Mary the Queen of Heaven

[Kevin007]

Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was. This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.

I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here.

John 6:
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.

This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body. So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such. If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.

1 Corinthians 11: 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So when someone takes the body and blood--they'd better examine themselves closely--otherwise they are bringing damnation upon themselves by doing this unworthily. It's a serious consequence for not understanding what one is doing here. This is why the Eucharist is the very central part of the church within the EOC. Everything centers around Jesus our Lord and Savior.

that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.

 

[Kevin007]

Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because His purpose was fulfilled. He gained His people‟s redemption, the cancellation of our sin.. It was a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't shed His blood or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice in the light of the Words “without shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin”?

What does the Bible say? But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. (HEBREWS 10:12)

The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice.

 

[TER]

that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.

So you say Kevin, but that is not what the early Church believed, what the Apostles taught, or what Christ said. If you are comfortable relying on your interpretation over all these saints and the Lord Himself, then do as you will. But you are in the minority in your opinion and definitely not in accordance with the apostolic teachings.

 

[TER]

The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice.

Jesus' work on the Cross is eternal, meaning it is outside of time and perpetual. Although it occurred within the appointed time in our history, it's plan and consequences are eternal. Christ offered Himself once on the cross to destroy the power of eternal death, but His sacrifice is eternal.

When the faithful celebrate the Holy Eucharist, they do so in true remembrance, meaning they declare the eternal works of Christ done on the Cross and share in the witness of His life-giving resurrection. Not simply as a past time event and apart from our being and lives but in real re-membrance, that is, to become a member of this witness and event.

Christ died once in history for the love of the world, but we celebrate His resurrection every Lord's day, partaking of His very Body and Blood which He offers for the life of the world. This is what Christ directed, what the Apostles taught, and what the Church has continuously done since the very beginning. You calling it a mere symbol puts you outside this communion of faith.

 

[Terry1]

Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because His purpose was fulfilled. He gained His people‟s redemption, the cancellation of our sin.. It was a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't shed His blood or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice in the light of the Words “without shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin”?

What does the Bible say? But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. (HEBREWS 10:12)

The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice.

Kevin--please understand this--whenever we take Holy Communion with the Lord and the Eucharist--we are not simply "reoffering Christ as sacrifice" as you say--What Holy Communion is----is literally taking Jesus into ourselves as Jesus Himself said to do. What we are then doing is remembering not only what Jesus did on that cross, but His entire ministry and resurrection from that cross. So we are communing with Him--we are partaking of that blood and body along with His resurrection as well--in communion.

Communion means this--the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level. We are partaking of the mind and body of Christ into ourselves as well. This is not hanging Him on the cross again as you believe--this is communing in the Spirit with our Lord--

This is why we are told not to do this unworthily because we can bring damnation to ourselves not discerning the blood and body of Christ. This isn't something we take lightly or should do if we do not understand what the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ means. This is something very sacred as we are told in the word of God.

I know that even in some of the Protestant churches--they do not allow small children to take communion--because they are not old enough to discern the body and the blood. So this isn't something that's just *Catholic* either--but the EOC takes far more care keeping this Holy tradition sacred than the Protestants do--which is the way it was done by the very Apostles of Christ.

Also, you made the statement that the OT Jews kept "reoffering Christ as a sacrifice"--this was not possible because Jesus had not even been born, crucified or resurrected yet in the OT.

Your lack of knowledge and scriptural understanding is a blatant testimony to why the ancient church is needed on this earth. Many of us need the guidance of the church to understand what the saints before us understood and to know how we are supposed to live, believe, love, forgive and to be what we are called to be in Christ.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Sometimes you just can't pretty up cannibalism anymore. Pass the Fritos, please.

 

[TER]

Sometimes you just can't pretty up cannibalism anymore. Pass the Fritos, please.

It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.

Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because His purpose was fulfilled. He gained His people‟s redemption, the cancellation of our sin.. It was a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't shed His blood or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice in the light of the Words “without shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin”?

What does the Bible say? But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. (HEBREWS 10:12)

The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will not be true.

 

[Ronin Truth]

It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.

Eye beam acting up a bit again there for you?

I think you guys would all be outraged if the Moslems were doing that.

Actually, I'd think a card would work out just as well for a remembrance.

 

[Terry1]

It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.

I've come to the realization that some are simply not meant to know and understand. Not because God didn't call them--it's because they won't listen and only God knows their hearts. So it's impossible to judge someone not knowing what plans God has for them, but it's certainly scary to watch people deny and be blinded to clear scriptural truths.

Last night at our Greek Orthodox church, when I was speaking to the Priest, he said to me as we were discussing something between us--"so you have kept and open mind"--I said yes, always. I think that's so important for any Christian is to always prayerfully seek things out that we don't fully comprehend. I tend to run towards truth and correction--not from it--thank you Lord!

 

[erowe1]

Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was. This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.

I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here.

John 6:
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.


This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body. So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such. If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.

1 Corinthians 11: 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So when someone takes the body and blood--they'd better examine themselves closely--otherwise they are bringing damnation upon themselves by doing this unworthily. It's a serious consequence for not understanding what one is doing here. This is why the Eucharist is the very central part of the church within the EOC. Everything centers around Jesus our Lord and Savior.

In John 6, how could Jesus be talking about the Eucharist? He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet. But the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was something that some in his audience when he spoke those words had already done by faith.

 

[TER]

In John 6, how could Jesus be talking about the Eucharist? He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet. But the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was something that some in his audience when he spoke those words had already done by faith.

How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words? And how did Christ react when they did? Did He say 'I don't mean you actually have to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, I was being figurative.'

And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?

Hw many have to be wrong so that you can be right?

 

[erowe1]

There was a time when catechumen were not even allowed to be present while the Eucharist was served.

What time was that? And did the apostolic Church practice this? Or was it a later innovation and corruption of their faith?

 

[erowe1]

How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words?

Because they didn't have faith, because God had not granted that to them.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

It's not because they didn't want to participate in a Eucharist. At that point in time there was no Eucharist.

Notice also some of the verses earlier in the story:

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.

According to Jesus himself, in the very same discourse in which he refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the way to do that is by believing in him. And this was already true when he walked the earth before the Last Supper had happened.

 

[Terry1]

How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words? And how did Christ react when they did? Did He say 'I don't mean you actually have to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, I was being figurative.'

And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?

Hw many have to be wrong so that you can be right?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TER again.

 

[pcosmar]

that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.

Yes,,but more than that.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

 

[erowe1]

God told me that my job was to yank chains and rattle cages. I said "Really?" He said "Yes." I said, "Why me?" He said, "Because you're good at it." I said "OK, thanks." He said, "You're welcome". Amen.

The reason I know this can't be true is because you're not good at it.

 

[TER]

Because they didn't have faith, because God had not granted that to them.


It's not because they didn't want to participate in a Eucharist. At that point in time there was no Eucharist.

Notice also some of the verses earlier in the story:



According to Jesus himself, in the very same discourse in which he refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the way to do that is by believing in him. And this was already true when he walked the earth before the Last Supper had happened.

So in other words, all the early saints and the Apostles were wrong so that you can be right. I chose their witness and understanding better then yours.

 

[erowe1]

And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?

I don't see how that's relevant to the interpretation of John 6, since John 6 isn't talking about the Eucharist at all.

As far as "the real presence," do you mean to imply that I do not believe in "the real presence"? If so, would you please quote where I said that?

If you can't find any such quote, then please answer the words I actually use, rather than putting words in my mouth as straw men you can knock down.

 

[erowe1]

So in other words, all the early saints and the Apostles were wrong so that you can be right. I chose their witness and understanding better then yours.

The early saints and Apostles were wrong about what?

Do you know of some writing where the early saints and apostles give their interpretation of John 6, and contradict anything I said? I don't. In the case of the Apostles we can say with 100% certainty that we have nothing from them (other than the Gospel of John itself) that comments on the meaning of Jesus's words in John 6.

I assume that you can find something in Origen, but no earlier than that. And I wouldn't take Origen's views as representative of a consensus of the early saints and Apostles.

And, at any rate, we actually have John 6. You can read it yourself. And you can see that it says what I quoted. You don't have to worry about choosing between taking my word for it and taking someone else's word for it. You can take John's own words for it, unless you don't trust John's 3-pound brain to do a good enough job of saying what he meant.