First Things

[Servant]

God hates the sin of partaking of blood. He condemns it throughout the scriptures. The idolators never thought that they were praying to stones, they always understood that there were "actual beings" who were actually gods that they were praying. Nonetheless, God hated their sin and they were damned. Same happens to those who believe that God wants them to drink his blood. God hates sin, and they are damned. I'm not insulting the true Creator, Almighty God, who is my heavenly Father and a personal being who knows me, just a false idol or conception which involves a nebulous substance. A person must repent of their dead works and false beliefs, have faith in Jesus Christ, being baptized by one having authority, receive the laying on of hands of the gift of the Holy Ghost by one having authority, endure to the end, or they'll be damned.

yes you are right..but that has nothing to do with the Eucharist...

sorry...you have a misunderstanding just like a few here.....

fibut Jesus is not gods...and nobody is sacrificing and drinking quanities of blood meant for idols here...for some reason you think that we are sacraficing to idols..

this is not the case...sorry...

[Servant]

Servant, I asked this before and you've ducked it for five posts now:

Do you believe that Peter was actually transmuted into granite when Christ said, "This is the rock upon which my Church will be built"?

If not, why not?

there you go again assuming.....im about to put you on ignore because it seems you have a grind to pick....apparently I didnt see this..

Peter is head he was the one that recieved the keys he is our first Pope...he is the one that is the one to have the Church built on through him....

he is the one who will keep his apostles strong....

rock is a metaphor....

i find it funny that you think that God was a human and walked the earth before becoming a God because you use the scriptures that says about God's hands and feet....(btw those scriptures are metaphors too...but you seem to not think so) but then you ignore where God has wings and call that a mataphor...

but i just find it amusing that you mention this lol lol which has nothing to do with rememberence....tell me what can you use with that with rememberence? what message is it giving or comparing like a parable?

btw i thought you dusted the dust off your feet of me?

i did apologize yes but that shouldnt give you justification to poorly assume that im ignoring you...

i think your personality and mine are clashing...maybe we shouldnt respond because i am not going to take over and over a person who keeps assuming something that it is not...and i really dont want to cause choas...

[Richard]

St. Paul wrote: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." (1 Cor 11:26) He also wrote: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor 11:16-17 and 1 Cor 12).

These writings below are prior to the perceived Apostasy, but those dates keep changing through the years. I was taught by my LDS grandmother that it began to happen around 200 AD.  I was young and had no idea about these writings or what the Scriptures themselves say about Eucharist, even in Jesus' own words. I think of the transformation of the loaves and fish, how he fed the multitudes when I receive communion.  I had no clue how to connect the Old Testament sacrifices to the fulfillment in Jesus and His Sacrifice.  The Passover...place the blood of a lamb outside your door and death will pass over you home and then we are clothed in the blood of Christ so that sin may pass over us.  It is very different to the world today. But for me I will continue to receive Communion as much as possible. It is what has transformed me into a better Christian because of Jesus. It is as the scriptures say an ongoing Miracle. It take place every 2 minutes somewhere on earth 364 days a year and it is the reason we have the Scriptures and Christ available to all today.  Every Christian sect has the Mass's overflow. This is my opinion, my belief. 

http://utahmission.com/pages/Common_Questions.html

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=74

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

" First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."

"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.: "So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

[Ambrose]

Partaking of blood is condemned throughout the Bible. Transubstantiation is a false, damning belief. See Acts 15:28-29.

Goodbye.

And these same commandments belong to the whole that condemns a plethora of condemnations against all sorts of fowl and fish, &c. But St. Peter is later told that all have been made clean.

â??Blood was recognized to be the seat of life, and therefore something sacred and reserved to God. Even when not involved in sacrifice, the blood of an animal could not be consumed but must be poured out on the ground (Dt 12:16, etc). The prohibition of blood became one of the dietary laws of the Mosaic code, but because of its inclusion within the provisions of this covenant with Noah the later Jews considered it to be binding on all mankind. Hence the concession made to their feelings in the regulation imposed on Gentile Christians living in a Jewish environment according to Acts 15:20, 29. From this apostolic precedent, the custom of abstaining from blood was observed in some parts of the early Church.â? 158b

â??â?¦..the prohibition of eating blood lasted until the end of the second century (Tert. Apol. 9:13).â?

[selek]

there you go again assuming.....im about to put you on ignore because it seems you have a grind to pick....apparently I didnt see this..

Yet when I pointed it out to your earlier, you gave a half-baked answer about not seeing it and still didn't answer.

rock is a metaphor....

I agree.

Now that we've established that Christ used metaphor- please explain why he wasn't using metaphor during the Last Supper.

There's no more indication of metaphor in the verses about Peter as a rock than there are about "bread as flesh" or "wine as blood".

btw i thought you dusted the dust off your feet of me?

Yes- and then I assumed your apology was genuine, and decided to give you another chance.

i did apologize yes but that shouldnt give you justification to poorly assume that im ignoring you...

It's not your apology that makes me assume that- but your failure to respond.

[Servant]

Yet when I pointed it out to your earlier, you gave a half-baked answer about not seeing it and still didn't answer.

I agree.

Now that we've established that Christ used metaphor- please explain why he wasn't using metaphor during the Last Supper.

There's no more indication of metaphor in the verses about Peter as a rock than there are about "bread as flesh" or "wine as blood".

Yes- and then I assumed your apology was genuine, and decided to give you another chance.

It's not your apology that makes me assume that- but your failure to respond.

the rock used as a metaphor is not the same thing....rememberence is not a metaphor...a metaphor has meaning...like rock means strong...

and ok i understand where you are coming from but know this...i didnt see or pay that much attention...there has been so many post since yesterday...and i try to read every post that i participate in and some that i dont...so sorry that i didnt address you pronto...my mistake...

and i was sorry...and i didnt mean to leave you "hanging"...but know my intent wasnt for that...

i have been good so far in answering everything that is addressed to me...sorry that your post slipped...it was not done on purpose...

i got snooty just then because you assumed that I did it on purpose and said it again five post up or something...

again i apologize..

[selek]

the rock used as a metaphor is not the same thing....rememberence is not a metaphor...a metaphor has meaning...like rock means strong...

It's not the remembrance that is the metaphor- it's the bread and wine.

A metaphor is a symbol.

Please explain why the bread and wine are not likewise symbols for the flesh and blood?

[Ambrose]

the rock used as a metaphor is not the same thing....

But he wants to know why it's not a metaphor.

And for that, we could tarry down a number of roads. The actualization of the New Covenant is of chief importance here. There is a reality to all of the new ordinances that the old ordinances only foretold of.

As one reader put it: Why would he come to fulfil a system of rituals and symbols with only more rituals and symbols? It doesn't seem like much of a fulfillment.

[Servant]

It's not the remembrance that is the metaphor- it's the bread and wine.

A metaphor is a symbol.

Please explain why the bread and wine are not likewise symbols for the flesh and blood?

wait...first you or another emphasize "rememberence of me" as that is the symbol....but now it is back to the bread and wine?

ok...lets see here

"Eat this is my body"..............."drink this is my blood"........................sorry i dont see it....rock means strong

what does "eat this is my body"............"drink this is my blood" suppose to mean?

better yet "whoever eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood has eternal life in them"...

[selek]

wait...first you or another emphasize "rememberence of me" as that is the symbol....but now it is back to the bread and wine?

ok...lets see here

"Eat this is my body"..............."drink this is my blood"........................sorry i dont see it....rock means strong

what does "eat this is my body"............"drink this is my blood" suppose to mean?

better yet "whoever eats MY flesh has eternal life in them"...

I have never emphasized the rite of remembrance as a symbol.

I want to know very clearly, very simply why "Peter=Rock" is metaphorical, but "bread=flesh" and "wine=blood" are not.

[Servant]

I have never emphasized the rite of remembrance as a symbol.

I want to know very clearly, very simply why "Peter=Rock" is metaphorical, but "bread=flesh" and "wine=blood" are not.

because rock means strong...Peter is the one who will be the head of the Church (well Christ is, but you know what I mean) because he is strong enough to handle it and encourage the other apostles when Jesus goes back to Heaven..

bread means flesh? no

wine means blood? no

see it now?

rock means strong...

how is bread suppose to mean flesh?

how is wine suppose to mean blood?

and about the "rememberence" ok i guess i got confused with someone else...nevermind then

[Ambrose]

I have never emphasized the rite of remembrance as a symbol.

I want to know very clearly, very simply why "Peter=Rock" is metaphorical, but "bread=flesh" and "wine=blood" are not.

Not all things in Sacred Scripture are on the same level, and surely you know that, else we would all have never accepted Jesus as the Messiah when surely it must have been some guy named Immanuel.

I highly recommend a healthy reading here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucha...l#eucharist-IIb

[selek]

because rock means strong...Peter is the one who will be the head of the Church (well Christ is, but you know what I mean) because he is strong...

bread means flesh? no

wine means blood? no

see it now?

rock means strong...

how is bread suppose to mean flesh?

how is wine suppose to mean blood?

Christ indicated one of his apostles and said, "This is a rock."

Christ indicated a piece of bread and said, "This is my flesh."

Christ indicated a cup of wine and said, "This is my blood."

Explain to me why the first one is a metaphor and the other two are not.

[Ambrose]

Explain to me why the first one is a metaphor and the other two are not.

Because the Holy Spirit directs our understanding otherwise; and those same men, inspired of the Holy Spirit, preached that it was otherwise.

[selek]

Not all things in Sacred Scripture are on the same level, and surely you know that, else we would all have never accepted Jesus as the Messiah when surely it must have been some guy named Immanuel.

True.

[LeSellers]

In answer to the Topic title/question, yes.

Anyone who disagrees relies on "Special Pleading" to make his case. Special pleading, as we all know, is a logical fallacy.

It is simply illogical to assert that people (and the faith they share) are not "Christians" when they use Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Golgotha, and Gethsemane as the focus of their lives and center of that faith.

We might as well call Baptists non-Christians because the "Jesus" they worship does not conform to the ideas portrayed in the Bible, but, rather, parallel Zoroaster and Mithras. Somehow, it seems LDSs are more tolerant of others than these others are Christians.

Lehi

[Servant]

Christ indicated one of his apostles and said, "This is the rock upon which my Church will be built."

Christ indicated a piece of bread and said, "This is my flesh."

Christ indicated a cup of wine and said, "This is my blood."

Explain to me why the first one is a metaphor and the other two are not.

because the rock is Peter...he is saying rock(peter) i build my church...

he is saying about the bread and wine it IS his flesh and blood...this doesnt mean it is symbolic...I will tell you why....the wedding at canna...how Jesus Changed the water into wine....the same thing with the bread and wine...it changes but maintains the appearence of bread and wine (actually it is wine and some water added into it)

also when Jesus clerifies it when he says "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them"...and if it was symbolic....then stuff that Paul said would of been meaningless...seriously his "whoever eats the Eucharist unworthily will be accountable"....accountable? if it was symbolic what would it matter?

see the problem? the problem is if it is symbolic then alot of the old and the new testament wouldnt even make any since it would be.....meaningless...

then why bother...

I can say this...i understand that you tried and i can see what you are saying...(well not really but i can see how you are trying to compare the first Pope with the....Eucharist)....

thank you though...really...

just so you know...im going to step out for a bit...going to read and then going to go to church (Im thinking of going this evening....maybe i will wait until tomorrow..)

i am telling you this so you know ok...

[selek]

because the rock is Peter...he is saying rock(peter) i build my church...

he is saying about the bread and wine it IS his flesh and blood...this doesnt mean it is symbolic...I will tell you why....the wedding at canna...how Jesus Changed the water into wine....the same thing with the bread and wine...it changes but maintains the appearence of bread and wine (actually it is wine and some water added into it)

also when Jesus clerifies it when he says "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them"...and if it was symbolic....then stuff that Paul said would of been meaningless...seriously his "whoever eats the Eucharist unworthily will be accountable"....accountable? if it was symbolic what would it matter?

see the problem? the problem is if it is symbolic then alot of the old and the new testament wouldnt even make any since it would be.....meaningless...

Not quite- you need not literally consume Christ's flesh and blood to be a part of the covenant.

And those verses make perfect sense whether the bread and wine are metaphors or whether they are the literal body and blood.

Symbolism and intent are enough for you when you're talking about a baptism of desire- why is it not sufficient with the Sacrament?

[Servant]

Not quite- you need not literally consume Christ's flesh and blood to be a part of the covenant.

really? so in the Covenant with Abraham where they HAD to circumcise to be a follower of God did they not REALLY have to cut off the skin of a male?

And those verses make perfect sense whether the bread and wine are metaphors or whether they are the literal body and blood.

yeah ok...that is what you say...

Symbolism and intent are enough for you when you're talking about a baptism of desire- why is it not sufficient with the Sacrament?

huh? what?

baptism of desire is when one is in search for God and dies before being baptized....

and is saved by that from the Grace of God...

from what im understanding is...that since you think that the Eucharists is symbolic but you are in search of it search for the REAL presence that when you die???

im sorry...i dont understand what you are trying to say here...

well i just wanted to answer you before i head off to church i will stop by later...

have a good one

[Flyonthewall]

Good morning, Flyonthewall! I hope that this message finds you in the pursuit of wisdom.

I must admit that I am not confused about your exclusivity of "rememberance" and "sacrifice", for in the faith that you have been taught, there is an important distinction.

But I do not understand why that distinction must be so. Please, explain the exclusivity of the word "rememberance", and why that rememberance cannot be thrown together (συνβολή) with that final sacred act (sacrifice).

Wow. I step out for a bit and 2 pages more are added to the thread. I'll try and answer your question without backtracking too much.

The sacrifice of Christ is complete, and need not be done again. We only need remember that it was done, and in partaking of the sacrament weekly, more or less, we can keep it in the forefront of our thoughts. The literal presence in the sacrament is His spirit, His gospel, not His flesh and blood. All one would have to do is read the entire chapter of John 6 to understand what was going on, and to catch the symbolism of it all.

As for the greek work you listed, well, its greek to me, so I don't know exactly how to respond to it. If you are saying that in partaking of the sacrament/eucharist we re-sacrafice the Lord, then I would disagree in the strongest of terms. But if you mean that a remembrance of the sacrifice of the Lord can be had in partaking of the bread and wine/water, then I agree that it can and does.

[Ambrose]

The sacrifice of Christ is complete, and need not be done again.

I think that the Catholics would agree with you here.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body.

I am not sure that that keeps the Church from teaching that while this unique sacrifice was once done for all, that the Eucharist escapes the powers of "time" and makes present again that one sacrifice.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."

Do you see my not understanding why there must be a distinction drawn between the two here?

All one would have to do is read the entire chapter of John 6 to understand what was going on, and to catch the symbolism of it all.

While I agree that these sacred writings were written for our profit, I tend to think that if the same Spirit that inspired them dwells with a body, that body can rightly interpret them--This the Church has been doing for her entire career--This body, I trust in her teachings on them. And I am sure that the same goes for you.

For instance, I might think that it's quite obvious that original sin is taught in scripture, but the LDS Church, claiming the authority to teach, would say otherwise. Who would you trust? A rogue reader or divine doctors?

As for the greek work you listed, well, its greek to me, so I don't know exactly how to respond to it.

Oh, I was just trying to be clever. I'm a little fond of word games. The Greek word whence comes "symbol" (συνβολή) can be translated as "thrown together". In its strongest reading, it is not a "metaphor", that is a transfer of meaning, but a combination of meaning where both meanings are retained.

[Flyonthewall]

I think that the Catholics would agree with you here.

I am not sure that that keeps the Church from teaching that while this unique sacrifice was once done for all, that the Eucharist escapes the powers of "time" and makes present again that one sacrifice.

Do you see my not understanding why there must be a distinction drawn between the two here?

While I agree that these sacred writings were written for our profit, I tend to think that if the same Spirit that inspired them dwells with a body, that body can rightly interpret them--This the Church has been doing for her entire career--This body, I trust in her teachings on them. And I am sure that the same goes for you.

Ya know, at times I can see that our understanding of the sacrament/eucharist are very similar, and other times I see them as far apart. For the most part I see them as similar, but the eucharist seems to have added a layer of mystery that need not be there.

For instance, I might think that it's quite obvious that original sin is taught in scripture, but the LDS Church, claiming the authority to teach, would say otherwise. Who would you trust? A rogue reader or divine doctors?

Hmmm...good question. It was the "divine doctors"(Scribes, Lawyers, and Pharisees) of the time that rejected the message of Christ, and the humble fishermen that understood the truth. I think I'll take the humble"fishermen" over "divine doctors"

Oh, I was just trying to be clever. I'm a little fond of word games. The Greek word whence comes "symbol" (συνβολή) can be translated as "thrown together". In its strongest reading, it is not a "metaphor", that is a transfer of meaning, but a combination of meaning where both meanings are retained.

I'll take your word for it.

[Ambrose]

Hmmm...good question. It was the "divine doctors"(Scribes, Lawyers, and Pharisees) of the time that rejected the message of Christ, and the humble fishermen that understood the truth. I think I'll take the humble"fishermen" over "divine doctors"

Those humble fishermen became divine doctors (from the Latin for "teacher"). :-P The Holy Spirit works wonders & mysteries: guiding the unlettered in Truth.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

Hmmm...good question. It was the "divine doctors"(Scribes, Lawyers, and Pharisees) of the time that rejected the message of Christ, and the humble fishermen that understood the truth. I think I'll take the humble "fishermen" over "divine doctors"

These humble fishermen passed their teachings onto other's like Ignatius. Ignatius was a bishop appointed and ordained by the apostle Peter. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyond. Ignatius was an ordained bishop who was made of an overseer of the Church of Christ by the Holy Ghost. He confessed the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ (see below).

• Ignatius of Antioch "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89)
  

[selek]

Flyonthewall

These humble fishermen passed their teachings onto other's like Ignatius. Ignatius was a bishop appointed and ordained by the apostle Peter. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyond.

While I'm only a dilettante in this area of history, I do believe that this narrative isn't quite as cut-and-dry as you claim, Johnny. Certain Catholics believe it because otherwise their claims to authority make no sense.

That being the case, there is a certain conflict of interest in play here, is there not.

Ignatius was an ordained bishop who was made of an overseer of the Church of Christ by the Holy Ghost.

That's the Catholic claim; independent corroboration- indeed evidence of any kind- however, is lacking.

He confessed the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ (see below).

• Ignatius of Antioch "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89)
  

Did he? Or were the records altered after the fact to support the official position of Rome?

Do you have the original manuscripts?