Eucharist Not In The Bible

[Dave]

SolaScriptura, to add to what several people have already said in this thread, in the language of that land and time, "eating one's body" and "drinking one's blood" indeed had a figurative sense -- it meant "to slander and betray." Now was Jesus saying that in order to have eternal life we have to slander and betray Him? Of course not! To think otherwise would be absurd. So then, Jesus could only have been speaking literally.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082357' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:12 PM']
"The Words that I have spoken are spirit and life". He gave you the interpretation.

As I started this thread saying, if you take the literal eating of flesh then you have to take verse 54 literally and simply say that everyone who takes communion has eternal life.
That isn't answering the question I asked, but thanks.
Actually, the angel passed over because of the blood of the lamb on the door. It is not the eating of the lamb that saved them from the angel of death, but the blood.

Likewise, it is not the eating of Christ that saves us but his blood (his death on the cross, not the wine either).
[/quote]
that's it? that your refutation of the entire defense that i wrote? i asked for a point-by-point rebuttal. will i get one?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1082472' date='Oct 2 2006, 11:32 PM']
that's it? that your refutation of the entire defense that i wrote? i asked for a point-by-point rebuttal. will i get one?
[/quote]
You know, I've got to say, I think this text is the closest I've ever seen to the way he actually speaks.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1082477' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:39 PM']
You know, I've got to say, I think this text is the closest I've ever seen to the way he actually speaks.
[/quote]
He speaks without using capital letters?

[DAF]

Does he hyphenate too?

[N/A Gone]

[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]

Im sorry this is not in the natural flow of the convo. And with all respect Sola, I would appreciate an actual formal response to Phatcatholic on his post.

But, please. Dont try to pretent that protestantism even remotely agrees on simple soteriology. All of them using the same bible come to radical conclusions that contridict each other and lead to more bloody conclusions than the arguments on this board. Calvin was arguably the best exegetical hermenutics theologian of the reformation and his soteriology is radically different than common protestant evangelicals.

Scripture satisfies. Scripture is invaluable. But the role of a authoritative body to interpret is needed. No matter how amazing scripture is with protestant autonomy the message can be horribly misinterpreted and it loses vital truth. But hey, if you would rather trust yourself and your limited knowledge then so be it. As I asked you before. What exactly do you want us to do? Give up truth for autonomy? If I want to babble my own self-serving truths I would be on a sports board.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1082472' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:32 PM']
that's it? that your refutation of the entire defense that i wrote? i asked for a point-by-point rebuttal. will i get one?
[/quote]

Yeah, that's it. Your church is misinterpreting that whole section of John 6.

What about your goof up on eating the lamb and that saving them? No comment on that?

1 Cor:

26For as often as you eat this BREAD and drink the CUP, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Paul tells you the meaning of the Lord's Supper and he tells you what you are eating and drinking.

The Corinthians were engaging in a meal. But they were not engaging in the meal properly.

20When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

How does one get drunk on the blood of Christ?

Here's the big finale:

33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--

Eating together, it's called the Lord's Supper. It is a remembrance meal for the sacrifice he made. However, it is to be performed with the proper reverence and handling it with less than that is profaning the Lord's work.

Not one mention of a priest performing transubstantiation, no warning about leftovers, only references to a remembrance meal. Certainly now would have been the time for Paul to explain how this ritual should be performed, but he does not.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1082442' date='Oct 2 2006, 08:59 PM']
Jesus says two things are "spirit and life" in that statement

likewise, if you would step away from your red lettered english bible where it is presupposed that every english word came down pre-packaged for your salvation, you would begin to understand what John (the author) intended to say with these passages and therefore what Jesus intended when He spoke these words.
[/quote]

Yeah, this seems like the second time you made a comment like this although I may have you confused with one of the other ten people.

It is not what John intended to say but what GOD intended to say.

It is hard for me to take advice from you when you cannot even give credit of authorship to God.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1082523' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:39 PM']
But, please. Dont try to pretent that protestantism even remotely agrees on simple soteriology. All of them using the same bible come to radical conclusions that contridict each other and lead to more bloody conclusions than the arguments on this board. Calvin was arguably the best exegetical hermenutics theologian of the reformation and his soteriology is radically different than common protestant evangelicals.

Scripture satisfies. Scripture is invaluable. But the role of a authoritative body to interpret is needed. No matter how amazing scripture is with protestant autonomy the message can be horribly misinterpreted and it loses vital truth. But hey, if you would rather trust yourself and your limited knowledge then so be it. As I asked you before. What exactly do you want us to do? Give up truth for autonomy? If I want to babble my own self-serving truths I would be on a sports board.
[/quote]

The lack of agreement of Protestants on mostly small points does not invalidate the Bible or our ability to discern what it says without someone else telling us.

Most of you seem to dodge the question of whether or not you could figure out how to go to heaven if you had only a Bible and no human contact. The truth is, the Gospel message, the road to salvation, is clearly laid out in the Bible and understandable without some outside teaching authority.

As such, there is no need to ahave someone else do all your thinking for you. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's redemptive plan for humanity and that is exactly what can be understood by individual reading.

But beyond that, God has not left us to our own devices, when we accept the Jesus as our Lord and Savior we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth to us. That includes reading the Bible. That does not mean we get an instant download of all truth and information, but through study and prayer we can on our own understand God's Word.

"But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything--and is true and is no lie," 1 John 2:27

"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." 1 Cor 2:10-11


So if you are unable to understand the Bible on your own with the necessary prayer and study, than maybe you should be asking where the Holy Spirit is.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082759' date='Oct 3 2006, 06:08 AM']
So if you are unable to understand the Bible on your own with the necessary prayer and study, than maybe you should be asking where the Holy Spirit is.
[/quote]Sola,
I guess then you make the choice to ignore huge passages of Scripture that identifies and makes clear that some people were Church leaders and elders and what-not. How do you explain how the question of circumcision was answered?
How do we answer whether abortion is right or wrong if it is just up to us and individual prayer?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082759' date='Oct 3 2006, 07:08 AM']
The lack of agreement of Protestants on mostly small points does not invalidate the Bible or our ability to discern what it says without someone else telling us. [/quote]

Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
OSAS vs. not
symbolic communion vs. consubstansiation
rapture vs. not
etc.

These are "small points"?
Protestants disagree on all of them.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082759' date='Oct 3 2006, 08:08 AM']
The lack of agreement of Protestants on mostly small points does not invalidate the Bible or our ability to discern what it says without someone else telling us.
[/quote]

So you're basically telling the Church, "I'll go it alone. I'll do it myself. I don't need you."

The isolation, the hatred of true communion, the sense of self-sufficiency. Whose words do those sound like?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082759' date='Oct 3 2006, 07:08 AM']
The lack of agreement of Protestants on mostly small points does not invalidate the Bible or our ability to discern what it says without someone else telling us.
[/quote]

Thats a huge chunk of carp. As a former evangelical theologian. Trained in systematic theology and Pastoral leadership I must testify that you are either ignorant or trying to put a band-aid on the issue. There are more heated theological debates in the protestant community than between Catholics and protestants at this moment.

Also, "sola scripture" does not exist at this time anyway. Most protestants simply have their own magistrium based on whatever their choosen denomination/pastor tells them how to read scripture. Even the free church eccesiologies still will follow a certain theologian.

So please. Do not assume that there are no former evangelicals here. I have been there and done that in your world. The issues are too big. They do go against each other to the point of denying that each other is saved.

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082776' date='Oct 3 2006, 08:18 AM']
Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
OSAS vs. not
symbolic communion vs. consubstansiation
rapture vs. not
etc.

These are "small points"?
Protestants disagree on all of them.
[/quote]

fundi vs liberal, Calvin vs arminien/Open theism, Jesus Seminars, the list goes on...

Simply the concept of spliting over small things is unbiblical. Christ prayed for unity. Paul spoke of unity above doctrinal differences. Without this unity your biblical authority is lacking. You are just a man with a book. Claiming it is God.

Honestly.As a protestant without the help of the Church how do you think the bible is authoritive? Because you were raised with it? because "the spirit" tells you? A mormon will say the same thing. An iSlam will say the same thing, and be more devoited than you. How do you justify the Bible having authority?

btw...Im all for boycotting Sola until he answers Phatcatholics argument point-by-point.

Simply saying we "dont interpret" scripture "right" according to you violates sola scripture because you are placing yourself as a magistrium over our ability to interpret.

[homeschoolmom]

Let's stick with the topic "The Eucharist is not in the Bible."

Frankly, I think the conversation is pretty much over. Sola said it isn't. Many have pointed to where we believe it is. The conversation has now morphed into a discussion on Sola Scriptura. There are other threads for that. So, unless the topic of the Eucharist is discussed, I'm going to close this thread.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082824' date='Oct 3 2006, 11:31 AM']
Let's stick with the topic "The Eucharist is not in the Bible."

Frankly, I think the conversation is pretty much over. Sola said it isn't. Many have pointed to where we believe it is. The conversation has now morphed into a discussion on Sola Scriptura. There are other threads for that. So, unless the topic of the Eucharist is discussed, I'm going to close this thread.
[/quote]
The morphing of arguments just goes to show where the real issues come from. It's not the Eucharist, it's sola scriptura.

[homeschoolmom]

I agree. So, unless there is more to say on the topic of the Eucharist, I'm closing this thread. I'll give you a little while to chew on it. (pun intended...)