the tune of 30,000+ "reformed" or otherwise denominations. IF Protestantism WAS the Truth, shouldn't there be just ONE? Thanks for sharing.

[Askel5]

I will say that your doctrine of drinking literal human blood and eating literal human flesh is actually a weird example of this

I guess I err on the side of Christ's knowing what the meaning of "Is" was.

There's no use of allusion, simile, metaphor -- or any other hint of poetic construct -- in the "this is" and "do this" of the Last Supper. Chances are likely very good that, at his last meal with the apostles, he chose his words carefully.

Do you think it's a coincidence the likes of Clinton find wiggle room "depending on what your meaning of 'is' is"? Hardly.

To be (is) or not to be (is not) ... the critical human condition.

Is, was, ever shall be ... as well as a the critical facet of God's essential nature.

Not a word to be messed with ... particularly where the Word made Flesh has uttered it.

I fail to see how you can impose your personal interpretation on that particular passage though I suspect therein lies the heart of willful rebellion that is the hallmark of protest against an established order or direct command.

P.S. Is your use of "non-nauseating" an allusion somehow to the horror that is eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Lamb ... the supreme sacrifice (as willed by God the Father and executed by God the Son)?

If so, I'd give some thought as to what sort of spirit is sickened by conceiving of Christ's death as an actual, eternally-present and all-too-human sacrifice.

(Just out of curiosity ... does hearing it sung that you are "washed in the blood of the Lamb" have the same nauseating effect or is that suitable poetic as to be palatable where the Body and Blood are not?)

[oremus]

Hello walls. This is always a good exercise, but it truly does get boring after awhile. Still no reply to my request for scripture backing for Sola Scriptura (although I don't expect one because it simply does not exist ;).

(((YAWN)))

Nite all.

[oremus]

John 6:60 "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

John 6:66 "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." But for the grace of God, there go I.

[RnMomof7]

And anarchy it is. The so-called "Holy" spirit contradicting himself to the tune of 30,000+ "reformed" or otherwise denominations. IF Protestantism WAS the Truth, shouldn't there be just ONE? Thanks for sharing.

How many kinds of RC's are there???Lots and Lots..How do you settle differences in doctrine ..behind closed doors..with a proclamation handed out to the people..if it was not for Luther you guys would still be buying indulgences to get your mother out of purgatory and to allow you to have an affair...Luther cleaned up the church and from the look of it you need another Luther right now!

[RnMomof7]

I should have added one more thing..when Catholics are born again one of the first things they do is leave the church..so you do not have the active living dialog that you see here by the protestants. The darkness hates the light..they protestants here are not afraid of the light:>))

[oremus]

There are only 2 kinds of Roman Catholics: those who know their faith and practice it (small number), and those who do not and/or rebel in one way or another. As for Luther - no comment. I know all about him and he's not worth talking about.

You still did not answer my question.

[RnMomof7]

and your point??

[MHGinTN]

Is, was, ever shall be ... as well as a the critical facet of God's essential nature. The confounding is in the lack of understanding of 'TIME'. Physics ain't faith, but it takes faith to do the stuff. Faith ain't physics, and it doesn't take physics to do the stuff. Could it be that many have forgotten the work of the still small voice within?... That ours is to plant seed, only? 'Wherefore comfort one another' ... this bickering is ... useless?