The context of the Eucharist from Passover Seder : sacrifice, real presence, priest, unblemished lamb

[civic]

It doesn’t matter.

They were bishops in succession so appointed to have hand down the truth. They were students of John who record what John taught and what ever believed for the next Millenium. . Or take Justin martyr said “ real flesh”.
Even the romans thought they were cannibals because of teaching the dictrine,
It is also what councils taught

So answer me this.
Why should anyone listen to you, when Protestabts reading scripture is a provable fail,

Because None of the reformers agree with each other on the meaning of scriptire ,
Luther. Zwingli. Calvin Their descendants calvinists do not agree with Calvin .lutherabnd do not agree with luther.
Indeec the multiple synods , elcb , Missouri etc of Lutherans do not agree with each other.
Some Missouri Lutherans even believe in adoration of sorts .

So how can ANY of you claim to know what scripture means, when none of you agree with each other?
You not even agree on what is essential dictrine in the pretence you agree on essentials!

The famous rc sprout, even gradually changed his mind on what was essential!!!
He respect the early fathers and as a result, Many of his seminary graduates became catholic

So why should anyone listen to you or Tom, who were never taught by apostle John, and none of you agree with each other?

It does matter since they were not inspired by God in their writings

 

[mikepec]

It does matter since they were not inspired by God in their writings

Neither are you, calvin , Tom, luther, Zwingli , nor all those who descend from them but disagree.
None of you agree on the meaning of scripture because even scripture says it is not the pillar of truth, which is the church

So it really does not matter what any of you think.
What matters is what the succession think who were the only ones empowered by Jesus because they were “ sent”to preach
Given the power to bind and loose. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth , scripture says so

Doesn’t it bother you you ALL disagree on EVERY matter of dictrine?

 

[civic]

Neither are you, calvin , Tom, luther, Zwingli , nor all those who descend from them but disagree.
None of you agree on the meaning of scripture because even scripture says it is not the pillar of truth, which is the church

So it really does not matter what any of you think.
What matters is what the succession think who were the only ones empowered by Jesus because they were “ sent”to preach
Given the power to bind and loose. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth , scripture says so

Doesn’t it bother you you ALL disagree on EVERY matter of dictrine?

Neither are the popes or bishops in the rcc

 

[mikepec]

Neither are the popes or bishops in the rcc

They are according to Jesus when they act together with the power to bind and loose.
They are also the ones “ sent ” to preach and to hand down “ tradition” true faith to which you are told to “ staytrue”
But you clearly don’t.
That’s why you are told to take disputes to the church, and is why the church is “the pillar of truth”
All those are scripture you ignore!

You also do what you are told not to do. Lean on your own understanding,
None of you have the word of God unless you accept the true meaning. What you , Tom or the reformers think is a total irrelevance, none of you were “sent to preach” You do what scripture tells you not to do you “ lean ion your own understabding”
Proverbs 3:5 deuternomy 9:4 so take your disputes to the church


You need to get your head round several facts
1/ unless you have the true meaning as well as the words you do not have the word of God. It has one meaning not 10000 you do not get to choose it. It is clear in early writings what that meaning was.
2/ Jesus did not throw you a book and tell you to read it, none could read, there were no books! he sent apostles who appointed others to preach it, and hand it down “paradosis, “ that traditon was later committed to paper.
3/ he gave the power to bind and loose which means definitive judgement on meaning. Why do you ignore it?
4/ scripture - the canon is a product of the church - a product of the power to bind and loose as much determined by what was left out as what was included for compatibility with the faith handed down, traditon,
5/ scripture is a product of traditon , the true faith handed down, later committed to paper that carried the meaning

Jesus said his church would be one.
The only church that has maintained the essence of doctrine for two thousand years is the Catholic Church - you call Roman. We don’t. . But it is just THE church. You, sadly are not in it! It is not a union of believers , it is the pillar of truth, the household of God, to where you take disputes scripture says so,

From the earliest writings of those sent to preach and how down truth you know what it believed. Same as it does now, indeed the form of the mass has changed little in 2000 years!!

You have an Incredibly low view of Jesus if you think he was incapable of keeping his church believing the right doctrine!
Or thinking he needs you to get it back!!

You never answer . You all disagree with each other on every fundamental.
How can any of you claim to know what scripture means when none of you agree with each others and you are poles apart from,the early church!!

You attack the views of ignatius - and such as polycarp who knew and talked to John the apostle as having no more weight than yours!
But Do you really think Jesus is so impotent his church went of track in the first generations? So ignatius got it wrong ? He didn’t
Ignatius did not add anything. He just documented what Christ’s church did and believed. .

Like every previous generation he left His church with a steward. A father. Abraham. Moses. Peter and successors.

 

[civic]

They are according to Jesus when they act together with the power to bind and loose.
They are also the ones “ sent ” to preach and to hand down “ tradition” true faith to which you are told to “ staytrue”
But you clearly don’t.
That’s why you are told to take disputes to the church, and is why the church is “the pillar of truth”
All those are scripture you ignore!

You also do what you are told not to do. Lean on your own understanding,
None of you have the word of God unless you accept the true meaning. What you , Tom or the reformers think is a total irrelevance, none of you were “sent to preach” You do what scripture tells you not to do you “ lean ion your own understabding”
Proverbs 3:5 deuternomy 9:4 so take your disputes to the church


You need to get your head round several facts
1/ unless you have the true meaning as well as the words you do not have the word of God. It has one meaning not 10000 you do not get to choose it. It is clear in early writings what that meaning was.
2/ Jesus did not throw you a book and tell you to read it, none could read, there were no books! he sent apostles who appointed others to preach it, and hand it down “paradosis, “ that traditon was later committed to paper.
3/ he gave the power to bind and loose which means definitive judgement on meaning. Why do you ignore it?
4/ scripture - the canon is a product of the church - a product of the power to bind and loose as much determined by what was left out as what was included for compatibility with the faith handed down, traditon,
5/ scripture is a product of traditon , the true faith handed down, later committed to paper that carried the meaning

Jesus said his church would be one.
The only church that has maintained the essence of doctrine for two thousand years is the Catholic Church - you call Roman. We don’t. . But it is just THE church. You, sadly are not in it! It is not a union of believers , it is the pillar of truth, the household of God, to where you take disputes scripture says so,

From the earliest writings of those sent to preach and how down truth you know what it believed. Same as it does now, indeed the form of the mass has changed little in 2000 years!!

You have an Incredibly low view of Jesus if you think he was incapable of keeping his church believing the right doctrine!
Or thinking he needs you to get it back!!

You never answer . You all disagree with each other on every fundamental.
How can any of you claim to know what scripture means when none of you agree with each others and you are poles apart from,the early church!!

You attack the views of ignatius - and such as polycarp who knew and talked to John the apostle as having no more weight than yours!
But Do you really think Jesus is so impotent his church went of track in the first generations? So ignatius got it wrong ? He didn’t
Ignatius did not add anything. He just documented what Christ’s church did and believed. .

Like every previous generation he left His church with a steward. A father. Abraham. Moses. Peter and successors.

There is no apostolic succession. Jesus picked His 12 and only added Paul to the 12. When John died so did the last Apostle. The RCC foundation is sinking sand not upon the Rock which is Christ.

next

 

[mikepec]

There is no apostolic succession. Jesus picked His 12 and only added Paul to the 12. When John died so did the last Apostle. The RCC foundation is sinking sand not upon the Rock which is Christ.

next

But here are your problems!

That John taught others is a fact, which is where polycarp and igatius get their doctrine.He knew others such as clement .
All the early writings of the bishops are consistent, as is the record of handing down
as is the nature of the mass and the doctrine of councils.

1/ So the onky way you can justify the myth of any form of apostasy in the mass , or the wider faith is to pretend that the first geberation after apostles apostasized to the same apostasy that then carried on for two thousand years.
It is utterly nonsensical!

The second problem you have is the xcanon of scriptire is demonstrably a product of the church.
If you do not trust the succession church You have NO New Testament. Again it is nonsensical.

It also flies in the fax3 of scriptire tell8mg you the church is the pillar of truth.
So was scriptire wrong?

 

[civic]

But here are your problems!

That John taught others is a fact, which is where polycarp and igatius get their doctrine.He knew others such as clement .
All the early writings of the bishops are consistent, as is the record of handing down
as is the nature of the mass and the doctrine of councils.

1/ So the onky way you can justify the myth of any form of apostasy in the mass , or the wider faith is to pretend that the first geberation after apostles apostasized to the same apostasy that then carried on for two thousand years.
It is utterly nonsensical!

The second problem you have is the xcanon of scriptire is demonstrably a product of the church.
If you do not trust the succession church You have NO New Testament. Again it is nonsensical.

It also flies in the fax3 of scriptire tell8mg you the church is the pillar of truth.
So was scriptire wrong?

all presuppositions from you and noting in scripture states what you believe.

The fact is Jesus said the foundation of the church was built upon the Apostles - those He chose personally.

And an Apostles must be the EYEWITNESS of His Resurrection.

This eliminates everyone after Paul since He declares- last of all He appeared to me- see 1 Corinthians 15:8.

last means there was no one after Paul. He ended the Apostle succession. He was the last one chosen for that office.

hope this helps !!!

 

[mikepec]

all presuppositions from you and noting in scripture states what you believe.

The fact is Jesus said the foundation of the church was built upon the Apostles - those He chose personally.

And an Apostles must be the EYEWITNESS of His Resurrection.

This eliminates everyone after Paul since He declares- last of all He appeared to me- see 1 Corinthians 15:8.

last means there was no one after Paul. He ended the Apostle succession. He was the last one chosen for that office.

hope this helps !!!

I have given you a dozen scriptures.
You ignore the ones you don’t like.
Like not “ leaning on your own understanding” - the failing of all protestants
Listening only to those “ sent to preach” , and staying true “ to tradition” and the power “ bind and loose” which is what gives the church authority and why it is “the pillar of truth” to which you must take disputes

As I say you have two problems, that make your position farcical.
1/ since the entire church believed the same things about the mass and succession noted by iraneus from the fist, across all the antinicene writings and since,
The only way you can justify changing that doctrine to whatever you believe is by claiming John apostasized. That did not happen!
How weak your low view if Jesus is since you claim he can’t do what he says, his church is one!
Do you really think Jesus needs you to correct him on doctrine?

And 2/ Since you don’t accept the authority of the church YOU have NO scripture, sinve the canon is a product of church decision


You need to study history, your position is completely untenable.
Sola scriptura is a total fail since you all believe different things.
The early church was NOT sola scriptura.

 

[TomL]

I have given you a dozen scriptures.
You ignore the ones you don’t like.
Like not “ leaning on your own understanding” - the failing of all protestants

Actually you are confused it is not leaning on your own understanding but leaning of what the word of God teaches

as opposed to what man teaches which cannot be justified by scripture.

 

[TomL]

Neither are you, calvin , Tom, luther, Zwingli , nor all those who descend from them but disagree.
None of you agree on the meaning of scripture because even scripture says it is not the pillar of truth, which is the church

So it really does not matter what any of you think.
What matters is what the succession think who were the only ones empowered by Jesus because they were “ sent”to preach
Given the power to bind and loose. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth , scripture says so

You will note a pillar is a support. There is no justification in that verse for inventing doctrines which were not always a part of the church and certainly no justification for introducing doctrine contrary to scripture

 

[Doug Brents]

The context of the Eucharist is everywhere in scripture.

As one time protestant it was noticeable how myopic the reformers were.
The cherrypicking of single verses made them lose the big picture.

A few pointers
Blood sacrifice was part of the old covenant .
It was a sacrifice in a temple done only by a priest.
It was eaten in a ceremony

The old covenant had a Passover sacrifice.

Only unblemished animals “ not a bone broken” note the crucifixion.
Abraham was challenged to sacrifice his only son.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem translation “ house of bread”
Jesus was placed in an EATING trough.

The institution of the Eucharist was a Passover Seder.
The third cup of the Eucharist , after eating flesh of the sacrificial lamb , was called the cup of blessing.
Jesus elsewhere is called the lamb.

Paul says “ is not the cup of “blessing “ we bless, a sharing in the blood of Jesus”
If you do not study holistically, via rabbinic sources you would miss how specific Paul’s phrase was referring to the third cup of the 4 cup Seder,.

Very good so far.

He said “ some are sick, some have died”, profaning it, so NOT a aymbol
You cannot profane a symbol,

You can profane a symbol. The Temple was a symbol of the real Temple in Heaven (Heb 8:5), and they were commanded not to profane the Temple (Lev 21:12).

Jesus said “ this IS my body “ not “ represents”
He said this “ this is my blood”not represents

A metaphor does not use "like" as a simile does. A writer might hold up a pen and say, "This is my sword", but the pen does not become a sword just because he did not say, "This is pen is like a sword for me."

He used the word meaning “ gnaw “ ( as of meat ) not consume in saying “ unless you eat my body,
And Jesus clearly makes eating his body a condition of eternal life!

( OSAS believers please note - He tells you to stuff, not just say I believe !)

A cup is always metaphor for sacrifice. Jesus and Paul use the word “ cup “

Then parts people miss, unless they study holistically,

Again, no arguments with this.

The Seder does not end in the 3rd cup of blessing , it ends in the fourth, which was not taken in the upper room.

Jesus said he would not drink of the vine again until the kingdom comes

Very good. Jesus said He would not drink of the fourth cup until His Kingdom began, and He drank it with the Apostles after His resurrection.

On the cross He says I thirst, and is given wine vinegar on hyssop, hyssop also refers back to Passover
He drinks wine, then says “ it is finished”

So what is finished?

Clearly he has not resurrected yet.
He means the Passover Seder and sacrificeis ended in the fourth cup and his death!
“ for this I was born “
The kingdom has come!

So the Eucharist as new covenant version of Passover sacrifice of an unblemished lamb is everywhere in scripture,

Very good.

ALL the early fathers are united in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, real flesh and blood valid only if done by someone authorised by bishop in succession.

The Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is the representation of the Passover Sader condensed and brought into the New Covenant. Notice that when in 1 Cor 11:17ff Paul teaches about the Lord's Supper, he only mentions the bread and the cup, and again using metaphor relates them to the Lord's body and blood. The bread does not supernaturally become flesh; it represents the flesh. And the fruit of the vine does not supernaturally become blood; it represents the blood.

And it was authorized by Jesus at the Last Supper. It needs no additional authorization from any man calling himself "priest" or "bishop". All Christ followers are priests in God's Kingdom, and we all have the same authority to perform any of the functions of a priest of God. (Excepting only that women are not to have authority over men, but are to teach the younger women in the ways of God).

 

[TomL]

The context of the Eucharist is everywhere in scripture.

As one time protestant it was noticeable how myopic the reformers were.
The cherrypicking of single verses made them lose the big picture.

A few pointers
Blood sacrifice was part of the old covenant .
It was a sacrifice in a temple done only by a priest.
It was eaten in a ceremony

The old covenant had a Passover sacrifice.

Only unblemished animals “ not a bone broken” note the crucifixion.
Abraham was challenged to sacrifice his only son.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem translation “ house of bread”
Jesus was placed in an EATING trough.

The institution of the Eucharist was a Passover Seder.
The third cup of the Eucharist , after eating flesh of the sacrificial lamb , was called the cup of blessing.
Jesus elsewhere is called the lamb.

Paul says “ is not the cup of “blessing “ we bless, a sharing in the blood of Jesus”
If you do not study holistically, via rabbinic sources you would miss how specific Paul’s phrase was referring to the third cup of the 4 cup Seder,.

He said “ some are sick, some have died”, profaning it, so NOT a aymbol
You cannot profane a symbol,

Jesus said “ this IS my body “ not “ represents”
He said this “ this is my blood”not represents

He used the word meaning “ gnaw “ ( as of meat ) not consume in saying “ unless you eat my body,
And Jesus clearly makes eating his body a condition of eternal life!

( OSAS believers please note - He tells you to stuff, not just say I believe !)

A cup is always metaphor for sacrifice. Jesus and Paul use the word “ cup “

Then parts people miss, unless they study holistically,

The Seder does not end in the 3rd cup of blessing , it ends in the fourth, which was not taken in the upper room.

Jesus said he would not drink of the vine again until the kingdom comes

On the cross He says I thirst, and is given wine vinegar on hyssop, hyssop also refers back to Passover
He drinks wine, then says “ it is finished”

So what is finished?

Clearly he has not resurrected yet.
He means the Passover Seder and sacrificeis ended in the fourth cup and his death!
“ for this I was born “
The kingdom has come!

So the Eucharist as new covenant version of Passover sacrifice of an unblemished lamb is everywhere in scripture,

ALL the early fathers are united in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, real flesh and blood valid only if done by someone authorised by bishop in succession.

An endless series of validated Eucharistic miracles show that it really is the flesh of Jesus. Onky the Catholic Church and orthodox have a valid Eucharist. Only the Catholic Church has valid Eucharist theology.

Catholics do not resacrifice Christ, they understand the Eucharist the same way the first fathers did.
They are participating in the once , eternal , never ending sadrifice that is the mass : marriage supper of the lamb.

The symbolic Eucharist is one more piece of the apostasy that was rhe reformation .

It’s also why I went back to the Catholic Church .

Except Christ was sacrificed but one time in a bloody but sufficient manner that does not require continual sacrifice in an unbloody or otherwise manner