Eucharist Not In The Bible

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082212' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:20 PM']
Tell me, what is missing from scripture that will keep us from obtaining salvation?
[/quote]


Nothing..What is missing is a central authority needed to interpret scripture.

attacking the music quote was week when there are much more serious ones listed

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1082219' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:22 PM']
Nothing..What is missing is a central authority needed to interpret scripture.

attacking the music quote was week when there are much more serious ones listed
[/quote]

Then are you saying that you cannot understand how to get to heaven unless some human authority explains the scriptures to you?



[quote name='thessalonian' post='1082205' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:55 PM']
Yes, because that teaching is contained equally in the sacred traditions and teachings of the Church. St. Irenaus said "if we had not the scriptures we would have the Church". Paul and the Apostles didn't go around passing out Bibles to everyone. They gave their teachings orally, primarily. The Church did not operate in a sola scriptura mode during the time of the Apostles and so how could they have written about it?
[/quote]

What the apostles taught to the early church is captured in the scriptures. The Gospel message is clearly laid out in scriptuire such than anyone can understand it. In the absence of a Bible, the same message can be conveyed orally, however, the scriptures are the ultimate authority as they are thw Word of God.


What is it that the apostles taught that you think is not captured in scripture?

[Aloysius]

The Didache and the Sheperd of Hermas came out of the same period as much of the New Testament, were referenced by early church fathers, were widespread and read in Christian churches... they are not mentioned in any other book of scripture but neither are quite a few books of the New Testament like the letters of John and James and the Apocalypse (revelation)... what disqualifies these two ancient books from your canon sir? The tradtion of men. A tradition without which you would not have a bible. Moreover, that tradtion of men is only clearly manifested by an institutional Church.

anyway, I would like to hear a quote from each one of the writers of the New Testament in which they declared that they were motivated to write by the Holy Spirit... how about just one from each of the ones I can think of off the top of my head: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James. They, in fact, said no such thing (because it is a tradition, passed down through men, that these writings were divinely inspired)

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082221' date='Oct 2 2006, 06:29 PM']
Then are you saying that you cannot understand how to get to heaven unless some human authority explains the scriptures to you?
What the apostles taught to the early church is captured in the scriptures. The Gospel message is clearly laid out in scriptuire such than anyone can understand it. In the absence of a Bible, the same message can be conveyed orally, however, the scriptures are the ultimate authority as they are thw Word of God.
What is it that the apostles taught that you think is not captured in scripture?
[/quote]
in the person of Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation to man. the scriptures are the inspired word of God telling us about Jesus Christ. they are lacking insomuch as Jesus Christ is the infinite God and not fully knowable, and insomuch as we fail to understand their exact meaning (we do not even still have any of the original writings in their original languages, and are far removed from the culture in which they were written)

When Near Eastern Archaeologists (Biblical Archaeologists) are investigating the truth of some story of the Bible and they want to know what is really contained in that story; for the Old Testament they look around the traditions of the Jewish Community in regards to the meaning of that story and compare all of that with the archaeological record, for the New Testament they look for the widespread traditions among the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to compare to the archaeological record... whenever they find a long lasting, consistent, widespread tradition which matches with the archaelogical record they deem it feasible... if they find only an archaeological record they cannot necessarily authenticate it... they may look to scholars from the protestant tradtiion but they rarely look at protestant traditions, because they are a far link removed from the line which dates directly to the time of the writing of the New Testament and are a less reliable source.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082227' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:46 PM']
The Didache and the Sheperd of Hermas came out of the same period as much of the New Testament, were referenced by early church fathers, were widespread and read in Christian churches... they are not mentioned in any other book of scripture but neither are quite a few books of the New Testament like the letters of John and James and the Apocalypse (revelation)... what disqualifies these two ancient books from your canon sir? The tradtion of men. A tradition without which you would not have a bible. Moreover, that tradtion of men is only clearly manifested by an institutional Church.

anyway, I would like to hear a quote from each one of the writers of the New Testament in which they declared that they were motivated to write by the Holy Spirit... how about just one from each of the ones I can think of off the top of my head: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James. They, in fact, said no such thing (because it is a tradition, passed down through men, that these writings were divinely inspired)
in the person of Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation to man. the scriptures are the inspired word of God telling us about Jesus Christ. they are lacking insomuch as Jesus Christ is the infinite God and not fully knowable, and insomuch as we fail to understand their exact meaning (we do not even still have any of the original writings in their original languages, and are far removed from the culture in which they were written)
[/quote]

And they were written by which Apostle?

[Aloysius]

Which Apostle wrote Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

The Didache is named "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" and is said to contain direct sayings of the Apostles, as reliably as Peter is said to have been written by the Apostle Peter or John is said to have been written by the Apostle John are these things said to have been written by the Apostles themselves.

Here's a good source: [url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html"]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote]I answered this already.

[/quote]

No not really. You just said "you can't use John 6"


We don't have a choice in what Scriptures we use and don't use. And as far as addressing your statement that Eucharist isn't in the bible, it directly refutes that. (Which may be why you don't want to address it)

Instead of disregarding the scriptures, why not defend your position with them?

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082240' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:51 PM']
Which Apostle wrote Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

The Didache is named "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" and is said to contain direct sayings of the Apostles, as reliably as Peter is said to have been written by the Apostle Peter or John is said to have been written by the Apostle John are these things said to have been written by the Apostles themselves.

Here's a good source: [url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html"]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html[/url]
[/quote]

Do you think that God knew they were not part of his breathed-out Word?

[Aloysius]

How do you know they are not part of His breated-out Word? The only reason you do not have one in your bible right before the book of revelation is because the Church of Rome surpressed them from any and all canons in AD 390.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1082242' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:53 PM']
No not really. You just said "you can't use John 6"
We don't have a choice in what Scriptures we use and don't use. And as far as addressing your statement that Eucharist isn't in the bible, it directly refutes that. (Which may be why you don't want to address it)

Instead of disregarding the scriptures, why not defend your position with them?
[/quote]

My answer from Page 3:

I can see how you may misinterpret John 6 and throw in the other passages to confirm your position, but it is still just a misinterpretation. A long history of misinterpretation does not change that.

Jesus did give you the answer to the metaphor. He did not explain how transubstantiation would work (which would have been the perfect time to explain that) but instead he explained the difference between the flesh and spirit.

61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


Did you miss that answer on Page 3?

[Aloysius]

so apparently, all these things being said in the spirit, Jesus only spiritually ascended to His Father? and when things are only spiritual, then assuredly that means they are also symbolic! therefore, the son of Man ascending to where He was before is just a symbol. your position, that Jesus' statement "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail" means that He was previously talking metaphorically requires you to see the statement He connected with it (perhaps you didn't see it because of the man-made tradition-passed number system dividing the verses), that Jesus would ascend to Heaven, as also symbolic. No, He clearly means: your flesh, which takes offence at this great miracle I offer, is of no avail. Your spirit ought to believe it, just as will happen when I ascend to heaven.

of course, I am still wondering why you have not inserted The Didache into your canon of scripture.

[Anomaly]

Sola,
Didn't you miss the answers to your 'new' interpretation on page3? What's more reasonable?
A- God and the holy spirit let the vast majority of christians to be outright wrong for almost 2,000 years until some figured out something different in the last few hundred?
B- Almost all christians have it right even though they may differ in 'how' and to 'what extent' the presence of God enters the eucharist? (Most protestant denoms claim the presence of God in the eucharist)

The real presence is fully supported in Scripture and the early christian teachings and writings are consistent with that understanding and teaching. Your idea is a new way to interpret Scripture relative to the body of Christian belief and understanding.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Anomaly

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082251' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:03 PM']
How do you know they are not part of His breated-out Word? The only reason you do not have one in your bible right before the book of revelation is because the Church of Rome surpressed them from any and all canons in AD 390.
[/quote]

The Church of Rome? That wouldn't be until the Council of Trent since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical Councils.

I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082221' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:29 PM']
Then are you saying that you cannot understand how to get to heaven unless some human authority explains the scriptures to you?
What the apostles taught to the early church is captured in the scriptures. The Gospel message is clearly laid out in scriptuire such than anyone can understand it. In the absence of a Bible, the same message can be conveyed orally, however, the scriptures are the ultimate authority as they are thw Word of God.
What is it that the apostles taught that you think is not captured in scripture?
[/quote]

What passage tells you that it was all explicitly captured? John says at the end of his letters:

[12] Deme'trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.
[13]
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
[14] I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.
[15]
Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them.

So where did he write it?

Actually a fairly answerable question and this thread has clearly demonstrated it. You say things are clear in scripture. Only when you assume that the understandings that you have in your head are the correct understandings. But are they really. My wife tells me "go to Target and get milk". A pretty simple, clear statement. She and I both know what it means. Yet within that simple statement there is a whole assumed understanding of what that sentence means, i.e. is there gas in the car, I have a drivers license, the route to the store, how I pay for it, etc. etc. .

Many assumptions. Scripture is the same. Paul for instance says " believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved". Is it that simple? Well yes it is but that statement implies much else that Luke understands when he writes Paul's words. It is not just a head bob and a sinners prayer but a life walk, starting with baptism. (I know you will disagree but your implicit does not trump mine).

Basically what I am saying is that what is left out of the scriptures many times is a proper understanding of the scriptures. A verse in Corinthians speaks of baptizing the dead. Now some religion (the Mormons actually do this) might decide they need to baptize the dead because of this passage. Traditionally speaking it is a false practice. But the scriptures do not put a judgement on the practice explicitly. Now the person whole holds a bible and reads the passage that speaks of baptizing the dead, has the scriptures, but if he baptizes the dead because of it he does not have the word of God. The word of God is made up of the scriptures and the proper understanding of them. That is why Paul says "hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by word of mouth or in writing from us". Scripture cannot teach sola scriptura with this sentence in the scriptures because if sola scriptura is the end result then this passage is a contradiction to the scriptures. i.e. Paul teaches written tradition (scriptures) + oral teachings but then you say the Bible says sola scriptura. The two are contradictory.

By the way, I saw your answer regarding metaphores above. Interestingly enough I think the Lord's Supper is symbolic, metaphoric, spiritual, and literal sacramental all at once. I don't see the fact that the bread and wine symbolize community and Christ means that the sacrament is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. That is what "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" means. It's pretty clear.

Hope that helps.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1082259' date='Oct 2 2006, 05:15 PM']
Sola,
Didn't you miss the answers to your 'new' interpretation on page3? What's more reasonable?
A- God and the holy spirit let the vast majority of christians to be outright wrong for almost 2,000 years until some figured out something different in the last few hundred?
B- Almost all christians have it right even though they may differ in 'how' and to 'what extent' the presence of God enters the eucharist? (Most protestant denoms claim the presence of God in the eucharist)

The real presence is fully supported in Scripture and the early christian teachings and writings are consistent with that understanding and teaching. Your idea is a new way to interpret Scripture relative to the body of Christian belief and understanding.
[/quote]

Experience and history do not determine God's plan.

No, I do not believe the real presence is supported in the scripture and I believe that considering the eucharist to be required for salvation to be counter-scriptural.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082262' date='Oct 2 2006, 06:18 PM']
The Church of Rome? That wouldn't be until the Council of Trent since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical Councils.

I guess you are saying that God would not be able to put the canon together without the authority of Rome. And not until 1563.
[/quote]

Flourence was Ecumenical and declares the canon. Also Pope Leo, early in the 5th century declared the canon so there is the papal statement. And no we are not saying that. It is quite clear however that the Holy Spirit worked in and through the Church.