Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-07-2005, 06:51 PM   #46
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Yeah, it's been referenced a couple times earlier. Some of them argued that because both our body and soul are redeemed, both are body and soul partake of Christ's body for salvation, the body carnally and the soul spiritually.

__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 01-07-2005, 07:27 PM   #47
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Okay, I'll check on this and get back to you. Right off the bat I don't see anything wrong with this, but I want to be sure.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-08-2005, 02:37 AM   #48
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Would you mind clarifying where you think that we(The Catholic Church) might disagree with this conclusion of the ECF's?
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2005, 12:48 AM   #49
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
I just don't see you using the same logic, so i don't think you can unite your own view with theirs, necessarily, that is.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2005, 02:28 AM   #50
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Well, I ran this by a few people and none of us see a problem with this logic and conclusion. So, unless you could maybe point out what you think we would disagree with, I don't see how we differ from that logic... It seems solid to me.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2005, 03:50 PM   #51
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Well, the main point is not necessarily that you would disagree, but that their logic doesn't necessarily lead to con- or transubstantiation. Since their logic only deals with our bodies partaking of Christ's body, it does not appear to necessarily lead any sort of actual transformation of the elements or a presentation of Christ's body with, alongside, and under the element. In fact, though I can't remember which ones, a few seemed to suggest that our bodies partake of Christ's body in some way through the elements, but didn't ever mention any sort of substantial alteration of the elements.

Either way, it just seems that, based on what little I know, the only thing that can be proven is that a very popular position of the early church (perhaps the position among the most prominent) was a substantial partaking of Christ's body. I see nothing proven in regards to the elements themselves.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2005, 04:54 PM   #52
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Okay, so what you're thinking is that they believed that they ate of Jesus' physical body and blood, but that the bread and wine themselves did not change? I'm not exactly sure how this could work, but I'll check into it.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2005, 05:26 PM   #53
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
No, I'm saying they believed they ate Jesus's physical body and blood physically (I affirm that we eat it spiritually) and that it is not clear what they believed about the elements.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 05:20 AM   #54
Registered User
 

Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Northcarolina
Posts: 80
Send a message via Yahoo to Ormly
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
No, I'm saying they believed they ate Jesus's physical body and blood physically (I affirm that we eat it spiritually) and that it is not clear what they believed about the elements.

But the thing is one doesn't eat what is alive and within you. He said He would not eat or drink again until He came into His kingdom. Well He has and the kingdom is now in you and me and anyone else who professes to be born again. So we can see from this that intimacy is the issue and not some morbid ritual whereby He is crucified all over again. He is alive and when we partake we must make sure we do so worthily because when we partake He does also.

Ormly
Ormly is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 09:30 AM   #55
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Quote:
But the thing is one doesn't eat what is alive and within you. He said He would not eat or drink again until He came into His kingdom. Well He has and the kingdom is now in you and me and anyone else who professes to be born again.
His physical body is not in us. His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is in us, but His body is in Heaven, as He sits at the right hand of God.

Quote:
So we can see from this that intimacy is the issue and not some morbid ritual whereby He is crucified all over again. He is alive and when we partake we must make sure we do so worthily because when we partake He does also.
First of all, no one said anything about crucifying Him all over again. This is a participation in the benefits of a past sacrifice, like the partaking of the animal after the offering in the Old Testament. Second, I never denied that we partake with Him; we most certainly do. In the Eucharist, we partake of Him, with Him, to become more united with Him to our spiritual nourishment.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 02:18 PM   #56
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
No, I'm saying they believed they ate Jesus's physical body and blood physically (I affirm that we eat it spiritually) and that it is not clear what they believed about the elements.
Okay. So you don't think that they believed that Christ's body was physically present in the accidents of host and wine?
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 02:45 PM   #57
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
No, I don't know what they believed regarding it. I don't believe the quotes show either way.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 02:50 PM   #58
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
You're saying they don't say this? I'll see what I can find.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 02:58 PM   #59
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
If these have been posted, I'm sorry but I forget. What do you think some of these are saying?

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,'..." Tertullian, Against Marcion

"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

"Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood..." Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).


These are just a few. I'm having a difficult time gauging where we are at in this conversation.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-11-2005, 03:33 PM   #60
Micah 6:8
 
KFBobInsanesMom's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,697
A very simple question.... Christ turned water in to wine, and it was wine, 100%, looked, smelled, tasted... like wine, everyone who came in contact with it knew it was wine.

Now Christ turns bread in to his body... but it doesn't look like flesh, smell like flesh, taste like flesh..... etc. For what purpose would He do this??

He turns wine in to His blood... but it doesn't look like blood, smell like blood, taste like blood, and everyone who comes in contact with it still knows its wine.
Again, why would He do this??

If He truly wanted us to " gnaw on" His flesh, why leave it bread that we can swallow after one bite? We don't " gnaw" on the communion bread.

If Christ had intended to actually turn it in to His flesh, He would have and everyone would know what it was by looking at it, smelling it, tasting it.... there is no reason to believe He would have done differently than He did with the wine at the wedding feast.
KFBobInsanesMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2