The Eucharist is unbiblical

[Kevin007]

Personal attacks? Just about everything you post about my faith is a lie, a misrepresentation or severe misunderstanding. When you post nothing that's true and ignore TER's response, there really isn't more to say than to point out that what CUT AND PASTE about my faith is crap.

of course you think its a lie because you are so steeped in it.

[Terry1]

LOL

[RJB]

of course you think its a lie because you are so steeped in it.

IT'S A LIE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE MOST OF THE CRAP YOU ACCUSE ME OF BELIEVING!!!

[amy31416]

This thread sucks.

[heavenlyboy34]

This thread sucks.

Yes indeedy, ma'am. ~hugs~

[acptulsa]

"There is no argument in the world carries the hatred that a religious belief does. The more learned a man is the less consideration he has for another man's belief."--Will Rogers 1924

Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter? Really?

Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).

So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?

Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other. Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.

Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent. Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?

[jmdrake]

This is an incorrect statement. I never said that Christ never used a metaphor. I am not offended but merely perplexed on how you came up with that. Just because Christ used metaphors (in fact, the parables themselves were filled with metaphors!) does not mean He was using a metaphor when He said certain other things. We are in agreement, that Christ at times uses metaphors and other times He does not. You have yet, however, proved anything to support your position and your interpretation with regards to the Holy Eucharist.

I didn't say you said that. But your "proof" that Jesus was speaking literally was merely you again quoting Jesus where He could have very well have been speaking metaphorically. The only way to reach the conclusion you did is either to provide clarification from Jesus where He said (not one of your church father said) "I'm really speaking literally" or to assume that Jesus never used metaphors. You have not done either so your point fails. Actually Jesus gave indication that He was speaking metaphorically when He said:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He had just said in verse 53:

John 6:53 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.

The most obvious way to reconcile this apparent contradiction (flesh gives life....flesh profits nothing) is if Jesus was speaking metaphorically in verse 53 and then "clearing up the confusion" in verse 63. It's like when Jesus said "Lazarus is sleeping" and His disciples came back with "That's good. It means He's getting better." And Jesus cleared up the confusion by saying "Lazaus is dead".

My proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically in John 6 is not only based on the very Scriptures (which I am sure you will allude to as well as your own individual proof), but more objectively and more historically concretely (in other words, realistically) by the universal teachings of the early Church, and in their worship and common belief with regards to the nature of the Eucharist.

I understand that. But you misspoke when you said this:

Except all the historical writings going down to the first century as well as the stated beliefs of the Church Fathers also going down to the first century (not to forget what Christ Himself explicitly taught!) disagrees with you in this regard.

Here is my point. Nowhere did Christ explicitly teach what you claim He explicitly taught! Sorry for shouting, but I'm not sure what I have to do to get through to you on this point. Jesus gave a teaching that could be taken two different ways. The clarification given in John 6:63 implies that He didn't mean that teaching to be taken the way you are taking it. You, and the church fathers you are quoting, took it literally. That's fine. But to say "Jesus explicitly taught X" when Jesus did not explicitly teach X is the problem.

I don't recall you ever asking me this question and I am happy to repeat what I wrote in the post above, namely that the grace of God in the Holy Mysteries such as in Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are not dependent on the holiness of the ordained clergy whose work it is to prepare and administer these charisms and spiritual gifts to the faithful which God empowers and manifests. In the year 314, the catholic orthodox and apostolic faith of the Church was proclaimed once and for all time the answer to this question when it sprung up for debate on account of a fringe merciless group from North Africa who were threatening the unity and peace of the Church. I am sorry you oppose this orthodox and apostolic confession. You cannot understand how a sinful priest can provide holy gifts to the people of God because (I suspect) you have a poor understanding of the sacraments and how it is all by the Grace of God whereby we receive and participate in the divine nature and transformative powers of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Mysteries. The sins of the priest do not in any way limit God.

I oppose it because it's not true. I'm sorry that bothers you. It bothers me to see claims being made that Jesus "explicitly taught" something He didn't explicitly teach. As for as the sins of the priest not limiting God, I agree. But that's because I depend on the High Priest who lives in Heaven. (Hebrews 4:15). Because of that I can come "boldly before the throne of grace" without needing a human intercessor. (Hebrews 4:16). Imagine the young man sexually abused by the priest at the one RCC or EO church in his area. If his receiving grace is dependent upon going back to this wicked priest, and he can't bring himself to do that, then he's out of luck. But 1 Timothy 2:5 teaches that there is "one intercessor between God and man" and that is Jesus. The one thing you have said that is correct is that God is not limited. Indeed He is not. The Eucharist teaching places an unnecessary limitation on God.

[jmdrake]

It's only important as a control mechanism. If you believe that you must receive the sacraments to receive grace then you are bound to a particular group of men that are the ones "entrusted" to administer it, whether they are actually trustworthy or not.

Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter? Really?

Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).

So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?

Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other. Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.

Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent. Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?

[jmdrake]

Here is a question: Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?

I know this question was to Kevin, but I find it confusing. I believe there is a form of Christ's presence, through the Holy Spirit, everywhere.

Psalms 139:8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

[fisharmor]

I feel it is wrong, a sin. Why do you ask?

Surely you must be aware that there are interpretations of the Scriptures that mention homosexuality that argue that it is not a sin.
For instance, the men who wanted to have sex with the angels visiting Lot were trying to rape, and rape someone under Lot's hospitality. Therefore it's not homosexuality which is the problem, but rape and abuse of guests.
Then there's the fact that the Hebrew word for "abomination" used to describe homosexual acts has strong connotations of idolatry. So it's not the homosexual act which is wrong: it's the turning it into idolatry which is wrong.

Like it or not, there is technical wiggle room on this issue within Scripture.

So my follow-up questions are
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

[jmdrake]

Surely you must be aware that there are interpretations of the Scriptures that mention homosexuality that argue that it is not a sin.
For instance, the men who wanted to have sex with the angels visiting Lot were trying to rape, and rape someone under Lot's hospitality. Therefore it's not homosexuality which is the problem, but rape and abuse of guests.
Then there's the fact that the Hebrew word for "abomination" used to describe homosexual acts has strong connotations of idolatry. So it's not the homosexual act which is wrong: it's the turning it into idolatry which is wrong.

Like it or not, there is technical wiggle room on this issue within Scripture.

So my follow-up questions are
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

And the alternative interpretation for Lev 18:22 is?

Lev 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

How about Romans 1:27?

Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The gay Christian friends that I have don't have an "alternative interpretation" for that. They just take the view that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.

Edit: And I'm confused as to why you brought that up in this thread. Seems more appropriate for the "sola scriptura" threads.

[fisharmor]

And the alternative interpretation for Lev 18:22 is?

Lev 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

How about Romans 1:27?

Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The gay Christian friends that I have don't have an "alternative interpretation" for that. They just take the view that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.

Edit: And I'm confused as to why you brought that up in this thread. Seems more appropriate for the "sola scriptura" threads.

The whole point of the thread is that the Eucharist is unbibilical.
I'm bringing into the argument the fact - this is a fact, not my opinion, for I am certainly not championing this view - that there are Bible scholars out there who have weaseled around all of these verses.

But to answer your main question directly, it's quite easy. All of those verses are metaphor, and I'm surprised you wouldn't believe Paul and Moses capable of employing metaphors.

So the follow-up questions I asked are, still,

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

[jmdrake]

The whole point of the thread is that the Eucharist is unbibilical.
I'm bringing into the argument the fact - this is a fact, not my opinion, for I am certainly not championing this view - that there are Bible scholars out there who have weaseled around all of these verses.

But to answer your main question directly, it's quite easy. All of those verses are metaphor, and I'm surprised you wouldn't believe Paul and Moses capable of employing metaphors.

So the follow-up questions I asked are, still,

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

Okay. Silly argument. But I'll play along. What do you believe "man lying with man" is a metaphor for? In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious. The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood. And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent. By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women. It happens all the time. So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lord, can someone please explain to me how this 'issue' could possibly matter? Really?

Millions and millions of unsaved sinners whose souls are in mortal danger out there and here all the Christians are arguing about whether Jesus wanted to use bread and wine as a metaphor--possibly even to help his disciples through their coming grief by reminding them that His earthly body means nothing, and His spirit and wisdom will never die--or whether God uses miraculous powers to make cannibals of us all (without this human flesh and blood even making the former bread and wine taste like chicken or rattlesnake or anything else other than bread and wine).

So long as it reminds us that Jesus' spirit, wisdom, and teachings are very much still alive, and so long as we do it in remembrance of Him, what difference does it make if some believe it's bread or human flesh or wine or blood or wafers or metaphor or miracle or what-the-hell-ever?

Damn, no wonder the devil almost invariably covers his ass by dividing us against ourselves first, and does his evil while we're screaming at each other. Hell, there are whole droves of Christians who will happily divide and conquer themselves with no help from the devil at all.

Maybe God converts the stuff for those who would rather be a part of a miracle than avoid cannibalism, and doesn't convert the stuff for those who find miraculous parlor tricks beside the point and the mere suggestion of cannibalism abhorrent. Does anyone here care to deny that God could make that distinction and act upon it, if He so chose?

It's somewhat like fillioquism, only significantly more serious. (this is a rather simplistic explanation, but I would like to K.I.S.S. for now) The Church keeps the eucharist "closed" (that is, not given to those not members of the Church) precisely because of the grave seriousness of it handed down to us through tradition. Christ being equally God and Man makes partaking in His body/blood a big deal. It is not a "parlor trick". A priest has apostolic succession, and thus the same authority to provide the eucharist as the apostles themselves-who also believed in and taught the literalness of the sacrament. Again, a pretty big deal.

Hope this is a sufficient reply. If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay. Silly argument. But I'll play along. What do you believe "man lying with man" is a metaphor for? In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious. The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood. And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent. By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women. It happens all the time. So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.

That's a euphamism, not metaphor. It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick

[jmdrake]

That's a euphamism, not metaphor. It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick

Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism". /nitpick

[jmdrake]

That's a euphamism, not metaphor. It's the way people talked about "homosexual relations" at the time. /nitpick

Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism". /nitpick

[fisharmor]

Okay. Silly argument.

I agree. That's why I stopped making it about four years ago. And why I try to convince others it's silly.

But I'll play along. What do you believe "man lying with man" is a metaphor for? In the case of the belief about the Eucharist, the metaphor is obvious. The bread and wine neither look like nor taste like nor upon scientific examination analyze to being real human flesh and blood. And Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" so the alternative explanation, that it means "Think of Me as you eat this" as opposed to "eat me" (no pun intended) is apparent. By contrast you don't have to "imagine" men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women. It happens all the time. So unless you have some obvious alternative interpretation, you can't just claim "metaphor" and be done with it.

The point you're not addressing is that it doesn't matter what I say it is! I've stated I don't believe any of this stuff. I'm not championing this position: I'm only pointing out that this position exists. Whether or not you and I agree on this issue is also immaterial. There is an argument in favor of homosexuality which is functionally identical to the argument that the Eucharist is only a remembrance. I am asking you and Kevin to reconcile the fact that you do not believe this argument despite its being functionally identical to the one you're making.

So again, on the issue of homosexuality,
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

[heavenlyboy34]

Except fishamor used the term "metaphor" so if you're trying to support his argument you can't switch over to "euphamism". /nitpick

ok. n/m. I should've aimed at fish. Sorry for fragging you. ~hugs~

[jmdrake]

I agree. That's why I stopped making it about four years ago. And why I try to convince others it's silly.



The point you're not addressing is that it doesn't matter what I say it is! I've stated I don't believe any of this stuff. I'm not championing this position: I'm only pointing out that this position exists. Whether or not you and I agree on this issue is also immaterial. There is an argument in favor of homosexuality which is functionally identical to the argument that the Eucharist is only a remembrance. I am asking you and Kevin to reconcile the fact that you do not believe this argument despite its being functionally identical to the one you're making.

So again, on the issue of homosexuality,
1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

Okay. So you are playing a game of make believe and only pretending to make an argument. Again the argument you have proposed is not functionally equivalent to the argument being proposed about the Eucharist. It's one thing to say here is another alternative interpretation. It's another thing to say an alternative interpretation might exist.

[acptulsa]

Hope this is a sufficient reply. If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.

But that's not what I don't understand. What I don't understand is, how can someone believe it's a bad thing to give any one person legitimacy to administer the worldly affairs of man by voting for him or her, but insists on entrusting mere mortals with the sole authority to do things that God clearly can handle Himself, and seems to prefer to handle Himself.

[heavenlyboy34]

But that's not what I don't understand. What I don't understand is, how can someone believe it's a bad thing to give any one person legitimacy to administer the worldly affairs of man by voting for him or her, but insists on entrusting mere mortals with the sole authority to do things that God clearly can handle Himself, and seems to prefer to handle Himself.

You are talking about the sacraments vs politics, yes? Governments/States are satanic institutions of this fallen world and have nothing to do with God. State regimes will be destroyed when He returns.

On the other hand, sacramental traditions were instituted by God for our benefit.

[Terry1]

Calling HB! You need to clear out your inbox. I'm out of reps so this is the only way I could tell you because your inbox is full baby. LMAO here

Okay--sorry for the interruption--carry on then and thanks.

[heavenlyboy34]

Calling HB! You need to clear out your inbox. I'm out of reps so this is the only way I could tell you because your inbox is full baby. LMAO here

Okay--sorry for the interruption--carry on then and thanks.

okay, I cleared some inbox space. xoxoxo I'm pretty popular, ya know.

[fisharmor]

Okay. So you are playing a game of make believe and only pretending to make an argument. Again the argument you have proposed is not functionally equivalent to the argument being proposed about the Eucharist. It's one thing to say here is another alternative interpretation. It's another thing to say an alternative interpretation might exist.

Well, on the first page of hits on a google search of "homosexuality is biblical", I found this actually existing argument which lines up exactly with what I was reporting, because it's an actually existing argument that actually exists, because when I stated earlier that it's an actually existing argument I actually was trying to convey that it actually exists.
https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

It is functionally equivalent to the anti-Eucharist argument, even down to decrying those who adhere to it as merely traditionalists.

So, the questions, again, are

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the actually existing ones which normalize homosexuality?

[acptulsa]

You are talking about the sacraments vs politics, yes? Governments/States are satanic institutions of this fallen world and have nothing to do with God. State regimes will be destroyed when He returns.

On the other hand, sacramental traditions were instituted by God for our benefit.

Entrust unto Caesar what is of God, and entrust unto God what God has left to Caesar.

Got it. I think...

[jmdrake]

Well, on the first page of hits on a google search of "homosexuality is biblical", I found this actually existing argument which lines up exactly with what I was reporting, because it's an actually existing argument that actually exists, because when I stated earlier that it's an actually existing argument I actually was trying to convey that it actually exists.
https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

It is functionally equivalent to the anti-Eucharist argument, even down to decrying those who adhere to it as merely traditionalists.

So, the questions, again, are

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the actually existing ones which normalize homosexuality?

Okay. You just wasted my time. The link that you sent me to did not claim that the prohibitions against homosexuality were "metaphors" for anything. Quite the opposite. The argument regarding Leviticus was "Well that only applied to the Jews". But he doesn't say it's talking about something other than men lying with men. Nice try though.

[jmdrake]

It's somewhat like fillioquism, only significantly more serious. (this is a rather simplistic explanation, but I would like to K.I.S.S. for now) The Church keeps the eucharist "closed" (that is, not given to those not members of the Church) precisely because of the grave seriousness of it handed down to us through tradition. Christ being equally God and Man makes partaking in His body/blood a big deal. It is not a "parlor trick". A priest has apostolic succession, and thus the same authority to provide the eucharist as the apostles themselves-who also believed in and taught the literalness of the sacrament. Again, a pretty big deal.

Hope this is a sufficient reply. If not, I'll work on another one ASAP.

Yep. It's a control thing. The priest, even if the ones who's lifestyle shows they are not worthy to be priests, are "entrusted" because of "apostolic succession". So it doesn't matter if the only priest is utterly wicked. He's been "blessed" through "apostolic succession".

[fisharmor]

Okay. You just wasted my time. The link that you sent me to did not claim that the prohibitions against homosexuality were "metaphors" for anything. Quite the opposite. The argument regarding Leviticus was "Well that only applied to the Jews". But he doesn't say it's talking about something other than men lying with men. Nice try though.

Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?
Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?
That is the point of dragging homosexuality into this. The exact same arguments used against the Eucharist are used in favor of homosexuality.
Do you genuinely not understand that I'm not making the pro-homosexuality argument at all?
Given that I'm asking these questions for the fifth time now, I can't help but think you're not making any attempt to read what I write.

I'll try a fifth time, though:

1) Whose interpretation of these verses are you using?
and
2) What makes that interpretation authoritative over the ones which normalize homosexuality?

[jmdrake]

Do you not see that my metaphor comment was nothing more than using your own argument against you?

Except you failed to actually do that. You claimed to use a metaphor argument but you never actually made one. Then you linked to a website that didn't make a metaphor argument either.

Do you not see that that's all I've been doing since the beginning?

Failing? Yes. I see that's what you have been doing. Now what is your point?