The Eucharist: Body and Blood of Christ

I'm Catholic, so i personally believe its the body and blood of Christ. It's a miracle which can only be done through a priest.

Alot of people don't believe in it. and i want to hear your opinions.

I believe its a miracle and it is. And miracles don't work unless you have faith and believe it will work. When Jesus gave sight to the blind man, it didn't work the first time because he didn't believe, then he believed and it worked the second time.

So, thats why i believe people don't experience it and understand it. They don't believe.

What are all your opinions, for or against

Originally posted by soshootme
I'm Catholic, so i personally believe its the body and blood of Christ. It's a miracle which can only be done through a priest.

Alot of people don't believe in it. and i want to hear your opinions.

I believe its a miracle and it is. And miracles don't work unless you have faith and believe it will work. When Jesus gave sight to the blind man, it didn't work the first time because he didn't believe, then he believed and it worked the second time.

So, thats why i believe people don't experience it and understand it. They don't believe.

What are all your opinions, for or against

I agree with you completely. The Holy Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ at the moment that it is consecrated by a priest. One of the greates of all miracles and deepest of mysteries. There have even been times when people witnessed the Host miraculously develop blood stains. This shows that the power of God is limitless and can even transform bread into manna -- the body and blood and soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I completely and totally deny it, not based on my personal opinion, but rather based on the fact that no where does Scripture support it.

John 6 is not even about communion in any way nor Jesus last meal. The context of John 6 is about a "thinning of the ranks" so to speak.

A flesh and blood body that manifests the express image of the FATHER by being quickened (brought to true life) by the soul of Christ (which is THE holy spirit, both LIFE and LOVE)

is the eucharist.

It's not about ritual or ceremony - it is about active participation and manifestation!

The rest is superstition which is not at all as powerful as symbolism - which the very same thing could be transformed into...

and by doing so....

MUCH would be overcome in this world.

Originally posted by UnrealZA
John 6 is not even about communion in any way

Yes it is.

Originally posted by soshootme
And miracles don't work unless you have faith and believe it will work.

The Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, through the priest, no matter what the person receiving it 'feels'. It becomes the Body and Blood of Christ no matter what state of grace the priest is in. It is fully and completely a miracle each and every time and it is not subject to the 'feelings' or 'thoughts' of the receivers.

Originally posted by soshootme
What are all your opinions, for or against

I REALLY wish you hadn't started this thread. It's just going to get into a scripture spitting contest. The fact is that the Eucharist is indeed in scripture and alluded to many times. There are plenty of books and bible studies out that can explain it. You're asking for opinions is just calling open season for a bunch of brainwashed and/or ignorant anti-Catholic yahoos to state their uneducated and biased opinions.

There is no merit in this and there is no reason for it.

www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

[edit on 11/28/2006 by FlyersFan]

Again, no where in John 6 does it speak of nor allude to the Roman Catholic doctrine, dogma nor idea of the Eucharist. I would challenge anyone to present their case.

Transubstantiation is a really neat word and a fancy idea but no where within Scripture.

Lastly, healthy debate harms no one.

Originally posted by queenannie38

and by doing so....

MUCH would be overcome in this world.

Yes that is the key to spreadng the light. Manifestation and intent. We will overcome.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by UnrealZA
Again, no where in John 6 does it speak of nor allude to the Roman Catholic doctrine, dogma nor idea of the Eucharist.

Again, yes it does.

I already gave two links where you could educate yourself on this. Go read them.
www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

The FACT is that at the Last Supper Christ said 'this is my body .. this is my blood.' He didn't say 'this is LIKE my body ..'

In John 6 he gave the command. At the last supper he gave the vehicle to execute his command. It's just that simple.

I'm not going to argue the point because it's already been discussed at length here MANY times and I'm sick of it and I'm sick of anti-Catholic fundamentalist propaganda that was hammered into brainwashed followers who believe the crap that spews from their pulpits.

It's not Biblical to believe this, and is deadly. This is not how salvation is accomplished.

I find the flesh worship of Catholicism and the Idolatry of the flesh they display in their religous practice runs contradictory to Yeshua's original teachings as written in the New Testament.

The Last Supper, when Yeshua (yes that was his real name, not "Jesus", who dat?) said this is my flesh and blood, theres a major difference making it okay -- his flesh was still alive, and on his bones, with his unrefutable soul present within the flesh.

A dead body has not a soul for it has left the body, or lies in wait until judgement, depending on your interpretation on the Apocalypse of John (of Patmos).

I do not wish to insult or criticize, but think of it as this .. when you see an effigy of "Jesus" nailed to wooden boards, dead and bleeding at the head of the congregation, im sure it instills great shame but also joy because it reminds you of his sacrifice for you, right? But dont you find it the slightest bit 'weird' that they worship an IDOL, an IMAGE, of the DEAD FLESH of the Messiah, which all throughout the bible its explicit that the flesh is mere dust and to earth it returns. Worshipping an idol of the dead Christ bleeding and in pain .. no wonder people who are most devout come down with Stigmata -- its psychosomatic, they've been staring at Yeshua dead or dying on a cruel roman crucifix their entire lives, feeling guilty, and happy, because of it. It gets to the point that their brain will cause these wounds theyve seen their entire lives and related to, to actually form on the palms or wrists.

I would think they'd worship not the Cross, not Jesus' dead or dying flesh on the Cross, but rather a depiction of Jesus as he was described during his resurrection. Angelic and Heavenly. How about a Christ standing upright with a scale in one hand and an olive branch in the other, with a crown of GOLD not thorns, standing at the front of the congregation? I would like that alot better, I think Jesus would too. Thats just my opinion.

Edit: Allow me to guess a reply. Someone is going to say that when Jesus resurrected on the 3rd day, he was still in his flesh, and he kept his flesh as he ascended to heaven. Therefore he'd theoreticly still have his flesh today. But lets be realistic, the ressurection was of the spirit or the soul. Yeshua's body, though divine in life on earth, though born of a virgin, was still raised in her womb, on this planet, with the nutrients all other children in the womb are raised on. And his child years, the same. So his flesh itself came from the Earth, his soul and ultimately thus his being (because the flesh is nothing - its a fallacy) came from the Father, and to which it returned until another day. Soon I hope.

I hope he returns soon, is universally recognized as the Jewish Messiah, the Christian Messiah, and Isa(Jesus) the Prophet who returns to deliver the world from evil at the end times in Islam. The precursor to Mohammed. Without the radicalism of Yeshua, would Mohammed have had the same inspirations? Isa(Jesus) is actually a major figure in Islam, i'd say one of the three most important prophets in Islam(Isa, Mahdi the hidden Imam, and Mohammed).

Division creates difference creates tension creates violence creates hatred and reprisal. Thus is the ever rotating cycle of the 3 monotheistic religons. It is time to combine them all, and only the Messiah can do it, through everlasting grace.

[edit on 11/29/2006 by runetang]

AMEN!

to:
FlyersFan
LoneGunMan
Runetang

Communion is symbolism. We're supposed to remember the Lord's death and suffering and the "elements" are to help us remember. "this do in remembrance of Me." (1 Corinthians 11:25) If we took every piece of symbolism so literal Christianity would have no living members. We would be converted and then crucified the next day.

Luke 9:23-24 (NIV) Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Mark 8:34-35 (NIV) Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mat 10:38 (NIV) ... anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Should I then submit that anyone who has not been crucified is not a true Christian? Of course not. These verses, and the verses regarding communion are symbolism. Funny how Catholics pick and choose the verses to take literal. Can any of you honestly tell me that the wine actually tasted like blood? You know, the taste you get when you bite your tongue on accident or when you just had a tooth pulled. I'm not Catholic, but I've been to their services and it was simply bread and wine the priest gave out.

Flyers,

I noticed the links and I , to better know where I am coming from, am from a Roman Catholic backgrouond. My entire family is pretty much Roman Catholic, I was raised as such and I have studied it rather thoroughly so I am not the run-o-the-mill "protesting" protestant that perhaps you and other Roman Catholics run into.

I ask that you please fully read my replies and that you give seriouis consideration to my rebuttal.

Bread is the staple of the Jewish diet and is used in all their feasts and thus all Jews could identify with it. It was their major food item. Jesus used bread and the making of it as an analogy to sin, Luke 13:21. Jesus spoke to His disciples about the "yeast of the Pharisees" in Matt. 16:6-11. So again "bread" was well known.

We see a clear pattern to Jesus and His teachings so far in John. In John 3 He speaks of a "spiritual" birth to Nicodemus. Nicodemus was hung up on the physical. In John 4 Jesus speaks to a Samarian woman about "spiritual" thirst and water. The water He gives will cause no more thirst (spiritually). The woman has physical water in her mind.

Here again in John 6 Jesus is speaking of a "spiritual" food for we know that no physical food can get us into heaven.

John 6:27
27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
NASU

Rome sites several passages as evidence for their doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist.

John 6:50-51
50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
NASU

These two by themselves appear to agree but when taken within their surrounding context Rome's meaning just can't be true. If verse 51 is to be taken "literally" as Rome claims then what do we do with verse 47 where Jesus also states -

John 6:47
7 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
NASU

Here we have the word "believes", which brings about eternal life" contrasted with "eat My flesh". The funny thing is that verse 51 says NOTHING about the eating of Jesus flesh but rather how He associates Himself with bread (manna) coming out of heaven and how this bread represents His "flesh" (body) that He shall "give for the life of the world.....".

Let's contrast several other passages. These passages are the most literal in this discourse and Rome makes sure people know it.

John 6:53-54
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.
NASU

Again reading these alone and it sure seems like Rome is correct yet taken within the fuller context and we get something different. Compare the above passages with these below.

John 6:40
40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
NASU

So in verse 54 we can get to heaven by "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" and Jesus will "raise him up on the last day" Oddly enough in verse 40 Jesus says that those who "believe in Him will have eternal life" and that Jesus, Himself, "will raise him up on the last day". So if Rome is stating that Jesus, in verse 54 is using literal language then what is Jesus using in verse 40.....symbolic or literal?

Rome replies with...."If Jesus was speaking symbolically then why didn't He tell those who didn't grasp it and walked away from Him. Wouldn't He tell them, 'Hey I'm not serious' ??"

No. Because He was "thinning the ranks". He knew there would only be 12. He knew none of the other followers believed in Him nor did He choose them, again there could only be 12. Many of His disciples, upon hearing this said -

John 6:60
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"
NASU

Jesus didn't want or need these other disciples. Listen to His words -

John 6:64
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

Why was this happening? Because Jesus was getting down to the 12, those whom God the Father gave to Him, chosen and elected for this very duty, to be His disciples. Jesus then states -

John 6:65
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
NASU

And again -

John 6:44
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
NASU

This very moment was predestined by God before the foundations of the earth. God elected all those who would be the 12.

John 6:70-71
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"

71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
NASU

So again John 6 has nothing to do with communion, the Eucharist nor transubstantiation but everything to do about Jesus giving up His flesh, His body and a foreshadow of the coming crucifiction.

Also, Jesus was a Jew and He never broke the Law. For Him to tell others to take in "blood" would be wrong.

The very act of communion has nothing to do with the Eucharist but everything to do with "marraiage" and the wedding feast.

I'll demonstrate this in my next posting.











[edit on 29-11-2006 by UnrealZA]

Originally posted by soshootme
I'm Catholic, so i personally believe its the body and blood of Christ. It's a miracle which can only be done through a priest.

What are all your opinions, for or against

As someone raised in the Catholic Church, let me say this is no miracle. It is however a Babylonian pagan ritual to the Babylonian queen of heaven Semiramis. However, it is the Egyptian version of the lie that infiltrated Christianity at the forming of the Catholic Church. The Egyptian goddess is Isis. This is where this so called communion originated.

Jeremiah 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men

OK...now how is communion more to do with a Jewish wedding than the Roman idea of the Eucharist?

Well because it basically REEKS of wedding symbols.

Before a couple would be wed they usually had a one year enagagement. The woman chose her bridal party and then man went away to make him and his new wife a home, usually an upstairs addition ontop of his fathers house. It was custom for them to not see each other during this year. The bridal party though would be always anxiously waiting for the groom to come, announced by the blowing of trumpets, to come for his bride. (for the sake of length I am condensing many areas of this wonderful event)

At the engagement party they shared a glass of wine and they would share this wine again at the wedding ceremony itself, usually one year later.

Now let's get to Scripture. In Scripture the "body of Christ" is associated as the "bride of Christ"

Rev 19:7
7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."
NASU

We, as the Bride, await our Groom, who is Christ. He has left us for now to prepare us a place.

John 14:2-3
2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.

3 "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.
NASU

He shall come with the shout of a trumpet -

1 Thess 4:16
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
NASU

Now we come to the glass of wine.

Luke 22:17-18
17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;

18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."
NASU

When the Bride is at her wedding with Christ then He shall drink the wine. This is what communion is about in the sense that we are "to remember" our Groom and that He shall return. Notice also how Jesus calls the wine "fruit of the vine" for that's exactly what it is. So Jesus is speaking of it here in a LITERAL sense but just two verses down He speaks of it in a SYMBOLIC sense.

Luke 22:20
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
NASU

Jesus was God Incarnate but while in a fleshly body He was also limited by that flesh. He got tired, He wept, He bleed, He thirsted, He hungered and being physical He could not manifest Himself in two locations at the same time. So He could not be literally in front of the 12 disciples and yet also physically manifest Himself in the bread as He tore it and passed it out.

There is much more but for now I await your reply.....or the replies of others

The round wafer of the communion represents the sun and is put in a Monstrance which is a sunburst on the altar in a Catholic Mass.

If you look at the large host or bread wafer that the priest puts in the Monstrance you will see that it has the letters "I H S". This stands for Isis, Horus and Seb.

And this from Alexander Hislop on the communion.

when Osiris, the sun-divinity, became incarnate, and was born,it was not merely that he should give his life as a sacrifice for men, but that he might also be the life and nourishment of the souls of men.

The deceiver at work

Originally posted by UnrealZA
So again John 6 has nothing to do with communion, the Eucharist nor transubstantiation ...

If you do not believe in transubstantiation then you are not in communion with the Catholic Church. If you do not believe that Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then you should not be receiving it. I hope you are not. You have left the Church, right?

Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation (both the bread/wine and body/blood are present)

You seem to have communion beliefs that are more in line with the Lutherans.

[edit on 11/30/2006 by FlyersFan]

i disagree with the flawed aristotelian philosophy behind the concept of transubstantiation

i don't understand how the substance of something can change without the physical aspects changing

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by UnrealZA
So again John 6 has nothing to do with communion, the Eucharist nor transubstantiation ...

If you do not believe in transubstantiation then you are not in communion with the Catholic Church. If you do not believe that Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, then you should not be receiving it. I hope you are not. You have left the Church, right?

Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation (both the bread/wine and body/blood are present)

You seem to have communion beliefs that are more in line with the Lutherans.

[edit on 11/30/2006 by FlyersFan]

I still receive communion but not from a Roman Catholic church.

Again, communion is about remembrance, not a feast of Jesus flesh and blood. Rome has it wrong, as she does with so many o ther of her doctrines.

I am not against the Roman Catholics as a people but rather the institution of Roman Church. I never read a Bible until 13 but I had been to a Catholic Church for years prior. Only within the last 10 years have more and more Roman Catholics sought to actually read the Bible..and that's pretty sad when you think about it.