csuguy
Well-known member
OK, that's something to consider. How do you read the passage?
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
OK, that's something to consider. How do you read the passage?
It's called the Eucharist.
Jesus addressed Simon in Hebrew as Simon bar Jonah. I don't believe Jesus then switched languages and addressed Simon and the disciples with him in Greek. I believe he continued in Hebrew and addressed all of them as peter, which in Hebrew refers to firstborn.
that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD’s. (Exodus 13:12)
The word "open" and the word "firstborn" are peter.
Jesus is the firstborn of all the firstborn into the kingdom of God. The rest of the firstborn will enter the kingdom at Jesus' coming to establish his kingdom over all the earth.
We are the church of the firstborn. (Hebrews 12:22-23)
God's Truth
New member
You believe we eat Jesus by Catholic priests using themselves to have God turn wafers into the real flesh of Jesus.
You believe that nonsense, but what does Jesus say how we eat him?
Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Jesus tells us the truth, if anyone obeys his word, he will never see death, John 8:51.
We eat Jesus by OBEYING his teachings.
Actually it shows the Passover which memorializes Jesus's body and blood until he comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:26)
You're so silly. You disregard Scripture. Our Lord said in no uncertain terms, unequivocally, that, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
You're your own Magisterium, and a silly one at that.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
John 6
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
brewmama
New member
Luke 24:13-35 The road to Emmaus
..." he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
They did not know Him when they were all discussing Scriptures, they did not recognize Him until He reenacted the Eucharist. How y'all ignore that is beyond mystery.
..." he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
They did not know Him when they were all discussing Scriptures, they did not recognize Him until He reenacted the Eucharist. How y'all ignore that is beyond mystery.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
So, you have to be a believer to partake of the Eucharist worthily, but at the same time you cannot know Christ UNTIL you partake of it?
brewmama
New member
Of course. Believing in Christ and truly knowing Him are two different things.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Does your church believe in transubstantiation, as the Catholics do?
I'll let Brewmama correct me or add, but as far as I understand it the Orthodox believe very similarly to the Catholics, though there is some slight difference between them, and I don't remember what that slight difference is.
But basically yes.
HisServant
New member
No cup mentioned there... I think you are confusing what is just a normal meal with the remembrance meal that he instituted.
You need to stop grasping at straws... unless you believe that every single meal that Jesus ate with his apostles or anyone else was by default your supposed 'Eucharist'.... hardly.
brewmama
New member
So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?! :rotfl:
brewmama
New member
We believe in the true presence of Christ's body and blood, but not transubstantiation.
This is the typical Orthodox explanation: For the first thousand years of Christian history, when the Church was visibly one and undivided, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confessed this was a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood, but one cannot say how they become so.The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought on the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church in A.D. 1054, was pressed by the rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. The sacrament, which only faith can comprehend, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist was unknown to the ancient Church.
Not surprisingly, one of the points of disagreement between Rome and the sixteenth-century reformers was the issue of transubstantiation. Unable to accept this explanation of the sacrament, the radical reformers, who were rationalists themselves, took up the opposite point of view: the gifts are nothing but bread and wine, period. They only represent Christ's Body and Blood; they have no spiritual reality. This third, symbol-only view helps explain the infrequency with which some Protestants partake of the Eucharist.
Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
New member
yeh, i can relate to the, uh.. frustration or whatever. It is really sad, though, when you think of it.. how far from the True Church Protestants are. that 500-year gap is not their fault. It is Luther's fault. He was a mere human but many act like he was--well, fill in the blanks.. some new savior or something..
sigh.. ignorance!
what is it good for?
(you know, that 70s song..)
Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
New member
i didn't read the rest of your post. i was rather struck by this first comment! How can you have the Real Presence if you do not consecrate the hosts and turn the bread/wine into the body/blood of Christ?
that makes no sense at all. And also, i believe you are wrong. I believe the Orthodox do believe in Transubstantiation
KingdomRose
New member
There are indications that Jesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. Or both. Certainly he knew all languages.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus says it is Spiritual.
John 6:63 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
KingdomRose
New member
I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!
Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.
Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!