Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you

[Spiderman]

The belief is that 100% of Jesus is contained in the Eucharist ...his entirety

 

[psychoslice]

The belief is that 100% of Jesus is contained in the Eucharist ...his entirety

Which is stupid, come on lets face it.

 

[Spiderman]

Which is stupid, come on lets face it.

Ya never know... Maybe God wants the truth to appear stupid to us...what time is it in Australia? . It's 11:44 over here...I'm getting ready to sleep

 

[psychoslice]

Ya never know... Maybe God wants the truth to appear stupid to us...what time is it in Australia? . It's 11:44 over here...I'm getting ready to sleep

Its right here on 3.49 in the afternoon.

 

[Kemosloby]

Regular people can give communion. The only difference is that they can't consecrate the bread and wine and they can't hear confessions. (Couple other sacraments but usually not the big ones people fuss over)

So you say. Bible doesn't say that. Bible says confess your sins to one another. And didn't put anyone in charge of consecrating bread and wine. Only one person does that, Christ who is in heaven. So anyone who gives thanks for the bread and wine in his name consecrates the bread and wine. Don't need any earthly priests.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. its true, the fundamentalist do believe that.

That they eat jesus bone and dna? Maybe its a handful of congregation but I asked the priest to his face if that was true before deciding confirmation and he just laughed. That and praying to statues are the two I laugh at all the time.

 

[psychoslice]

That they eat jesus bone and dna? Maybe its a handful of congregation but I asked the priest to his face if that was true before deciding confirmation and he just laughed. That and praying to statues are the two I laugh at all the time.

Well yes, to me personally its all a laugh, that's why i don't believe in all that rote.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So you say. Bible doesn't say that. Bible says confess your sins to one another. And didn't put anyone in charge of consecrating bread and wine. Only one person does that, Christ who is in heaven. So anyone who gives thanks for the bread and wine in his name consecrates the bread and wine. Don't need any earthly priests.

Im just saying what Catholics teach. Regular joe smoes can give out communion. So your post about that was wrong technicaly.

As for concecration, if Im not mistaken (or most likely corrected) Catholics believe jesus gave the apostles the authority to continue concecrating (blessing) the bread and wine as so when christians come into communion they become the body (church) and blood (life) of jesus christ.

Christians pray over their food all the time. I laugh sometimes the way they do at thanksgiving because they are so against catholics but my family dont realize they are blinded by gold.

 

[wizanda]

John

John is made up.

 

[oldbadger]

John is made up.

Yes........ I think so as well.
Snippets of truth jumbled up into John's agenda.

Sadly Christians took good genuine works and messed with them as well, both in and out of the bible. I think that 90% of G-Mark is the real story as experienced by Cephas and others, but look at this piece which I believe is an 'edit':-

{14:22} And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and
blessed, and brake [it,] and gave to them, and said, Take
eat: this is my body. {14:23} And he took the cup, and
when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it. {14:24} And he said unto them, This is my
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

My guess is that Jesus did break bread and offer it round, and filled the grails (?) and said something like 'Each year on this night, please eat and drink to my memory.'

But if Christianity was to reverse into the Roman cultures they needed more than that, together with a suitable Goddess, etc.

 

[wizanda]

I think that 90% of G-Mark is the real story as experienced by Cephas and others

In Acts it tells us that it is John-Mark the Evangelist....

Mark contains the most graphical description of the transfiguration; explaining they were as white as snow, therefore the author of Mark is possibly an eye witness.

Since it isn't James, and Simon was confused, which is why Yeshua called him a pebble that can trip us up (petros)...

Then it is more likely that John the disciple, is really John-Mark.

On the other hand, in the gospel of John there is numerous testimonies that come direct from Simon, and it is said at the end that they (Sanhedrin) took the information for the gospel from a disciple... i.e peter.

'Each year on this night, please eat and drink to my memory.'

Yeshua said "share bread in remembrance of him", which is something we found the Essenes doing, to show brotherly love, and the unity (Oneness) of having made the bread together, it being shared together.

On the other hand, Paul is the person who instigated holy communion, saying "we should drink wine in remembrance of jesus".

Which is contrary to the Law, you shall not drink the blood of an offering, else you will be thrown out by God.

Revelation 16:6 For they poured out the blood of the saints and the prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. They deserve this."

Yeshua told his disciples not to drink of the vine, until the coming of the kingdom....Not that it applied to only himself.

Matthew 10:42 Whoever gives one of these little ones just a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a disciple, most certainly I tell you he will in no way lose his reward."


What the gospel of John is doing with its 'eat blood and flesh', is a direct quote from the start of the Torah, to make jesus look like he was defiling the law on purpose.

Genesis 9:4-6 But flesh with its life, that is, its blood, you shall not eat. (5) I will surely require accounting for your life’s blood. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man. (6) Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image.

 

[pearl]

As for concecration, if Im not mistaken (or most likely corrected) Catholics believe jesus gave the apostles the authority to continue concecrating (blessing) the bread and wine as so when christians come into communion they become the body (church) and blood (life) of jesus christ.

Raises interesting questions. Would Jesus, reclining at the Last Supper, be concerned with the continuing eucharists of the church and those who would preside at them? Fundamentalists Catholics confuse a humanly expressed dogma with divine revelation. Development, in this case of an ordained priesthood established by Christ, must take under consideration the Christology, liturgy, etc of the next 100 years which interpreted the original words and action of Jesus at the Last Supper.

Among Jesus' disciples there were the Twelve to whom Jesus gave a mission of 'seating in judgment of the Twelve tribes of Israel. They could not be replaced upon their death.

The priest does not consecrate the bread and wine, but invokes the Holy Spirit. You are correct, it is the Spirit of Christ that consecrates.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Raises interesting questions. Would Jesus, reclining at the Last Supper, be concerned with the continuing eucharists of the church and those who would preside at them? Fundamentalists Catholics confuse a humanly expressed dogma with divine revelation. Development, in this case of an ordained priesthood established by Christ, must take under consideration the Christology, liturgy, etc of the next 100 years which interpreted the original words and action of Jesus at the Last Supper.

Among Jesus' disciples there were the Twelve to whom Jesus gave a mission of 'seating in judgment of the Twelve tribes of Israel. They could not be replaced upon their death.

The priest does not consecrate the bread and wine, but invokes the Holy Spirit. You are correct, it is the Spirit of Christ that consecrates.

That makes sense. I hate to say this, but if fundementalist want to follow Christianity, it starts with the Apostles. If they want to follow Jesus, it starts with Judaism. In my view, either follow the Apostles (the Church) or communicate directly with the creator through Christ (without the apostles).

The mixing of the two causes confusion and even more so trying to back up their beliefs when one of the huge cues that christianity started from the Church is that the Church are the ones who decided what books are inspired. Most religious leaders had oral teachings first; so, probably half of jesus teachings were lost. Then to be more close to christianity, they'd have to understand that the Church is part of that foundation of those oral teachings. What is it, "ex cartha"?

But then many like to believe in the life and resurrection but forget that repentance is an ongoing thing. If they repent more than once, why is the sacrifice a one time thing. For everyone who becomes christian, jesus sacrifices himself by their baptism, confession, and communion.

What did my friend told me..... "if you stayed in Catholicism, you'd be a very deeply devoted catholic" meaning it would be my passion not my belief.

 

[Stalwart]

Jesus did not require sacrifice of any kind.

He often spoke against sacrifice as a means of Remission from Sins.
John the Baptist was against sacrifice for the Remission of sins.

The whole communion looks to be a pagan ritual which Christianity reversed into.

The purpose of Christ's incarnation was for the fulfilment of His ultimate sacrifice, for the remission of all sins.

 

[Stalwart]

No. its true, the fundamentalist do believe that.

You're talking out of your arse, and have absolutely no idea.

In Holy Communion, we consume the actual, true, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is communed to us in the form of bread and wine, as it was in the Last Supper. The physical element remains bread and wine, but the essential substance of both, through Consecration, have since become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We are not consuming physical, recognisable flesh and blood-matter; we are consuming it in wholeness in a different form; an alternative medium.

The physical nature of a thing does not define its actual substance. The two are separate from each other.

 

[oldbadger]

The purpose of Christ's incarnation was for the fulfilment of His ultimate sacrifice, for the remission of all sins.

No. The purpose of Yeshua BarYosef's mission was to reinstate the old laws, ignored by the hypocriticaand mostly Hellenised Priesthood.

You should read what John the Immerser thought about them. And both offered alternative methods of Remission from Sins to the crushing costs of sacrifice in the Great Temple.

It's all there in the real story within G-Mark.

 

[psychoslice]

You're talking out of your arse, and have absolutely no idea.

In Holy Communion, we consume the actual, true, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is communed to us in the form of bread and wine, as it was in the Last Supper. The physical element remains bread and wine, but the essential substance of both, through Consecration, have since become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We are not consuming physical, recognisable flesh and blood-matter; we are consuming it in wholeness in a different form; an alternative medium.

The physical nature of a thing does not define its actual substance. The two are separate from each other.

Many do believe that its the blood and body of Jesus, it doesn't matter if you believe it is transformed into the blood and body, the belief is still there.............I wont report you for your remake.

 

[pearl]

That makes sense. I hate to say this, but if fundementalist want to follow Christianity, it starts with the Apostles. If they want to follow Jesus, it starts with Judaism.

But the Apostles and the early communities were all Jews as was Jesus. One of the great mistakes of Christianity is to strip Jesus of his Judaism.

the Church are the ones who decided what books are inspired. Most religious leaders had oral teachings first; so, probably half of jesus teachings were lost. Then to be more close to christianity, they'd have to understand that the Church is part of that foundation of those oral teachings.

The Church more than selected, the NT is a product of the Church. There was church before any writing. They worshiped in the synagogue, and later gathered for Eucharist.

In the study of NT there is recognized 3 stages of development. Going back layer after layer scholars attempt to identify a 'Sitz im Laban', (sits in life), in the life of the church and in the life of Jesus and especially the Sitz im Evangelium, (the situation of the particular church communities, who penned the Gospels. There is no guaranty that what is found in the Gospels is the exact same as Jesus spoke to his apostles, there is no way back to that stage.

But then many like to believe in the life and resurrection but forget that repentance is an ongoing thing. If they repent more than once, why is the sacrifice a one time thing. For everyone who becomes christian, jesus sacrifices himself by their baptism, confession, and communion.

God knows the heart, repentance, conversion. Peter asked Jesus how many times must they forgive, 7 times? Jesus replied, '70 times7', always. Whether one seeks God's forgiveness through the priest or directly from God who knows the heart. In the parable of the two sons, the father did not wait for a confession, but ran out to meet him.

What did my friend told me..... "if you stayed in Catholicism, you'd be a very deeply devoted catholic" meaning it would be my passion not my belief.

How could one be devoted to something one does not believe?

 

[pearl]

In Holy Communion, we consume the actual, true, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

And we are consumed by Him.

It is communed to us in the form of bread and wine, as it was in the Last Supper.

What Jesus did at the 'Last Supper' was in anticipation of his D/R, was not yet his flesh and blood since Jesus was still alive.

We are not consuming physical, recognisable flesh and blood-matter; we are consuming it in wholeness in a different form; an alternative medium.

I'm sure it was just as much a mystery to those who wrote. I think it will continue to be a Mystery.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the Apostles and the early communities were all Jews as was Jesus. One of the great mistakes of Christianity is to strip Jesus of his Judaism.

The issue, though, was Jesus put himself in a position between man and creator. Judaism doesn't teach "intermediary." Unless jesus was lying about his position, I don't see how the two religions relate other than their ethnicity, culture, and they believe in a creator.

The Church more than selected, the NT is a product of the Church. There was church before any writing. They worshiped in the synagogue, and later gathered for Eucharist.

The Church did choose what books were inspired, though. That's my hang up.

In the study of NT there is recognized 3 stages of development. Going back layer after layer scholars attempt to identify a 'Sitz im Laban', (sits in life), in the life of the church and in the life of Jesus and especially the Sitz im Evangelium, (the situation of the particular church communities, who penned the Gospels. There is no guaranty that what is found in the Gospels is the exact same as Jesus spoke to his apostles, there is no way back to that stage.

I don't know enough about biblical history to comment.

God knows the heart, repentance, conversion. Peter asked Jesus how many times must they forgive, 7 times? Jesus replied, '70 times7', always. Whether one seeks God's forgiveness through the priest or directly from God who knows the heart. In the parable of the two sons, the father did not wait for a confession, but ran out to meet him.

Repentance is an ongoing thing (70 times 7 times X). If it were not, how can people be christians.

How could one be devoted to something one does not believe?

I never questioned it when I practiced. The belief was in the sacraments and practice not "the sinner's prayer" type of thing. You believe unto initiation into the Church. It's not like shopping for churches to go to, type of thing.

Now, I can reflect on how I believed compared to those in the Church and how I define god compared to the rest of the congregation. We have different views so taking the Eucharist became inappropriate. Confession doesn't make sense if you don't believe some one will forgive you. Communion doesn't make sense if you are not in communion with people of like-mind.

But then I never had that. It was an intimate experience not a belief.