Eucharistic Adoration

[maxk]

I'm pretty good at defending the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but I don't know exactly how to approach this article:
[url="http://http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm"]Michael Scheifler's Bible Light Homepage[/url]

I'm not sure if this a common viewpoint amongst Protestants or not. It's a false outlook but I cannot [i]directly[/i] prove it.

[maxk]

I screwed up the site; here it is:
[url="http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm"]Michael Scheifler's Bible Light Homepage[/url]

[HomeTeamFamily]

ok im not very well versed in defending the faith but i did take a look at the article and his arugments seem pretty weak.....all of the pictures are backed up by nothing scriptural and the conclusion he comes to does not follow very clearly from the above "evidence"....i think alot of his ideas about the resemblance of the monstrance to pagan stuff is coincidental....especially the part at the beginning about the numbers....to me it seems real unconvincing

just my .02

[Jake Huether]

Yeah they really have no clue what they are talking about. I didn't even have to read the article. The title says it all.

That's like saying that Moses was a sunworshiper because of the Ark of the Covenant! LOL.


Shoot look at how they decked out the Ark, and that didn't even hold Christs physical Body!

The least we can do for Jesus in the Eucharist is give him a Golden Monstrance (a Gold seat).

[God Conquers]

Know what? That site is pretty cool, here's why...

Since this person obviously doesn't understand that worshipping the Eucharist IS worshipping God, he(or she) has taken an interesting perspective.

Besides some of the coolest pictures of monstrances ever (with the pope!) they have put alot of ancient pagan symbols alongside.

Predictably, these look very similar. Why?

The deepest longing of the human heart is to worship God in an earthly manifestation. What's the closest thing other than His direct Incarnation? The sun. So it was worshipped.

Who is Jesus? The Son.

WHat is the Eucharist? The Son and the sun.

How the sun? Literally? Well, no, but Christ created the sun. And Christ in the Eucharist is the SOurce and Summit of our faith, just as those ancient people yearning for God's love recognized that the sun was the source and summit of their life on earth.. it is the very heart of life and existence on earth, just like Our Eucharistic Savior.

How cool is it that the Church recognizes the basic needs and longings for the way in which humans need to worship, and so we are united with our most ancient ancestors in the form of worship, but we are directed, by God's Grace, towards the very thing which they strived for in a much more intimate way.

[maxk]

I do find it funny, though, that they put that link to Envoy Magazine in there, since it's such an excellent Catholic apologetics magazine.

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

[quote name='maxk' date='Apr 20 2004, 10:25 AM'] I'm pretty good at defending the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but I don't know exactly how to approach this article:
[url="http://http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm"]Michael Scheifler's Bible Light Homepage[/url]

I'm not sure if this a common viewpoint amongst Protestants or not. It's a false outlook but I cannot [i]directly[/i] prove it. [/quote]
This guy is a WASTE OF YOUR TIME.

[the lumberjack]

in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14)

No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)


Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body ... this is My blood." Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.

The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine! Let's look closer at His words.

No one can deny that here we have figurative language.

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root", "the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice.

"Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19).

thank you.

God bless.

[willguy]

The problem with that site is it makes an arguement that makes no sense. It looks like a sun, therefore it is sun worship.

Yes it looks like the sun, because it uses symbolism. The sun gives light and life physically. The Eucharist gives light and life in a spiritual sense.

[quote]The pagan though, would quickly see the same sun disk symbol associated with many pagan deities of Egypt, among them Isis, Horus, and Seb. [/quote] Jack Chick uses this argument too. However, the problem is that there never was an Egyptian diety named Seb. This site tries to cover it up by saying that Seb is another name for Geb, but I have never seen that name used anywhere else. My, how far they'll go to support a lie.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:03 PM'] in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14)

No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)


Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body ... this is My blood." Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.

The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine! Let's look closer at His words.

No one can deny that here we have figurative language.

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root", "the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice.

"Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19).

thank you.

God bless. [/quote]
That would soound plausible EXCEPT for the fact the Church has always taught the the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of the Lord. Always, since the Last Supper. So all the years before the gospels were written, the Mass and the Body and Blood of Jesus were being offered to the first christians.

This dogma was not challenged for 1500 years. So why should anybody worry abvout what Luther came up with 1500 years later?

Or as Father Groeshel would say" Oy vay, where YOU there?

[ironmonk]

lumberjack,
Why not address the other post? That we are all eager to see what you have to write. Either admit that Boettner was wrong, or prove that he was right. If you fail to do either, what would that mean?

Now, for this topic....

Unless you are infallible, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.

Where as the Catholic does not need to go to great lenths to show with Scirpture that it IS the Flesh of Christ.

[b]John 6:52[/b]
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "[color=blue][b]How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?[/b][/color]"
[b]53 [/b]Jesus said to them, "[color=red]Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.[/color]
[b]54 [/b][color=red]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.[/color]
[b]55 [/b][color=red]For my flesh is [b]true food[/b], and my blood is [b]true drink[/b].[/color]
[b]56 [/b][color=red]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.[/color]
[b]57 [/b][color=red]Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.[/color]
[b]58 [/b][color=red]This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.[/color]"
[b]59 [/b]These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
[b]60 [/b]Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "[b]This saying is hard; who can accept it?[/b]"
[b]61 [/b]Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "[color=red]Does this shock you?[/color]
[b]62 [/b][color=red]What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?[/color]
[b]63 [/b][b][u][B]It is the spirit that gives life[/b][/u], while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.[/B]
[b]64 [/b][color=red]But there are some of [u][b]you [/b][/u]who [u][b]do not believe[/b][/u].[/color]" Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
[b]65 [/b]And he said, "[color=red]For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.[/color]"
[b]66 [/b][b][color=blue]As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.[/color][/b]



Every other time Christ spoke in parable and people walked away, Christ stopped them. Why didn't He this time?

If it was figureative, why was it so hard to believe?

When we see the words that were used in the orignal language (sarx) it was to chew or knaw.

As above shows; the Eucharist has the Real Pressence.


If you think that you are right, then show us with quotes from BEFORE 1500 AD to back your claim.

Here are just a few:
[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


[b]Justin Martyr[/b]

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


[b]Irenaeus[/b]

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).




If it was figurative, then we would not be eating judgement onto ourselves as Paul exaplains in Corinithians (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29).


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited April 20, 2004 by ironmonk

[God Conquers]

Actually, the Eucharist CAN be physically satisfying, there are saints who have lived for years just on daily consumption of the eucharist.

[the lumberjack]

you throw your rubberstamp on it as if to change the truth...

yet you can not.

the Bible says what it does...and you can not change that.

my post is yet unanswered and unchallenged.

your alleged 2000 years of teachings and dogma have NOTHING to do with the [b]context[/b] of what Christ said...

if you can not support what you believe with the WHOLE bible, and not just bits and pieces....I'm sorry.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:21 PM'] Actually, the Eucharist CAN be physically satisfying, there are saints who have lived for years just on daily consumption of the eucharist. [/quote]
St. Pio!!! Doctors claimed he should not be able to live on what he ate... yet he never lost weight.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 20 2004, 02:23 PM'] you throw your rubberstamp on it as if to change the truth...

yet you can not.

the Bible says what it does...and you can not change that.

my post is yet unanswered and unchallenged.

your alleged 2000 years of teachings and dogma have NOTHING to do with the [b]context[/b] of what Christ said...

if you can not support what you believe with the WHOLE bible, and not just bits and pieces....I'm sorry.

God bless. [/quote]
The first Christians disagree with you.

Show us with writings from the first Christians that we are wrong, then and only then will your words mean anything.

If the bible was all we needed to understand it, then we all would have the same interpretation.

Funny how the bible teaches the opposite. See Acts 8:27-40

Pay close attention to:
[b]Acts 8:31 [/b]He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.


Why not try to understand instead of argue... you will not convince anyone here of your view... unless you can show us that your way has always been taught.

I've been reading Scripture since I was six. I know it well, and it does not say what you claim it says. I'll be 31 next month.


God Bless,
ironmonk