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

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-11-2005, 03:46 PM   #61
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:
These are just a few. I'm having a difficult time gauging where we are at in this conversation.
Yes, just a few. Some ECF's (I believe Gregory someone was also like that) seem to pretty clearly have acknowledged some sort of substantial change of the elements, but it appears most of those were later on. Such a view is hardly universal among the ECF's.

__________________
"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 01-12-2005, 02:02 AM   #62
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom
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.
I prefer not to be a doubting Thomas and take God at His word . The Early Church affirmed that it was indeed the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I take them and God at their word.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-12-2005, 02:03 AM   #63
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
Yes, just a few. Some ECF's (I believe Gregory someone was also like that) seem to pretty clearly have acknowledged some sort of substantial change of the elements, but it appears most of those were later on. Such a view is hardly universal among the ECF's.

What I meant by just a few, is that those were just a few examples that I wanted to give to see if they were clear enough for you. I have plenty more saying the same thing. I'll get them for you if you'd like.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-12-2005, 09:38 AM   #64
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
You may want to look through the examples that were brought up earlier in this thread before you do so, but sure.
__________________
"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 01-12-2005, 11:10 AM   #65
Registered User
 

Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Northcarolina
Posts: 80
Send a message via Yahoo to Ormly
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenchild
I prefer not to be a doubting Thomas and take God at His word . The Early Church affirmed that it was indeed the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I take them and God at their word.
This is something I'm seeing that may be a help in seeing where they early fathers when astray in their understanding of transubstantiation:

Luke 22:18 (KJV)
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.


Well, It's come if you believe He indwells you. His kingdom is within us, correct? So we shouldn't be looking at His death in this but His life and that within us. When we partake, He does also. That's intimacy in the observance that I believe has been missed. When we do, He does also. The wine and bread are emblematic of what was originally done that night with the Disciples.
It is by this emblem that we touch the thing they touched --- and He also touches it. Now when Paul says this:

1 Cor. 10:16-17 (NASB-U)
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? [17] Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

and

1 Cor. 11:27-30 (KJV)
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.


Intimacy is the thing being violated if we partake when unclean. I can almost see the wine and bread as emblematic of the Holy of Holies. I see the bread and wine as the one earth bound heavenly thing we can touch.
Ormly is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-12-2005, 02:51 PM   #66
Micah 6:8
 
KFBobInsanesMom's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenchild
I prefer not to be a doubting Thomas and take God at His word . The Early Church affirmed that it was indeed the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. I take them and God at their word.
At " your" interpretation of His word. It wasn't for quite some time that the "early church" made the declaration that is was actual flesh and blood. I have not found any evidence that this was believed any earlier than a few hundred years after Christs death.
KFBobInsanesMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-12-2005, 03:27 PM   #67
The Nephews
 
Pennypacker11's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom
At " your" interpretation of His word. It wasn't for quite some time that the "early church" made the declaration that is was actual flesh and blood. I have not found any evidence that this was believed any earlier than a few hundred years after Christs death.
Same with the Trinity my friend (although in authors like Justin orthodox Catholic eucharistic theology is arguably more present than any orthodox trinitarian thought). This is the point where so many Catholic/Protestant debates collapse, the fact that Catholics truth the Tradition of the Church and the Holy Spirit's constant guidance so that the gates of hell will not prevail; The ultimate Revelation of God is Jesus Christ, which comes to us in one deposit, Scripture and Tradition. The Bible is given unique authority in the Church and the Church Fathers are given a special place. But there is nothing saying that if it wasn't explicit by 200, it can't be true (see Trinity (arguably there was no orthodox trinitarian before Athanasius (310's)), and Christology (hypostatic union defined in 451)). We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to unpack the definitive Revelation found in Jesus Christ; some Protestants accept the idea of Tradition to different degrees but in the end, there is a definite break in the idea of the transmission of Revelation between Catholics and Protestants.
__________________
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opnions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion
(St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis I.19.39)

Note: (due to confusion) Augustine here is writing against those who interpret Genesis "literally" (i.e. 6 day creation)
Pennypacker11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-12-2005, 04:09 PM   #68
Micah 6:8
 
KFBobInsanesMom's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennypacker11
This is the point where so many Catholic/Protestant debates collapse, the fact that Catholics truth the Tradition of the Church and the Holy Spirit's constant guidance so that the gates of hell will not prevail;
Do you honestly believe that Protestants do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit constantly guides the "church" so that the gates of hell will not prevail against her?? The difference is what we believe the " church" is.

I am curious how the RCC handles these verses in light of the belief that the bread of the Lord's Supper is actually Christ's body and the wine is actually His blood.

John 6:48-51 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

John 6:54-55 .54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It is very clearly saying that IF we eat His flesh and drink His blood we WILL live forever and He WILL raise us up in the last day. Therefore, IF the RCC is correct, then one time of eating the eucharist would guarantee that we would live forever, after all you would have eaten His flesh and drank His blood. Jesus did not say we had to eat His body over and over and over..... or drink His blood over and over and over. I cannot imagine that the RCC holds to the belief that if one takes the eucharist once they are saved..... So where does that leave us?? It leaves us with the clear understanding that the bread is not Christ's actual body , nor the wine His actual blood. I posted in a different thread where Jesus Himself equates coming to Him and believing in Him with eating and drinking. This is completely in line with the verses above.
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 12:38 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2