The Eucharest: the New Evangelization targets you, Christian!

Português: Cerimônia de canonização do frade b...If you are horrified by the teaching that the wafer offered in the Catholic mass is actually the flesh of Jesus Christ which you must eat to be right with God, you might want to understand that there is an intentional campaign going on to get you to drop your disgust and embrace this idea.

It is being promoted by the Catholic system, with a heavy push from many evangelical leaders. Some of those are heavyweights with lots of influence.

We’ve talked before about the “Evangelical Catholicism” movement, and how it will be used in these last days to bring about and shape a one-world religion. Saddleback pastor Rick Warren is a huge part of this movement, and he recently  endorsed this year’s  “Catholics Come Home” book calling Catholic evangelization “critically important.”

Here is a part of a chapter from Roger Oakland’s book, Another Jesus , originally shared at the Lighthouse Trails blog:

“The New Evangelization”
by Roger Oakland

Not everything labeled the gospel is the true Gospel. Further, it follows that the term evangelization, if it is based on a counterfeit gospel, will seduce people into believing they are going to heaven, when instead they may be on their way to hell.

The New Evangelization [is] a program currently being promoted by the Catholic Church and designed to win the world to Christ—the Eucharistic Christ.

What is the New Evangelization?

While reading a book or an article, have you ever come across a term you have never seen before and suddenly your mind was illuminated? Just as if a light switch was turned on and a darkened room was lit, the significance of what you read became apparent. Such was the case for me when I came across the phrase the New Evangelization.

I was reading an article published by Zenit (The World Seen from Rome) that presented a news item based on statements made by Pope John Paul II. The article caught my attention because it was about an announcement the pope had made about the Eucharist. The article was titled “Why the Pope Would Write an Encyclical on the Eucharist: To Rekindle Amazement.”1

While I was already aware the pope had declared the Eucharist to be the focal point for the Catholic Church’s missionary vision at the Eucharistic Congress in June of 2000, the idea that the pope had written an Encyclical on the Eucharist to “Rekindle Amazement” in the Eucharist was new to me. I found the following statement made by the pope very enlightening:

[T]he Church will only be able to address the challenge of the new evangelization if she is able to contemplate, and enter into a profound relationship with Christ in the sacrament that makes his presence real.2

For me, this statement helped solve a puzzle that was now beginning to fall into place—this new evangelization program was directly linked to the Eucharistic Christ.

Further, the Zenit article gave more details on how the pope wanted to see this program develop:

I would like to rekindle this Eucharistic “amazement” by the present Encyclical Letter, in continuity with the Jubilee heritage which I have left to the Church in the Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte and its Marian crowning, Rosarium Virginis Mariae. To contemplate the face of Christ, and to contemplate it with Mary, is the programme which I have set before the Church at the dawn of the third millennium, summoning her to put out into the deep on the sea of history with the enthusiasm of the new evangelization.3

Making it clear that the new evangelization program would be tightly associated with the sacrament of the Eucharist, the pope concluded:

To contemplate Christ involves being able to recognize him wherever he manifests himself, in his many forms of presence, but above all in the living sacrament of his body and his blood. The Church draws her life from Christ in the Eucharist, by him she is fed and by him she is enlightened.4

The Facts about the New Evangelization
To find out more about this New Evangelization program, I decided to look for more information. It did not take long tofind out there were many sources available confirming such a program existed. One article that was particularly helpful was found on the EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) web site. Under a heading “The New Evangelization: Building the Civilization of Love,” I read:

 As the Holy Father entrusts the Third Millennium to the Blessed Virgin Mary, EWTN inaugurates it’s New Evangelization specialty site. This site will forever be a work in progress, as we continue to bring to you information about the Catholic Faith on the 5 continents. We hope that the information on the synods will be a help to those whose mission is to evangelize, a mission which belongs to all of us at least through prayer. The historical, statistical and devotional material should give every visitor a sense of the universality of the Church and its mission.5

Then one additional and very significant statement:

Under the protection of St. Therese of Lisieux, Patroness of the Missions, and Our Lady of Guadalupe, to whom the Pope has committed the New Evangelization, may the Spirit of God bring about the New Pentecost to which the Church looks forward with hope.6

This above statement may come as a surprise to Protestants who are enthusiastically joining hands with Catholics for the sake of evangelism. The Catholic program is committed to “Our Lady of Guadalupe.” Furthermore, it would be good to check out what is meant by this “New Pentecost.” Paul also warned the Corinthians about “another spirit” that was associated with “another gospel” and “another Jesus.”

Read the entire article

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Berean Research Articles, Catholic and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to The Eucharest: the New Evangelization targets you, Christian!

  1. Ima Believer says:

    Jesus taught that his followers would be known by their love for one another.

    Is that why the Protestants attack the Catholics? Is that why the Pentecostals and Baptists attack each other?

    The night before Jesus gave His life for all, He asked His disciples to do one thing to remember Him — partake of His Body and His Blood. Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11 and also John 6.

    I am no longer sure what this teaching means to the American Protestant Church?

    The last Protestant service I attended I was offered coffee and a doughnut to take with me in to the sanctuary. I didn't think to bring my ear plugs, but I wish I had. (1 Kings 18!? Is your god sleeping?). Communion was not offered.

    God help us.

    Like

    • Amy Spreeman says:

      It's not attacking to compare false teaching to Scripture.

      Like

      • Carol moorby says:

        AMEN!!!! PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT?THE god OF THIS WORLD HAS BLINDED THEM!!!!

        Like

      • Nate (yes, that one) says:

        Gospel of John, chapter 6:

        "51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH WHICH I GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD."

        Christ identifies what the bread is. No interpretation needed, much less the man-made one, presented by this show, that nullifies the Word of God.

        Based on verse 53 alone (sola?) we see that if it is a Symbolic only meaning, then Christ's Flesh at the Crusifixtion was also symbolic only. But Christ goes on to double down. He makes the word "flesh" get more intense by changing it to the Greek "Sarx" – look it up. It's not symbolic flesh. He also changes the word 'eat' to "trogon" in the Greek – again, look it up, it's also not symbolic. Jesus then says "Truly truly I am only speaking in medaphors…." or did He?:

        "53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

        So here's a thought. We know what Jesus said. What we argue over is what he meant. Since the best one to tell us is Jesus Himself – and that's what we're in dispute about – the next best people are His students. Well obviously since we're arguing over John's (and if I put ALL the texts in support of the literal interpretation, we'd be arguing over what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Hebrews etc) writtings, the next best source is the students of the Apostles no?

        So here's the challenge. Since it is the belief of SUFTT that the Catholic possition is wrong and therefore would have to have been "made up" at some point – because the "true Christians" of the first centuries would never have believed this horrible practice – I will give anyone here 300 years of history… nah let's make it 700 years….

        If anyone can find me one single quote in 700 years of orthodox Christian writtings that says that the Eucharist is only a symbol, that it is really just bread and wine, that it doesn't do anything except help us remember Jesus, I WILL SEROUSLY CONSIDER YOUR VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY.

        HOWEVER, if I can find 3 dozen quotes, starting with the students of the Apostles, that state that the Eucharist is truely the body and blood (litterally) of Jesus Christ, then YOU WILL HAVE TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CATHOLICISM.

        Any takers?

        God Bless,
        Nate

        Like

      • lyn says:

        John 6:53, ' "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. ' John Gill commentary – " by "the son of man", Christ means himself; under which title he often speaks of himself; because it was a title of the Messiah under the Old Testament; and was expressive of the truth of his human nature, though as attended with weakness and infirmities. The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it: and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten: but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter; and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other: and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord. These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord's supper; as misinterpretation of Joh_3:5 brought in the baptism of them. But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification, &c. and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness; only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life; but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, "ye shall not have life in you"; eternal life. Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection."
        John 6:27-58 speaks of manna, as opposed to the true bread from heaven…Christ. It is symbolic, read, in context, what Christ is teaching. They ate manna and lived, then God sent the true Bread that gives eternal life, not physical life. Christ would not promote cannibalism, which is what you are insinuating. There are instances of cannibalism in the Bible, as a result of sin and punishment, NOT because God ordained men to eat the flesh of other men.

        More commentary from Albert Barnes – "He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man – his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.
        The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death – his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin – he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc."

        Matthew Henry commentary – "It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ's body, like Nicodemus, ch. 3, 4. The Lord's supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore,
        (2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood.
        [1.] What is meant by the flesh and blood of Christ. It is called (Joh_6:53), The flesh of the Son of man, and his blood, his as Messiah and Mediator: the flesh and blood which he assumed in his incarnation (Heb_2:14), and which he gave up in his death and suffering: my flesh which I will give to be crucified and slain. It is said to be given for the life of the world, that is, First, Instead of the life of the world, which was forfeited by sin, Christ gives his own flesh as a ransom or counterprice. Christ was our bail, bound body for body (as we say), and therefore his life must go for ours, that ours may be spared. Here am I, let these go their way. Secondly, In order to the life of the world, to purchase a general offer of eternal life to all the world, and the special assurances of it to all believers. So that the flesh and blood of the Son of man denote the Redeemer incarnate and dying; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption: pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the adoption of sons, access to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life; these are called the flesh and blood of Christ, 1. Because they are purchased by his flesh and blood, by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood. Well may the purchased privileges be denominated from the price that was paid for them, for it puts a value upon them; write upon them pretium sanguinis – the price of blood. 2. Because they are meat and drink to our souls. Flesh with the blood was prohibited (Gen_9:4), but the privileges of the gospel are as flesh and blood to us, prepared for the nourishment of our souls. He had before compared himself to bread, which is necessary food; here to flesh, which is delicious. It is a feast of fat things, Isa_25:6. The soul is satisfied with Christ as with marrow and fatness, Psa_63:5. It is meat indeed, and drink indeed; truly so, that is spiritually; so Dr. Whitby; as Christ is called the true vine; or truly meat, in opposition to the shows and shadows with which the world shams off those that feed upon it. In Christ and his gospel there is real supply, solid satisfaction; that is meat indeed, and drink indeed, which satiates and replenishes, Jer_31:25, Jer_31:26.
        [2.] What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do: – First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Mat_5:6), earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: “Give me Christ or else I die.” Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, Joh_20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment from him and a dependence upon him for the support and comfort of our spiritual life, and the strength, growth, and vigour of the new man. To feed upon Christ is to do all in his name, in union with him, and by virtue drawn from him; it is to live upon him as we do upon our meat. How our bodies are nourished by our food we cannot describe, but that they are so we know and find; so it is with this spiritual nourishment. Our Saviour was so well pleased with this metaphor (as very significant and expressive) that, when afterwards he would institute some outward sensible signs, by which to represent our communicating of the benefits of his death, he chose those of eating and drinking, and made them sacramental actions.
        (3.) Having thus explained the general meaning of this part of Christ's discourse, the particulars are reducible to two heads: –
        [1.] The necessity of our feeding upon Christ (Joh_6:53): Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. That is, First, “It is a certain sign that you have no spiritual life in you if you have no desire towards Christ, nor delight in him.” If the soul does not hunger and thirst, certainly it does not live: it is a sign that we are dead indeed if we are dead to such meat and drink as this. When artificial bees, that by curious springs were made to move to and fro, were to be distinguished from natural ones (they say), it was done by putting honey among them, which the natural bees only flocked to, but the artificial ones minded not, for they had no life in them. Secondly, “It is certain that you can have no spiritual life, unless you derive it from Christ by faith; separated from him you can do nothing.” Faith in Christ is the primum vivens – the first living principle of grace; without it we have not the truth of spiritual life, nor any title to eternal life: our bodies may as well live without meat as our souls without Christ."

        And lastly, from Michael Houdmann of gotquestions.org – "“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”

        Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

        The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.

        The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        for starters, son of man was God's name for Ezekiel for it only appears in the book of Ezekiel, and the Lord uses it when telling Ezekiel to prophecy either by word or one-person play. Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe in transubstantiation for it is also found in the Eastern Orthodox churches who had no part in the Council of Trent and officially separate from Rome in 1047, five hundred years before Trent. Irenaeus, a late 2nd century Church Father, writes about the bread being Christ's body and the wine being Christ's blood in Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 section 3 subsection 7. "but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones, — that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption," a contemporary of Irenaeus, Tertullian gives a defense of the faith against of the claims by the pagans of atheism, cannibalism, infanticide, orgies, and incest. you may notice the claim of cannibalism indicating that even the pagans of Rome knew that the early church believed in transubstantiation well before Irenaeus and Tertullian in late 2nd century. the gospels were written between 30 to 60 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Mark is the testimony of Peter written sometime in the 60s AD around Peter's crucifixion in 64AD after the start of the rage of the beast of Rome Nero Caesar. Luke went on his journey hoping to have a full account of Christ's life for when Paul testified before Nero, but Nero had Paul executed in 67AD before Luke had finished his journey placing Luke writing late in the decade. John writes his even later given that he lived to be over a hundred out living his most famous disciple Ignatius of Antioch.

        Like

      • Deo Gratia says:

        Because Jesus said:
        "Amen, amen .. I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. [John 6:53] …

        and continuing with this proclaim:
        "For my flesh is meat indeed* [Gk: ἀληθῶς | alethos], and my blood is drink indeed*.
        He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [Jn 6:55-56] ..
        then many of His disciples "went back and walked no more with Him – Jn 6:66].

        If those statements of Jesus were mere parables or symbolic, then He must comforting those who deserted away and stated that it was not the truth. Instead, He asked His apostles as a challenge if they would also leave Him because of that "hard saying".

        That can only mean, what Jesus really meant was that His flesh is real food indeed [alethos], and His blood is real drink indeed [alethos].
        .

        To elaborate more on the word; ἀληθῶς [alethos] comes from adverb: ἀληθής [alethes] meaning: true.
        The same word is also used in this verse:
        "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the TRUTH* [ἀλήθεια | aletheia], and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me". [Jn 14:6]

        Thus, whoever deny that Jesus was not telling the truth about His body and blood being the real meat and drink, is charging Jesus as a liar telling a lie ..
        and that made Him not "Aletheia" at all, and therefore delivering false promise to be the One to guide you into salvation ..!

        So now .. how can you who do believe that He is "the Truth" , at the same time denying that His flesh and blood is the real food and drink since He used the same expression?

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Nate, Due to the length of this response, I will provide a link that exposes the false teaching of the RCC's transubstantiation – http://www.sohmer.net/GoR/15-transubstantiation.p

        This link compliments much of what I stated in my other response, which is awaiting moderation.

        Like

      • Nate says:

        No one wants to take me up on my challenge?

        Are we now saying that the plain words of Scripture must be properly interpreted, and we must be taught be someone to find out what they truly mean?

        Like

      • Nate, no one wants to discuss this with you because you refuse to respond to the biblically-based questions asked of you. The bottom line: The Bible is our final authority: Sola Scriptura.

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        Nate, they cannot for trying to find an Early Church Father who would claim that the body and blood of Christ is symbolic is like finding one who writes about the Rapture of the church, which requires pseudo-Ephraim text written in the eighth century while Ephraim lived in the fourth century. even that is sketchy still. i guess sola scriptura applies unless you deal with eschatology when all of a sudden John Nelson Darby is the authority instead. for me if Christ can make water become wine than he can also turn the bread and wine into his body and blood while it tastes and looks no different. unfortunately convincing some about transubstantiation is like convince that the biologists who studied the neglect host from Buenos Aires Argentina was just bread.

        Like

      • Nate says:

        Is Sola Scriptura Biblically Based?

        What does the Bible alone say?

        Bible says it's not complete: (Jn 21:25)

        Bible says to hold fast to the Traditions from the Apostles, BOTH written and oral (2 Thes 2:15) (Same Greek word for tradition – paradosis – is used here, and the following verses, as when Christ warns against man-made paradosis, tradition)

        Bible says oral tradition is also the Word of God (1 thes 2:13)

        Bible commends the Corinthians for holding on to the oral tradition (1 Cor 11:2)

        Bible tells us to hand on the oral traditions (2 tim 2:2)

        There are others but I'm pressed for time.

        Catholics completely agree with the plain words of Scripture above and of 2 Tim 3:16-17. But that verse says "profitable" and not 'sufficient'.

        The 1 Cor 4:6 only serves (at best) to support Sola 1 Corinthians.

        So no where does Scripture teach that the Bible Alone is our sole rule of authority.

        So who has left Scripture?

        Here's a test for you:

        1) According to Scripture, what is to decide a dispute between Christians?

        2) According to Scripture what is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

        3) According to Scripture what makes manifest the entire wisdom of God to the nations?

        If you answered: "The Bible" then you have left Scripture behind.

        Answers: 1) Mt 18:15-18

        2) 1 Tim 3:15

        3) Eph 3:10

        Catholics are Bible Christians, and have been ever since they wrote, compiled and protected the Scriptures.

        Like

      • Nate says:

        Thank you Brother Westly,

        I'm comforted to know I'm not the only one studying here to help other Catholics know the Way the Truth and the Life.

        Like

      • Ima Believer says:

        I am curious…

        If scripture alone is enough why do you cut and paste and also link to articles laced with commentary references and opinions of men?

        And when I cut & paste scripture, we are told not to take the Bible literally.

        I don't understand this logic.

        Like

      • Deo Gratia says:

        and teaching on Eucharist is validly based on Scripture.
        Please read my reply for Ms. Lyn below …

        Like

    • Richard says:

      you may not like the method of the particular protestant church you attended, and that's your choice, but what we should be most concerned about is the message. was the message biblically based? the message should be the same throughout the ages and never change. methods do though.

      its quite clear when jesus referenced his body and blood during the last supper it was in remembrance not a literal. if you read up more on why the catholics believe what they do it goes well beyond misinterpreting this verse.

      it's not about this or that denomination its about what God says in his Word. period, end of story. unfortunately when one compares protestants to catholics there are far more beliefs that are nowhere found in Scripture for the catholics.

      Like

      • Deo Gratia says:

        Yes .. Jesus was really, realy meant what He said ..
        "My flesh is truly meal indeed, and my blood is truly drink indeed"

        You do not understand the whole story because being a protestant you are restraining GOD inside a book that making claim in itself as not complete.

        Like

    • Wesley Woods says:

      the worst part is many protestants make the claim that the water that Jesus turned into wine was just turned into grape juice, but the text plainly states it was the best wine the banquet master had ever tasted. if Christ can make plain water into wine then there is no reason to doubt that the bread the Christ blessed and gave to the disciples could become his flesh nor the wine that he blessed and gave them his blood. Christ declared it and even the protestant Bibles translate it as his body and blood. we do see the same belief in the eastern church about the bread becoming the body and the wine the blood of Christ. i say if both the western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church agree than it dates back to early Christianity.

      Like

      • lyn says:

        it does not matter what practices are found in orthodox churches, what matters is what does God's word say? If in fact Christ meant the bread was literally His flesh, and the wine was literally His blood, then He is going against the word of God which forbids the eating of blood – Lev. 17:10, 12, 14 -Would God the Son entice sinners to sin by breaking the word of God, telling them wine is His literal blood and that they must drink His blood? Of course not! When studying the bible, you must learn what is meant to be taken literal and what is figurative, or symbolic. How do you do that? By going farther into His word, like I just showed you, and see how God forbids drinking blood. With that said, it is obvious the Lord Jesus Christ NEVER meant His words to be taken literal, He was speaking of believing in the sacrifice He made for sin, trusting completely in what HE has already done for the redemption of the soul. You must continue on in your reading of John 6, going to verse 63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Eating does NOT produce a born again believer, the Holy Spirit works to regenerate, not eating bread and drinking wine.
        If you follow the teachings of the Catholic church and insist you must eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood to be saved, then what would be the point of Him going to the cross? Why suffer and die, then be raised from the dead if salvation could be obtained through food and drink? This is the hypocrisy of the twisted teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

        Regardless of when John's Gospel was written, what Christ spoke of in John 6 was BEFORE the Lord's supper was instituted.

        What did Christ tell His disciples when they shared the Passover meal? "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Did Christ say, 'eat my flesh and drink my blood." ? NO, He told His disciples to eat this Passover meal and recall the sacrifice He made, the body given over, the blood spilled for remission of sins.
        The Apostle Paul states the same in 1 Corinthians 11:24, 'and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
        1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
        Christ is referring to His sacrificing of Himself for the sins of His people, He is not coercing them to eat human flesh or drink blood.

        How is it Christ can be in every wafer and every cup? Where does God's word tell us Christ presently is?
        Act_7:55 'But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;'
        Act_7:56 'and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
        Rom_8:34 ' who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us'.
        Eph_1:20 'which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places'
        Col_3:1 'Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.'
        Heb_1:3 'And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high'
        Heb_10:12 'but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD',

        It is apparent, from the word of God, that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, where He will remain until His second coming.

        How does the Bible say Christ will return to earth, in a wafer or a shot glass? Absolutely not!! Acts 1:9-11 'And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.' And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

        "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Revelation 1:7

        The word of God proves the teachings of the RCC to be false and heretical.

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        Christ was the sacrifice for sin, but the jews in Exodus were told to eat the passover sacrificial lamb and let none of it be left for morning. since Christ is our passover lamb then he gives us his body in the appearance of bread and his blood in the appearance of wine to partake of his sacrifice.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        What took place in Exodus has NOTHING to do with what you are claiming. You cannot pull verses out of context and add meaning to them.
        Once again, I ask this, – – the Bible forbids the eating of blood- read Lev. 17:10, 12, 14. The Bible also says God tempts no one to sin, to go against what is written – read James 1:13-14.
        How is it the Catholic church can state the bread is the actual flesh, and the wine is the actual blood of Christ when the Bible warns of eating blood? So God would contradict His own word? Do you understand that God is immutable, He does not change? {Malachi 3:6} If the Bible says NOT to do something, how is it you can say otherwise? This is only possible by not rightly dividing the word of God, by taking certain texts and placing a literal meaning on them when they should be interpreted otherwise. Scripture interprets scripture. When we see a command that forbids something, in this case, the eating of blood, then we see a text that states we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have to interpret it as not being literal because we have already been told eating blood is forbidden by God. To interpret it any other way leads to false theology.

        I have also given God's word that tells us where Christ presently is, and how He will return to earth, and yet, through some magical hocus pocus, we are supposed to believe Christ appears innumerably and repeatedly every time the Eucharist is given? This is what happens when one does not know when to take the word symbolically as opposed to literally.

        Christ says He is the vine, does that mean every time I see a vine, I am seeing Christ? He is the Light, does that mean when the sun is shining brightly, Christ is present?
        The Lord says, '"I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.' Does this mean those who come to Him will never be thirsty or hungry again, or is this just symbolism?
        From Matthew 3:10, we read "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.' Is this speaking of literal trees, if so, what does that have to do with Christ and His Gospel?
        One more verse, Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth"… so are believers actual salt, a seasoning?
        There are tons of other verses that I could give and ask if it's literal, allegorical or symbolic, but this is enough.
        If you say the Eucharist is the literal flesh of Christ and wine is His actual blood, you break the commandment of God not to eat blood; you also must take EVERY text that is in question as literal. That means you must gouge out your eyes & cut off your limbs because of your sins, for it is better to enter heaven maimed than to enter hell whole right?

        Like

      • lyn says:

        "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." This confirms our interpretation of the previous verse. If we compare it with verse 47 it will be seen at once the "eating" is equivalent to "believing." Note, too, that the tense of the verbs is the same: verse 47 "believeth," verse 54 "eateth." And observe how each of these are evidences of eternal life, already in possession of the one thus engaged: "He that believeth on me hath eternal life"; "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life."

        This passage in John 6 is a favorite one with Ritualists, who understand it to refer to the Lord’s Supper. But this is certainly a mistake, and that for the following reasons. First, the Lord’s Supper had not been instituted when Christ delivered this discourse. Second, Christ was here addressing Himself to un-believers, and the Lord’s Supper is for saints, not unregenerate sinners. Third, the eating and drinking here spoken of are in order to salvation; but eating and drinking at the Lord’s table are for those who have been saved. – from A. W. Pink's exposition of the Gospel of John available for reading at pbministriesDOTorg/books/pink/John/john_23.htm

        Like

    • Poco says:

      Do you honestly think that Christ was actually saying, "Here, eat this my REAL flesh and drink this my REAL blood", to the disciples? I'm pretty sure they all understood what Jesus was saying. He was saying whenever you come together, do this, (eat and drink) in remembrance of me. There is no way that bread actually becomes real flesh. You know it, I know , everyone knows it.

      Secondly, and this is the most important part, catholicism is not christianity. The true church has a responsibility to expose the apostate/false church and false prophets. God specifically said do not bow down to images of any kind… Jesus said their is but one way to the Father, and that was through Him alone. Not through Mary, not through any kind of saint. Only through Jesus can you come to the Father. How is it you cannot see the truth when it is in plain sight?

      Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        really the true church's responsibility to expose the false church and false teachers? why is Jack van Impe still on the air after making the absurd claim that the rapture was to take place 12-21-2012 all because the Mayan calender ends that day? the only people i hear claiming that van Impe lost his mind are those who already rejected dispensationalism in the first place. what about all these "prophecy experts" who after an event does not happen like they claimed was all prophesied, and turn around making an update edition with changes to the claims? those books still fly off the shelf even though the only things that had happened on their charts were past events on the chart in the first place.

        Like

  2. Ima Believer says:

    As Richard says, "it is not about this or that denomination it is about what God say in His Word, end of story."

    John 6
    48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

    60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

    66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

    Like

    • Ricky says:

      You absolutely misunderstand the scripture. To "eat of Jesus flesh" is a metaphor. It means to hear His words and believe on Him and He will sustain you in the same way eating bread will sustain your body, Jesus will sustain your spirit and your body. PLUS, you will never hunger again. So, why do you continue to try and eat the flesh of Jesus when it is only need once, and that is not His real flesh but symbolic? Did circumcision of the foreskin actually circumcise the flesh of the heart? No, it is an outward symbol. Just like the bread and wine were.

      To think Jesus actually meant "eat His flesh" is preposterous. So let me ask you, is there anywhere in the bible where someone (Sane or otherwise) did try to eat Jesus' actual flesh? No! there isn't, so was His teaching in vain? No, because the apostles understood what Jesus was meaning. You don't need to eat His actual flesh to remember Him.

      Like

      • Ima Believer says:

        There were two choices illustrated in John 6.

        Choice 1: Accept it, as it was spoken, take offense, and walk away… "This is an hard saying; who can hear it… many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

        Choice 2: Accept it, as it was spoken and embrace it… "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

        Congratulations, Poco and Ricky, you want choice 3, just like the Jews in verse 52: "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

        So we come to verse 55… Did Jesus speak in symbolism as you suggest or did he double down and his hard teaching: "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." — John 6:55

        The gospels declare when Jesus is using symbolism, like Matthew 13:3 "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying… " and then Jesus explains the symbolism. Matthew 13:18 " Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower."

        Once you go down the path of calling hard teachings, metaphors, what are you left with?

        To the crowd that wants to get to heaven some other way… this has to be ignored or reduced to a metaphor:

        John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

        To the crowd the wants to redefine marriage… this has to be ignored or reduced to a metaphor:

        Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

        Like

  3. lyn says:

    Nate, you obviously did not even read what I linked to. I do not need to go into history, I have already gone into the word of God and have shown the error of the teaching of the RCC in my comment from July 20 at 5:42 p.m., which you apparently have not read. History does NOT reveal truth, the word of God does. Orthodox Christianity proves nothing except that it has followed man-made traditions instead of the word of God, so your point is not even valid.

    Let me ask you this, are we to always take the word of God literally, according to your beliefs? If so, then have you gouged out your eyes, or cut off your hand for the sins committed by them? ""If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." Matthew 18:8-9 Is this to be taken literally?

    Like

    • Wesley Woods says:

      "Orthodox, or correct beliefs, Christianity proves nothing except that it has followed man-made traditions instead of the word of God, so your point is not even valid. " you have to either believe orthodox Christianity or you are a heretic and should not even be listened to. as for your question about cutting off the hand and gouging out the eye if it comes down to it than it is better to get rid of what tempts you than burn in hell. Christ is telling his disciples cut off whatever causes you to sin even if it is your own body parts than let sin win. yes if you have to than you have to. given some of the things you said i am assuming you are a dispensationalist and take literal the burning mountain falling into the sea and turning water into blood, two hundred million man army from China(which would be heavily old), exploding star would poison earth water supply, and demon locus from the most symbolic book in the entire Bible while telling Nate and me that Christ flesh and blood are metaphors.

      Like

      • lyn says:

        "you have to either believe orthodox Christianity or you are a heretic", oh really? So, I have to adhere to man-made traditions as opposed to Sola Scriptura? No thank you, I will rest in Christ and feed upon His holy word. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Nothing more needs to be said to defend the cry of the Reformation, 'Sola Scriptura!'

        I am amazed that you would consider mutilation to be taught in the scriptures, but you would have to in order to defend the unbiblical transubstantiation view that is man-made. I am not a dispensationalist, I am a follower of Christ who, through God the Spirit, am being rightly taught how to divide His word; when symbolism is used and when literalness is used. I find it very telling that those who adhere to man-made traditions do not directly address this – "If in fact Christ meant the bread was literally His flesh, and the wine was literally His blood, then He is going against the word of God which forbids the eating of blood – Lev. 17:10, 12, 14 -Would God the Son entice sinners to sin by breaking the word of God, telling them wine is His literal blood and that they must drink His blood?" How can you answer, from scripture, this question that MUST be addressed if, in fact, you believe the wafer is His flesh and the wine is His actual blood? Please, let's try and stay on track, no more rabbit trails like some of the comments here try and take you down, pulling verses out of the bible from all over the place, avoiding the subject at hand, and making no clear biblical defense for your system of beliefs.Stick with the subject of your own beliefs! Show us, from the word of God, how the bread is transformed to flesh, and how the wine is transformed to blood, which God forbids anyone to drink. Then, explain how God, who is immutable, goes against His own word, which would make Him untrustworthy, unfaithful, untrue…just like man. He no longer is God if He goes against His own commandments is He?

        Are we to feed upon Christ? Yes – in what way?
        "hat man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." Deut. 8:3b
        Christ is the 'word' as found in John 1:1.

        Christ Himself talked of having food, "I have food to eat that you do not know about." John 4:32 What did He mean? Was He going to eat His own flesh?
        "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work." John 4:34
        Once again, the Bible must be rightly studied or wrong interpretations result.

        Like

      • Aloy says:

        1Co11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread,
        1Co 11:24 gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, "This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me."
        1Co 11:25 He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me."
        1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
        1Co 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord's body and blood.
        1Co 11:28 A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup.
        1Co 11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
        1Co 11:30 That's why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Aloy,

        I am not referencing at all to the Lord's supper, the Passover meal He shared with His disciples; this is about the Eucharist, the false teaching that the bread actually turns into the body of Christ, and the wine becomes His actual blood.

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        it is interesting that you missed the linchpin verse of Leviticus 17 in Leviticus 17:11 when God tells them why he did not want them to eat the blood of animals for the blood makes atonement for the soul. it is mentioned twice in the verse alone. whose blood makes atonement for the soul? it is Christ's blood alone that makes atonement for the soul as the blood of lambs, bulls, and goats were as the author of Hebrews declares were just shadows. Christ telling his disciple to drink his blood via the Eucharist does not violate this for Christ's own blood alone had the power to atone for Sin. besides Scripture never makes the claim for sola scriptura. Paul tells the Thessalonians in II Thessalonians 2:15 to hold fast to what it told them either though written word or spoken word also known as oral tradition. Sacred Scripture is recorded traditions from the eye witnesses and Apostles. besides when Paul writes to Timothy in II Timothy 3:16-17 it is uncertain which books of the New Testament were even written for Luke had not written his gospel or Acts of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

        Like

  4. lyn says:

    Nate, I also direct you to my comment from July 22 at 8:46 pm. It goes further into God's word and exposes the false teaching of Christ demanding we eat flesh and drink blood, as you claim.

    Like

  5. Aloy says:

    My Dear Watchman,

    If you can believe that Almighty God can be borne by a Woman. If you can accept the virgin birth of Christ-no assistant from any man. If you can believe the resurrection of Christ. If you can believe ….

    The great scholars of Jews Religion are still studying and criticizing and waiting for the Messiah; but His birth was announced by those who did not know anything about Torah and Prophets.

    Also those who analyze the scriptures letter by letter rather than the Spirit of one shepherd, one Body, One Lord One Community or Communion and One Lord may miss His second coming.

    God is not wholly summarized in Books but in openness to His Leading-Spirit and obedience to His appointed no matter how “stupid” you think they may be.

    Like

  6. lyn says:

    Wesley states " Christ is telling his disciples cut off whatever causes you to sin even if it is your own body parts than let sin win. yes if you have to than you have to." So why is it we so NO ONE who maim themselves? Why aren't people walking around with eyes missing, hands cut off as well as feet? After all, the Bible states 'all have sinned and fall short of God's glory' – Romans 3:23 Since God's word is true, then according to your logic, every one of us should be walking about with either one or both eyes missing, hands as well as feet chopped off; that would include you Wesley. Why have you not gouged out your eyes and chopped off your limbs? Do you or do you not adhere to your own belief of Christ's words being literal? If you do, you must remove your eyes as well as chop off your hands and feet, or you are a hypocrite according to your own system of belief.

    Your adherence to false teaching is absurd.

    Like

    • Aloy says:

      Dear Watchman

      I am Disciple of Christ and Wesley captures your fantasy. Talk about Christ rather than dividing people. When you talk about Christ, He will qualify His own. In our ignorance and sincerity of heart He will find us (Jhn 2:25).

      Like

      • lyn says:

        Exposing error is commanded in Scripture – " Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Eph. 5:11

        I am not dividing anyone, the false teachings that are being spewed out here is.
        Again, stay on track. If you are going to jump in this arena, then stay focused on the subject, which is the Eucharist and transubstantiation. Quoting the Apostle Paul and his teachings on the Lord's supper is NOT the topic here. Embracing error for the sake of unity is NEVER commanded in scripture.

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        you do know that what Paul says about the Eucharist in I Corinthians 11 and the gospels right about the Lord's last supper is what it is all about. not one account of the Lord's supper does Christ declare that the bread represents his body and the cup of wine represented his blood, but he said the bread was his broken body and the cup of wine was the blood of the new covenant his blood. Christ turned ordinary water into the best wine the wedding feast host ever tasted, so it is just as possible Christ can turn bread into his body and a cup of wine into his very blood.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        For the last time, where does the Bible state the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, and that drinking blood is okay?

        Where is Jesus Christ at this present moment, according to God's own word? Is He in a wafer? As for the 'magical words' uttered by the priest, where would I find that in Scripture?

        Now, where is Jesus? — Act_7:55 ‘But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;’
        Act_7:56 ‘and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
        Rom_8:34 ‘ who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us’.
        Eph_1:20 ‘which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places’
        Col_3:1 ‘Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.’
        Heb_1:3 ‘And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high’
        Heb_10:12 ‘but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD’,

        How will Jesus Christ return to this earth, is it in a wafer? Let's see what the word of God states — Acts 1:9-11 ‘And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.’ And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

        “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.” Revelation 1:7

        There is absolutely no scriptural support for anything you spew out here, other than a twisting of God's word and a continual rabbit trail eisegesis.

        May God be merciful to you and reveal His truth

        "Ye must be born again"

        Like

    • Wesley Woods says:

      you walk around in the middle east in the islamic countries they still cut off the hands of thieves. just because you find Christ teaching tough does not necessary making it metaphoric for in John 6 John declares that many left because they could not stand the eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but Peter and the twelve declared that they had nowhere else to go for they knew in Christ was life.

      Like

  7. Aloy says:

    Dear Watchman

    Faith is above reason. Many will see it as hard teaching and continue to go away from the Lord (Jhn 6:66). The Lord will not show you what it means except when human reasoning is put apart. I have received PEACE of the Lord from this so did Apostle Paul:

    1Co 11:23-30:For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread,

    1Co 11:24 gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, "This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me."

    1Co 11:25 He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me."

    1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

    1Co 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord's body and blood.

    1Co 11:28 A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup.
    1Co 11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

    1Co 11:30 That's why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying.

    Like

    • lyn says:

      Aloy,

      The peace we have in Christ stems from His atoning work on the cross, not partaking of a wafer and a drink. Answer this, if reconciliation back to a Holy God was only through food and drink, then why did God's Son suffer and die needlessly? If we only needed to eat bread that supposedly is His flesh, and drink wine that supposedly is His blood, then what was the purpose of His crucifixion?

      Also answer this – If in fact Christ meant the bread was literally His flesh, and the wine was literally His blood, then He is going against the word of God which forbids the eating of blood – Lev. 17:10, 12, 14 -Would God the Son entice sinners to sin by breaking the word of God, telling them wine is His literal blood and that they must drink His blood?”

      Like

      • Aloy says:

        Dear Watchman

        If you see the fringe of His cloth as coth it remains cloth, but if you see it as Love of Jesus you receive salvation and healing. If you see Paul's Handkerchief as piece of cloth so it shall be, but if you see it as God's hand extended to you, you receive salvation and healing.

        I was greatly touched and healed through Christ presence in the Eucharist and will not be doing myself good if I stand and look on persons scaring others away from the Word of God. You are calling Eucharistic Jesus wafer because that is what you see.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Nothing you state is found in the word of God, you base your salvation on experience.

        Salvation does not come through the Eucharist, but man's desire to 'experience' a presence, feeling, emotion of God drives him to false belief and understanding.

        How are sinners saved, according to the word of God? "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

        Salvation, grace and faith are all gifts from God, given to those He saves. Grace is what His giving hinges on, not partaking of a wafer and drink. You are essentially saying your 'work' has granted you eternal life, which God proves wrong in the aforementioned verses. Grace is made available not through eating and drinking, but through believing on and trusting in what Christ has already done, the sacrifice He's made, the atoning work He did to satisfy God's wrath at the sins of those who believe.

        I call it a wafer because that's all it is…where is Christ?

        Act_7:55 ‘But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;’
        Act_7:56 ‘and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
        Rom_8:34 ‘ who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us’.
        Eph_1:20 ‘which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places’
        Col_3:1 ‘Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.’
        Heb_1:3 ‘And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high’
        Heb_10:12 ‘but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD’

        How will Christ return, according to God's own word?

        Acts 1:9-11 ‘And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.’ And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

        “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.” Revelation 1:7

        One more time, I ask you to answer this, If in fact Christ meant the bread was literally His flesh, and the wine was literally His blood, then He is going against the word of God which forbids the eating of blood – Lev. 17:10, 12, 14 -Would God the Son entice sinners to sin by breaking the word of God, telling them wine is His literal blood and that they must drink His blood? I have yet to receive a response from anyone who insists the Eucharist is biblical truth, just rabbit trails and hodge podge responses that amount to no solid defense.

        Like

      • Aloy says:

        Dear Watchman

        Though shall not kill or take life. Has God committed murder by sending His son to die for us?

        Brother, tell people about saving love of Christ not critizing individuals and churches. You can tell someone about Jesus, but you cannot tell Jesus about me or any one because he knows all. (John 2:25).

        Yes, beliefs are built on permanent experiences and Paul kept on refering his call throughout his ministry. My experience in eucharist is true. This critisms were un-Apostolic. Show people Jesus and when He enters into them, all sins will be cleansed. Stop telling Jesus about people and their doctrines, He knows all.

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        have you not read that at the first Passover the Hebrews were required to eat the sacrificial lamb and paint the blood over their door post and lentil? eating the body, bread, and drinking the blood, wine, is the same thing as eating the sacrifice was at the first Passover.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        You STILL have not answered this question, and it's because you can't…

        If in fact Christ meant the bread was literally His flesh, and the wine was literally His blood, then He is going against the word of God which forbids the eating of blood – Lev. 17:10, 12, 14 -Would God the Son entice sinners to sin by breaking the word of God, telling them wine is His literal blood and that they must drink His blood?

        You say 'drinking the blood, wine, is the same thing as eating the sacrifice was at the first Passover.' Where is your proof text for this?

        Like

      • Wesley Woods says:

        i already answered your question about the blood for God declared that it was the blood makes atonement for the soul (Leviticus 17:11) and for that reason they were not to eat the blood, but after Christ came and shed his blood for atonement allowing us to drink it via transubstantiation of the wine. the author of Hebrews declares that Christ's blood could do what the blood of ox, lambs, and goats could not make complete atonement for sin. you need to learn to read the Old Testament though the light of Christ and the New Testament.

        Like

  8. lyn says:

    No, you have not answered the question. The Bible forbids drinking blood, so where does it specifically state blood is now okay to drink? How can Christ condone going against His own word, as you claim? You have proven nothing except you know how to twist scripture.
    You claim "Christ came and shed his blood for atonement allowing us to drink it via transubstantiation of the wine." Again, where is the proof text clearly stating blood is now ok to drink? Leviticus 17:11 does NOT say blood is okay to drink,quoting it has nothing to do with my question to you. You keep going down rabbit trails, and in so doing, you have not proven from the word of God that drinking blood is now acceptable.

    "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
    Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
    For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
    Leviticus 17:10.12.14

    Show me, from Scripture, where God clearly states 'the drinking of blood is acceptable'.

    You never answered my question about gouging out your eyes or cutting off your limbs either, if this is a literal text, then why haven't you mutilated yourself? Do you not believe what you say you believe?

    Like

  9. Bible Christian says:

    Show me, from Scripture, where God clearly states ‘the drinking of blood is acceptable’.

    John 6:55

    Like

    • Rose Vosburgh says:

      Jesus was not instituting communion (or the Eucharist) in John 6:55 nor was He teaching people that drinking blood, which was forbidden in the Old Testament, was to become an acceptable practice. Go to justforcatholics/bread.htm for an excellent article on this topic which is very hard to refute. Even Augustine agrees the 'eating' and 'drinking' is metaphorical language. He affirmed that 'eating is a positive metaphor for believing'. "For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. "

      Jesus is the Bread of Life….eternal life, not physical and of this world. Just as bread nourishes us physically, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all who believe on Him. The Catholic Eucharist does not give elernal life. What is the benefit of the actual eating and drinking of the Savior's body and blood? Does it save the souls receiving it? No. Christ instituted communion as a commenoration and reminder for us of His sacrifice on our behalf. It points us back to the cross where Jesus gave Himself for us…His body and blood…for our sins.

      Like

  10. Pat says:

    You do not literally drink HIS blood and eat HIS body, it is all symbolic and we do it as Christians because we believe!!!! Look at the Greek and Hebrew commentaries, that will help you understand!!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s