[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

The reason many people say that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian church is because you teach a different Gospel than the one revealed in the Scriptures. St. Paul tells us that if anyone teaches a Gospel different from the one he preached, for that person/group to be accursed - anathema.

I know what you're saying, but I could throw this right back at any other religion besides Catholicism. I believe that Catholicism is the ONLY religion that teaches the WHOLE of the gospel. And what makes a religion CHRISTIAN, btw. I get different answers from different people and I want to know what a CHRISTIAN religion must believe in to be Christian.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I don't see where you come up with this. It doesn't say that we must eat of both, it just says that WHEN we do eat of either and both, the body and blood is contained in each. It doesn't say we must eat of both. None of those verses do.

1 Cor 11:26-29
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body AND blood of the Lord.
28 So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For whoever eats AND drinks without recognizing the BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself.


26... eat this bread AND drink the cup.... it does not say one or the other, it says both
28 ... eat of the bread AND drink of the cup..... again, it says both , not either/or
29 ... eats AND drink... again, it says both, not either / or

The only verse there that even remotely says what you say, is vs 27. Since this verse is between 3 verses that say both must be done, I think a better interpretation of the word "or" there, is a strong admonition that if you just drink a sip of the cup unworthily you are in danger, or if you just take one small bite of the bread unworthily you are in danger. That fits with the rest of the passage, whereas what you claim does not. Go back to John

John 6:53-56 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. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him

Very strong words by Jesus, and He says we must do both. He does not say that doing one fulfills the requirement of both : eating the flesh and drinking the blood. If you eat , you are not drinking.... if you drink, you are not eating. Why would Jesus have given both if they were not both necessary?? If it is as the RCC claims, then He would have given one for there would have been no need for Him to give us both His body and His blood. Even if you claim that both contain flesh and blood, you still have the problem of fulfilling the eating and the drinking which Jesus told us is necessary for us to " have life in us; have eternal life; and to dwell in Him and He in us".

This seems to be another claim of the RCC that is based entirely on one word in one verse and in opposition to many other verses. When a dozen verses say " both eat AND drink" , and one says " if you eat or drink in an unworthy way" , then I don't see how you can ignore the dozen and say that the one is telling us that both the body and blood are in the bread and in the cup. That simply does not fit with the rest of scripture, nor is that the only possibly meaning of that one verse.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Thank you for your responses and for explaining the RCC position. Obviously , I do not see how it can be claiimed to be Biblical when scripture is in direct oppositon to the RCC position.

[goldenchild]

I really didn't care to argue things in this thread but I'll address this.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

1 Cor 11:26-29
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Here, it never says that we MUST do both. It just says "as often as you" do these things, either way.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body AND blood of the Lord.

Again nowhere does it say that eating the bread and drinking the cup are both required. In fact each of these verses and the 28 and 29 below all show the opposite.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

28 So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Again never says that both are required. It says if we eat of the bread and drink of the cup we must examine ourselves. That's all that's said here.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

29 For whoever eats AND drinks without recognizing the BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Ditto the above. Here is shows yet again the blatant opposite of what you are claiming. It shows that the Body is contained in what we eat AND DRINK. So it's in both.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

26... eat this bread AND drink the cup.... it does not say one or the other, it says both
28 ... eat of the bread AND drink of the cup..... again, it says both , not either/or
29 ... eats AND drink... again, it says both, not either / or

The only verse there that even remotely says what you say, is vs 27. Since this verse is between 3 verses that say both must be done, I think a better interpretation of the word "or" there, is a strong admonition that if you just drink a sip of the cup unworthily you are in danger, or if you just take one small bite of the bread unworthily you are in danger. That fits with the rest of the passage, whereas what you claim does not. Go back to John

I'm honestly not sure what you're reading because it doesn't say anywhere that they are both required. At least not in Corinthians.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

John 6:53-56 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. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him

Again, this isn't saying anything for you. 1 Corinthians shows that the body and the blood are each contained in BOTH the cup and the host. So, BOTH the body and the blood are being consumed whether you recieve either or both.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Very strong words by Jesus, and He says we must do both.

Where? All He says is that we must consume His body AND blood. I fully agree. The body AND blood are contained in either and both of the cup and host.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

He does not say that doing one fulfills the requirement of both : eating the flesh and drinking the blood. If you eat , you are not drinking.... if you drink, you are not eating. Why would Jesus have given both if they were not both necessary??

He says we must consume both. I agree. Again see above.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

If it is as the RCC claims, then He would have given one for there would have been no need for Him to give us both His body and His blood.

Completely false. It's clear in Scripture that we must contain both. And it's clear in Scripture that both are contained in either and both the host and cup.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Even if you claim that both contain flesh and blood, you still have the problem of fulfilling the eating and the drinking which Jesus told us is necessary for us to " have life in us; have eternal life; and to dwell in Him and He in us".

I don't see this a problem. But I'll look into it.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

This seems to be another claim of the RCC that is based entirely on one word in one verse and in opposition to many other verses.

Just as I feel Protestants do.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

When a dozen verses say " both eat AND drink" , and one says " if you eat or drink in an unworthy way" , then I don't see how you can ignore the dozen and say that the one is telling us that both the body and blood are in the bread and in the cup. That simply does not fit with the rest of scripture, nor is that the only possibly meaning of that one verse.

So what you are basically saying is that the Scripture is contradicting itself. 12 say one thing and 1 says the opposite. That's contradiction. btw the whole passage in 1 Corinthians supports it, not just one verse, as should be clear. But the 12 you give don't say that both aren't contained in each the cup and host.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Thank you for your responses and for explaining the RCC position. Obviously , I do not see how it can be claiimed to be Biblical when scripture is in direct oppositon to the RCC position.

Anytime. And of course you don't see this, this is why you aren't Catholic. But if read correctly there's no contradiction whatsoever.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Anytime. And of course you don't see this, this is why you aren't Catholic. But if read correctly there's no contradiction whatsoever.

Yes, there is contradiction. If not , then show me any verse that says " the cup contains both the body and blood of Christ... or the bread contains both the body and blood of Christ", I have shown many that say we must do both , you are disregarding the word AND, but putting great emphasis on the word OR.

I am not Catholic because what the RCC believes is not in line with the word of God.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Yes, there is contradiction. If not , then show me any verse that says " the cup contains both the body and blood of Christ... or the bread contains both the body and blood of Christ",

1 Corinthians 11:29 "For anyone who eats AND DRINKS without discerning the BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

This is the word of God, it should be good enough for any Christian. The Body of Christ is shown to exist in both the cup and the host.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I have shown many that say we must do both ,

Not one as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

you are disregarding the word AND, but putting great emphasis on the word OR.

Where? I believe that we must consume the Body AND Blood of Christ. I believe that both are contained in the host and cup. No contradiction.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I am not Catholic because what the RCC believes is not in line with the word of God.

I am not Protestant, or any other faith for that matter, because what these religions believes is not in line with the word of God.

I just said the same with as much conviction. It's not an argument.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

1 Corinthians 11:29 "For anyone who eats AND DRINKS without discerning the BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

This is the word of God, it should be good enough for any Christian. The Body of Christ is shown to exist in both the cup and the host.

Correct, it is the word of God. But, it does not say what you claim. It says AND, which you ignore.... " If anyone EATS AND DRINKS"... Next... there is a condition... "without discerning the body"... what does that mean???

Discerning from Strongs:

1. to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer
2. to learn by discrimination, to try, decide
a. to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute

3. to withdraw from one, desert
4. contend
5. to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

The Corinthians were eating the Lord's Supper as if it was just a meal, they were strongly corrected. They were told to " make a distinction" between this meal which was to remember Christ, and their normal dinner.

Look at vs 28 , 30, 31, and 34 to see what body is being spoken of in 29

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

discerning/judging the body was a command to them to look at themselves and what they were doing. Body in vs 29 is not referring to Jesus body as can be seen by the other 3 verses I pointed out.

Therefore , this passage is not saying the bread contains both body and blood nor does it say the cup contains both the body and blood.

Oh, here are the verses that come before this passage ...20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Correct, it is the word of God. But, it does not say what you claim. It says AND, which you ignore.... " If anyone EATS AND DRINKS"...

I was the one emphasizing the word "and" in this passage. I don't know where you think I'm ignoring it. The word "and" is the key to the whole passage.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Next... there is a condition... "without discerning the body"... what does that mean???

It shows that when we eat, we are discerning the body AND WHEN WE DRINK we are discerning the BODY. The Body is in both the host and cup.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Discerning from Strongs:

1. to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer
2. to learn by discrimination, to try, decide
a. to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute

3. to withdraw from one, desert
4. contend
5. to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

The Corinthians were eating the Lord's Supper as if it was just a meal, they were strongly corrected. They were told to " make a distinction" between this meal which was to remember Christ, and their normal dinner.

Absolutely. I believe that it is making the distinction that this was no normal food, but the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. What is you're argument about this. It still shows the Body to be in both the host and cup.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Look at vs 28 , 30, 31, and 34 to see what body is being spoken of in 29


23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

discerning/judging the body was a command to them to look at themselves and what they were doing. Body in vs 29 is not referring to Jesus body as can be seen by the other 3 verses I pointed out.

You seem to ignore v.27 which shows that we must eat and drink worthily or else answer for the body and blood of the Lord. Of course we must examine ourselves, this is why we cannot recieve in the state of serious sin. That's all that's saying.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Therefore , this passage is not saying the bread contains both body and blood nor does it say the cup contains both the body and blood.

Oh, here are the verses that come before this passage ...20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Okay, I disagree, but okay. This thread's supposed to be for questions, not arguments. I'd be glad to continue this somewhere else, but not here.

[goldenchild]

I'm still looking into this. But this is what I found. I don't want to make this into a debate, I'm just trying to answer you're question.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I did some reading, briefly, and I found this site http://bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w51.html. I have barely skimmed it ( and I have not had time to research its accuracy, so I won't claim its right, just that I came across it and it was interesting ), but it seems to be saying that the Passover feast came during the barley harvest, not the wheat harvest... that wheat was not harvested until Pentecost. This quote is under the bold heading " THE GRAIN HARVEST AND THE LIFT OFFERING "The grain harvest of Israel began with the cutting of barley for the Lift Offering during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and ended with the presentation of two leavened loaves of bread out of the wheat harvest, seven weeks later, on the Day of Pentecost." Then, from under the bold heading " THE WHEAT HARVEST" .."Just as the first grain of the barley harvest was prophetic and symbolic of Jesus Christ as the first born of God, the first grain of the wheat harvest was prophetic and symbolic of all those who would obtain salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ."

I haven't had time to read this article too closely yet. The Scripture passages that the article uses to go along with all this stuff would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

All the following will be from Exodus 12 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. ( I looked in several commentaries and they all said this was March, not Sept as the Jews had previously considered the " beginning of months".)

This initially raises flags to me. What do these commentaries use to validate this claim that the Jews are wrong in what they believe to be the "beginning of months"?

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

... 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it........14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread;..... 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

And in this, I don't see where it says anything about any specific kind of grain. What I do see is this... The Greek used in
1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,
2 Corinthians 11:23, 26, 27, 28
Matthew 26:26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:19
Not to mention throughout all of John 6 with Jesus referring to the bread as Himself. In all these passages the Greek word used for "bread" is "artos". Without an addition, this word refers to wheat flour.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I have a LOT more researching to do on this, this is just what I found in a quick search I did on the Passover and the unleavened bread. IF that site is accurate, it appears that the bread would have had to be made of barley, not wheat...but like I said, I have barely even skimmed the article and have no opinion at this time as to whether it is accurate or not. I never even thought about what the bread was made of until I read the article about that young girl.

I have much more to look into as well. When I get more I'll post it. Again, if you could point me to the Scripture passages the site uses to validate barley and not wheat that'd be good.

[goldenchild]

I must retract what I said in my last post. I don't want to lead anyone astray on purpose... I have looked different lexicons and none seem to say that artos means wheat bread. So, I was wrong in saying that it does, unless I find something else. And as far as I know, barley was used at the passover. So, unless Jesus broke custom for some reason, I'm not seeing yet any reason why He did not use barley. So I may be wrong on this one, Goodness know it won't be the first time! And I'm still looking into the other question. But, just for clarification, neither of these practices are doctrine. There just as I said, practices. They can be changed as need be and are not infallible, they are subject to error. I'll keep looking into these things, but I'm ready for more questions. And no more debate please. I'm trying to use this thread simply to help people understand better the Catholic faith. I hope maybe this thread will lead to more charitable discussions between Catholics and other faiths.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

In light of the believe of the RCC in transubstantiation, does the RCC teach that only those who take the eucharist are saved and/or that taking the eucharist gives salvation? In John 6 :53-54 the Bible says " 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." .

Also, if the bread actually becomes Jesus flesh, what does the RCC say Jesus meant by His response to His disciples in vs 63 , when He says " the flesh profits nothing"??

John 6 56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.".........60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

In light of the believe of the RCC in transubstantiation, does the RCC teach that only those who take the eucharist are saved and/or that taking the eucharist gives salvation?

In John 6 :53-54 the Bible says " 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." .

It definitely makes it that much harder to be saved. But God is a merciful God. Those who truly know who Jesus is and truly know that He is serious when He says that the bread and wine become His body and blood are obliged to partake of His Body. And this isn't the only thing that one must do to be saved, there are many things that constitute salvation. This is one of them.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Also, if the bread actually becomes Jesus flesh, what does the RCC say Jesus meant by His response to His disciples in vs 63 , when He says " the flesh profits nothing"??

John 6 56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.".........60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life

Well, let me ask you some very simple questions. Who's flesh is Jesus speaking about in v. 63? Is He speaking about His own flesh? Or the flesh of the rest of humanity? Do you think Jesus' flesh profits nothing? If so, why did He die for us? I hope you see where I'm going with this. Clearly, Jesus is not talking about His own flesh in v. 63 or else His death would've been meaningless. If one attributes this verse to say that Jesus flesh was meaningless and so we should not eat of it, then one must also attribute this verse to mean that His death was meaningless. After all, it wasn't His Divine Self that died, only His Bodily Self.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Well, let me ask you some very simple questions. Who's flesh is Jesus speaking about in v. 63? Is He speaking about His own flesh? Or the flesh of the rest of humanity? Do you think Jesus' flesh profits nothing? If so, why did He die for us? I hope you see where I'm going with this. Clearly, Jesus is not talking about His own flesh in v. 63 or else His death would've been meaningless. If one attributes this verse to say that Jesus flesh was meaningless and so we should not eat of it, then one must also attribute this verse to mean that His death was meaningless. After all, it wasn't His Divine Self that died, only His Bodily Self.

I believe it speaks of Jesus flesh, for if it was the rest of humanity, then we have no profit in the spirit and life He gives. I believe Jesus was making it clear here that it was not His physical flesh that " profitted us" but His spiritual flesh, and that the body we must eat is spiritual, not the physical. " It is the SPIRIT that gives life", those are Jesus words.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

What constitutes salvation according to the RCC??