Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you considered that the Catholic faith had it wrong? The number of years is no indicator that they had it right.
Yes. For the majority of my life I thought they had it wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
If I offer you a box of chocolates for valentines day in the shape of a heart and say ' I give you my heart', I'm not giving you my actual heart. It's a symbol of my love.
Jesus didn't offer his actual flesh and blood, he offered bread and wine, because that's what was to hand. If he'd had a heart shaped box of chocolate he'd have probably handed those around as well.
But He did offer His actual flesh and blood when He was beaten, scourged, and nailed to the cross where He died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Does a person need to state when something is real and when it's a metaphor? He probably knew it was self evident. Besides which, as we've discussed before, the bible was written many years later and like Chinese whispers, stories get embellished.
The Church had been practicing its rites of worship for a full generation or more before the Gospels were written. The Church already had its beliefs and praxis about the Eucharist long before the Gospels were written.
Let's say you and I have identical iPhones, same color and everything. The form of them is the same; but the essence (or substance) differs in that one is your iPhone, and one is my iPhone. There is a substantial difference between the two. Something has changed since those iPhones rolled off the assembly line, hasn't it?
Now go back to the two pieces of bread sitting next to each other. What we are saying is that one of those pieces of bread has undergone a change to the degree that it is no longer technically correct to refer to it as merely "bread".
It's true that the bread and wine, when first presented on the altar, are merely symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. But when the priest utters the words of consecration, the symbols become reality. It is now only the appearances that are symbolic, as only the appearance remains of what once was.
Baptism works similarly. When a person is baptized and comes back up from the water, there is no change in his appearance. As far as anyone can tell, he's the same person. However, we know that a substantial change has taken place in that the "old man" has passed away, and he has been re-born as a child of God.
No really. You still, as you stated earlier believe that its just the 'essence' of the thing.
It still looks like wine, tastes like wine and is not bloody even after consecration.
Yes. For the majority of my life I thought they had it wrong.
But He did offer His actual flesh and blood when He was beaten, scourged, and nailed to the cross where He died. .
That was at a different point in time, not at the table.
Not sure he offered anything. When you are nailed to a cross it's not exactly voluntary.
Quote:
The Church had been practicing its rites of worship for a full generation or more before the Gospels were written. The Church already had its beliefs and praxis about the Eucharist long before the Gospels were written.
That still doesn't mean they didn't interpret it wrongly.
Let's say you and I have identical iPhones, same color and everything. The form of them is the same; but the essence (or substance) differs in that one is your iPhone, and one is my iPhone. There is a substantial difference between the two. Something has changed since those iPhones rolled off the assembly line, hasn't it?
Now go back to the two pieces of bread sitting next to each other. What we are saying is that one of those pieces of bread has undergone a change to the degree that it is no longer technically correct to refer to it as merely "bread".
It's true that the bread and wine, when first presented on the altar, are merely symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. But when the priest utters the words of consecration, the symbols become reality. It is now only the appearances that are symbolic, as only the appearance remains of what once was.
Baptism works similarly. When a person is baptized and comes back up from the water, there is no change in his appearance. As far as anyone can tell, he's the same person. However, we know that a substantial change has taken place in that the "old man" has passed away, and he has been re-born as a child of God.
Another analogy...
Cooking foods can destroy some of the nutrients. The foods may look the same, and even taste the same. But their vitamin/mineral composition -- that is, their 'essence' -- has been altered.
Cooking foods can destroy some of the nutrients. The foods may look the same, and even taste the same. But their vitamin/mineral composition -- that is, their 'essence' -- has been altered.
Cooked food doesn't tend to look at all like the uncooked version. Cooking changes the actual physical and chemical composition of the food.
If you examine wine after the priest has done his thing, it remains completely physically and chemically unchanged.
That was at a different point in time, not at the table.
Jesus' actions at the table foreshadowed what would take place the following night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Not sure he offered anything. When you are nailed to a cross it's not exactly voluntary.
In Jesus' case, it absolutely was voluntary. He is God and could have commanded tens of thousands of angels to rescue him and destroy his enemies. This is the God who brought the entire universe into existence with just His words. He could have simply spoken a word and ended it all.
Jesus' actions at the table foreshadowed what would take place the following night.
In Jesus' case, it absolutely was voluntary. He is God and could have commanded tens of thousands of angels to rescue him and destroy his enemies. This is the God who brought the entire universe into existence with just His words. He could have simply spoken a word and ended it all.
Oh come on. Now you're just making things up.
Being forcefully nailed to a cross is not voluntary unless you're some kind of sadist.
No, it's all straight out of the Gospel accounts (Matthew 26:53, John 19:11, etc.).
Jesus did not resist. He's not a sadist, He didn't enjoy it.
Not resisting is not the same as volunteering at all.
To quote the Borg, resistance would have been futile.
Again, he didn't 'offer' anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
