Church Communion - is it wrong?
-
"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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53
When John 6 is prayerfully read, we see how Jesus gradually teaches the faithful about the life-giving bread from heaven that He will give to the world (through the multiplication of the loaves, the reference to the raining manna given to the Israelites, and finally to the bread that Jesus will give which is His flesh). When the Jews question Jesus about how he could possibly give them His flesh to eat, Jesus becomes more literal in His explanation. As we learned in the link on The Eucharist, Jesus says several times that we must eat (in Greek, "phago") His flesh to gain eternal life (which literally means "to chew").
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."
When the Jews further question the strangeness of His teaching, Jesus uses an even more literal verb (in Greek, "trogo") to describe how we must eat His flesh to have eternal life (which literally means "to gnaw or crunch"). The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (Matt. 24:38; John 13:1
and it is always used literally (physically eating). Protestants are unable to provide a single example of where "trogo" is ever used in a symbolic sense. To drive His point home, Jesus says that His flesh is real food indeed, and His blood is real drink indeed (Jesus says nothing about the bread being a symbol of His body and blood).
What is perhaps most compelling about the foregoing passages is what happens at the end of Jesus' discourse. We know that the Jews understood Jesus as speaking literally. This is demonstrated by their question, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" They could not conceive of why consuming Jesus' flesh was life-giving and how they could possibly do such a thing. We also know that Jesus responds to their question by being even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But we learn at the end of Jesus' discourse that many of His followers, because of the difficulty of His teaching, decided to no longer follow Him - and Jesus let them go. Then He turned to His apostles and asked them, "Will you also go away?"
1 Corinthians 11:27
How can u be guilty of PROFANING a symbol??? -
[quote]Matthew Henry Concise EditionOriginally posted by Pope Nicholas:
"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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53
[/quote]See below commentaries.John Wesley's Notes on the Bible
Verse 53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man - Spiritually: unless ye draw continual virtue from him by faith. Eating his flesh is only another expression for believing.
Verses 52-59 The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; 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 way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also. -
LOL...thats a first.Originally posted by Skibi:
Eating his flesh has 2 meanings
1) Symbolic which means to revile to hate, to assault
2) Physical as in literally eating or chew (trogo) his flesh.
1) is impossible for then it means all those who hates christ will be saved
2) is true as it can be linke dto the Last Supper
Instead of refering to a 20th century Protestant exegetes, lets see the exegis of the Church Fathers instead.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
I selected quotes from Ignatius who was ordained by Peter in Antioch and disciple of John and Irenaus who was taught by the Apostle john favourite student, Polycarp. They know Apostolic teachings more than Matthew Henry. -
Wesley is 20th century exegete?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Instead of refering to a 20th century Protestant exegetes, lets see the exegis of the Church Fathers instead.
-
Im reckoning this guy is "Matthew Henry"Originally posted by Icemoon:Wesley is 20th century exegete?
Not refering to the Reformer Wesley.
Icemoon is Johann Eck good theoligcan? -
Don't think so.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Icemoon is Johann Eck good theoligcan?
For theology .. I slant towards the Protestant giants.
Ok la .. to humour you a bit.
As an analogy,
The Catholic Church is like Shaolin (Shaolin has North and South, just like Catholic's east and west).
The Protestant Church is like .. *drums roll* .. Wudang.
Shaolin might have the eminent Da Mo, but the monks later on were pretty shitty, even for the abbot.
Zhang Sanfeng of Wudang created his own school of martial arts .. taiji quan, taiji jian and the famous Wudang 5 disciples formation. And others.
So in terms of talents, Zhang Sanfeng was definitely more talented.
The Shaolin monks are just like Catholic priests. Numerous but shitty. The monks supposedly inherited the 72 arts of Shaolin, but how many of them actually could use even one or two arts formidably?
But even Zhang Sanfeng'd admit .. all martial arts come from Shaolin.
And oh yes .. Zhang Sangfeng used to be Shaolin monk in the past, just like Luther from Catholic Church.
Emei should be linked to John Calvin because Priestess Miejue was murderous, just like Calvin. -
Your knowledge of history is laughable.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Im reckoning this guy is "Matthew Henry"
Not refering to the Reformer Wesley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_HenryMatthew Henry (October 18, 1662 – June 22, 1714), was an English non-conformist clergyman
Mr Henry even older than Wesley you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_WesleyJohn Wesley (June 17, 1703 – March 2, 1791) was an 18th-century Anglican clergyman and Christian theologian who was an early leader in the Methodist movement.
PS: my knowledge of history sucks. I didn't know Wesley was Anglican. -
HAHAHA...brilliant LOLOriginally posted by Icemoon:Don't think so.
For theology .. I slant towards the Protestant giants.
Ok la .. to humour you a bit.
As an analogy,
The Catholic Church is like Shaolin (Shaolin has North and South, just like Catholic's east and west).
The Protestant Church is like .. *drums roll* .. Wudang.
Shaolin might have the eminent Da Mo, but the monks later on were pretty shitty, even for the abbot.
Zhang Sanfeng of Wudang created his own school of martial arts .. taiji quan, taiji jian and the famous Wudang 5 disciples formation. And others.
So in terms of talents, Zhang Sanfeng was definitely more talented.
The Shaolin monks are just like Catholic priests. Numerous but shitty. The monks supposedly inherited the 72 arts of Shaolin, but how many of them actually could use even one or two arts formidably?
But even Zhang Sanfeng'd admit .. all martial arts come from Shaolin.
And oh yes .. Zhang Sangfeng used to be Shaolin monk in the past, just like Luther from Catholic Church.
Emei should be linked to John Calvin because Priestess Miejue was murderous, just like Calvin.
I hold present day, the average Protestant knows hell lot more than the average catholic. But the catholic apologist can whip the protestant apologist. Talking modern day times only haha
Hint: Go to yahoo and type protestant apologist. Half of teh top ten are CATHOLIC sites.
I feel the Protestant Reformers theolgies on the other hand was strong and coherent to Scripture. Why do modern day protestant ridicule them is beyond me....
But i read the Johann Eck beat Martin Luther and other Reformers ind ebates as well. Though he did lose a few as well haha.
Despite the fact that Eck was thus virtually forced to abandon his position, he succeeded, through his good memory and his dialectic skill, in confusing the heavy-witted Karlstadt and carried off the nominal victory. He was far less successful against Luther, who, as Eck himself confessed, was his superior in memory, acumen, and learning. After a disputation on the absolute supremacy of the papacy, purgatory, penance, etc., lasting twenty-three days (4 July–27 July), the arbitrators declined to give a verdict, but the general impression was that victory rested with Eck. He did succeed in making Luther admit that there was some truth in the Hussite opinions and declare himself against the pope, but this success only embittered his animosity against his opponents, and from that time his whole efforts were devoted to Luther's overthrow. Eck was greeted as victor by the theologians of the University of Leipzig, who overwhelmed him with honors and sent him away with gifts.
At Baden-in-Aargau from May 21 until June 18, 1526 a public disputation on the doctrine of transubstantiation was held, in which Eck and Thomas Murner were pitted against Johann Oecolampadius. The affair ended decidedly in favor of Eck, who induced the authorities to enter on a course of active persecution of Zwingli and his followers (Conference of Baden).
The effect of his victory at Baden was dissipated, however, at the Disputation of Bern (January 152, where the propositions advanced by the Reformers were debated in the absence of Eck, and Bern, Basel, and other places were definitely won for the Reformation. At the Diet of Augsburg (1530) Eck played the leading part among the Roman Catholic theologians.
Perhaps they were of equal strength??? -
Is it any wonder that the English subtitles label Er Mei as Heretic Sect?Originally posted by Icemoon:Emei should be linked to John Calvin because Priestess Miejue was murderous, just like Calvin. -
What does this prove?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I hold present day, the average Protestant knows hell lot more than the average catholic. But the catholic apologist can whip the protestant apologist. Talking modern day times only haha
Hint: Go to yahoo and type protestant apologist. Half of teh top ten are CATHOLIC sites.
Actually it is common sense that protestant apologists are stronger if we consider only Scripture.
As an analogy - do you think you can walk faster than a blind man in the dark?
Don't forget faith is a conviction of things not seen (Heb 11). Protestants have been walking in the dark since the Reformation, they do it with faith. Catholics are too used to holding a torchlight or madlight. If there is a blackout (or EMP attack), can Catholic walk faster than the Protestant? -
got meh?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Is it any wonder that the English subtitles label Er Mei as Heretic Sect?
Ming Jiao then is the heretic sect lah.
Er Mei is righteous sect. -
Got leh. I can't remember which show.Originally posted by Icemoon:got meh?
Ming Jiao then is the heretic sect lah.
Er Mei is righteous sect. -
Christ is our light.Originally posted by Icemoon:Don't forget faith is a conviction of things not seen (Heb 11). Protestants have been walking in the dark since the Reformation, they do it with faith. Catholics are too used to holding a torchlight or madlight. If there is a blackout (or EMP attack), can Catholic walk faster than the Protestant? -
Only appeared in yi tian tu long ji mah.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Got leh. I can't remember which show.
Er Mei part of the six big sects. -
miet juet shi tai - shang miet xia juetOriginally posted by Icemoon:Only appeared in yi tian tu long ji mah.
Er Mei part of the six big sects. -
Even with that, can you run to him first before knocking onto the things in the dark?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Christ is our light.
Maybe you run halfway step on banana skin?
And you stumble.