tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post2689062419020390102..comments2024-03-13T17:03:38.660-07:00Comments on Answering Catholic Claims: THE EUCHARIST (Part 2)Russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-32597940944159548372019-03-09T11:49:12.666-08:002019-03-09T11:49:12.666-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-50432881107394847302019-01-17T12:46:52.322-08:002019-01-17T12:46:52.322-08:00Hello Anonymous,
Overlooking the fact that I aske...Hello Anonymous,<br /><br />Overlooking the fact that I asked for a specific argument from you, the link you sent is an example of many Catholic articles out there. It assumes that the Catholic Mass is a perpetual offering of what happened at Calvary. The article says:<br /><br /><br />“In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is stated that because Christ is a perpetual high priest, He is EVER offering Himself to God…” (Emphasis added)<br /><br />And the author connects this idea of “ever offering Himself” with Hebrews 7:23-25:<br /><br />"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." <br /><br />This passage says NOTHING about Jesus continually or perpetually offering Himself to God. His High Priesthood is indeed perpetual, but His sacrifice of Himself is NOT. It was a unique and one-time work. <br /> <br />The BENEFITS of His sacrifice are perpetual, but the work of offering isn’t. Remember, it says that the offering was done “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10-18) and then He SAT DOWN at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12), indicating that His work / sacrifice / offering was finished. It is the benefits of Calvary that continue because “He always lives to make intercession for them.”<br /> <br />It is the INTERCESSION of Jesus that is perpetual, not the act of offering. And those benefits are available, not through sacraments, but through believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />The work of offering sacrifice is distinct from His intercession. Catholics are playing word games with this concept.<br /><br />See also these links:<br /><br />https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/02/heres-offering-you-cant-re-use.html<br /><br />https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-91844390854331409682019-01-15T14:12:38.315-08:002019-01-15T14:12:38.315-08:00http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/8...http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/430-christ-die-again-at-mass.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-38736710855479887542019-01-06T18:25:36.921-08:002019-01-06T18:25:36.921-08:00Hello Anonymous,
Thanks for your comment.
A grea...Hello Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />A great majority of the substance of the link you sent has already been dealt with in the two articles (Part 1 and 2) that I posted.<br /> <br />For example, the meaning of “is,” the concept of transubstantiation and the necessary verifiable nature of miracles, the “literal vs. symbolic,” saying that “a mere symbol couldn’t cause such problems,” issues with terms that can actually represent something, and failing to understand that the term “participation” can indeed refer to a symbolic ritual (which is exactly what Communion is).<br /> <br />There is also a lack of consistency and common sense in many of the Catholic arguments. You guys are still using eisegesis, i.e., still importing a foreign (more specifically, a Catholic) meaning onto the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself through the context, and then compare that to the whole of what Scripture says.<br /><br />Anonymous, perhaps you should read the whole of both my articles and if you still have a specific argument, we can discuss it then.<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-39405675170263267572019-01-01T23:06:40.821-08:002019-01-01T23:06:40.821-08:00This article should clarify your objections to the...This article should clarify your objections to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist:<br /><br />http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/This%20is%20My%20Body.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-61506386679079260232016-12-24T21:11:51.211-08:002016-12-24T21:11:51.211-08:00Hello again Jessie,
Hope you also have a blessed ...Hello again Jessie,<br /><br />Hope you also have a blessed and safe holiday season!<br /><br />Concerning your question about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood right there on the spot, that is a very good question! Especially since Catholics make a big deal of the Greek term “trogo” in John 6:54. They will insist that this word “trogo” is a more graphic term than the one used previously (“phago”), so it MUST necessarily mean literal eating.<br /><br />So, I don’t see why the apostles were not allowed to do exactly what you just asked… start eating Jesus’ flesh right there at the table.<br /><br />This just shows that the Catholic concept of the Eucharist being Jesus’ actual body and blood (along with His soul and divinity) is logically absurd.<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-78862269604226181822016-12-24T17:09:05.421-08:002016-12-24T17:09:05.421-08:00By the way, merry Christmas!By the way, merry Christmas!Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-85267638790683902992016-12-24T17:08:30.655-08:002016-12-24T17:08:30.655-08:00Hi Russell,
Wait a minute! If Jesus Christ was sp...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Wait a minute! If Jesus Christ was speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then how come they did not try to eat Him there on the spot? Remember, the apostles truly believed that Christ was the Savior of the world.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-52460769267273501682014-03-29T22:00:00.005-07:002014-03-29T22:00:00.005-07:00(Continued)
So what DID Jesus mean when He spoke ...(Continued)<br /><br />So what DID Jesus mean when He spoke those controversial words in John 6? He was simply pointing out that the real food, or the true food, that which has the most importance in one’s life, is the SPIRITUAL sustenance that He offers. And that sustenance is not to be physically chewed and placed in the stomach. It is obtained simply by BELIEVING in His work on the cross, and that alone (John 6:35). In this way, one’s deepest hunger / thirst will be truly fulfilled. Real food indeed. “Real” does not have to mean “physical.”<br /><br />Asculb3, I know of Catholics that recognize that many of the teachings in the Catholic Church are false, yet they will stay there just because of this teaching - the (supposed) “Real Presence.” Even in view of the error, they are still scared to leave, “just in case” the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist really is true. This is pure bondage. While they know that there are so many errors within the Catholic Church, the enemy is still holding them hostage.<br /><br />Listen, all we can do is bring them the simple truth of the gospel of Jesus. We pray that they will receive what we tell them, but many times they won’t listen. There is a strong spirit of bondage present there. If a person is going to ignore all the evidence presented here and in many, many other reputable websites, then there is probably no use arguing with him. We can only ask God to deal with their hearts. <br /><br />Please continue praying for our Catholic friends, and continue sharing the truth with them. Feel free to write back, and thanks again for your comments. I pray that God blesses your ministry to those Catholics with whom you come in contact.<br /><br />In His Name,<br />Russell<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-21846990281966680692014-03-29T21:54:32.898-07:002014-03-29T21:54:32.898-07:00Hello asculb3,
I am thankful for your response, e...Hello asculb3,<br /><br />I am thankful for your response, even if it is years later. It is not at all a problem. Feel free to comment on ANY of my articles, old or new.<br /><br />You were concerned about the word “real” in John 6:55, as to whether it meant that Jesus was speaking literally or not. Actually, the KJV says, “For My flesh is meat INDEED, and My blood is drink INDEED.” The NASV says, “For My flesh is TRUE food, and My blood is TRUE drink.” Other versions use “real food,” or something very similar. I think we get the idea. Anyway, the Greek word for real / true / indeed, etc., in verse 55 (in the Strong’s concordance, #230) means “indeed, surely, truly, of a truth, verily, very.” <br /><br />But a very similar word is used in John 10:7: “Jesus therefore said to them again, ‘TRULY, TRULY, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.’” (NASV) The King James uses “Verily, verily.” (This Greek word is Strong’s #281) <br /><br />Notice the very close similarity in the definition of Stong’s #281: “Firm, trustworthy, surely, amen, verily.” If this same apostle (John) was being literal in 6:55 (true / real food), then he must also be speaking literally in 10:7 (“I am the true / real door”). Jesus uses the same type of language in BOTH passages. It makes all the sense in the world to reject a literal understanding in both cases.<br /><br />You also have to remember that the Apostle John very often focused on symbolism in his writings (especially the gospel of John and Revelation). So why should anyone be surprised or doubtful that he was using symbolism in John 6? Not to mention, who was Jesus speaking to in John 6? Was it not to the multitudes, as I pointed out in Part 1? And wasn’t that the NORM when He spoke to the crowds in parables / metaphors?<br /><br />You also asked why some of those disciples in John 6 would have been offended by what He said. I believe the reason is that they DID understand Him in a literal sense, but they also recognized the ABSURDITY of what that would mean (if literal). So they walked away. But the TRUE followers remained and trusted Him, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD HIM. He probably went on to explain the meaning privately to His true followers, as was His custom. But just because a private explanation is not mentioned here, doesn’t mean that one never occurred. What happened here is precisely the reason that Jesus used parables: to weed out the false followers, those who were not really serious about serving Him. (Continued)<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-26599805488785528112014-03-28T13:55:57.429-07:002014-03-28T13:55:57.429-07:00To Russel,
I know that you posted this blog years...To Russel,<br /><br />I know that you posted this blog years ago and have moved on to other topics but I am new to your blogs and have addition questions about the Eucharist. Nuntym brought up verses 53-56 and although you brought up the fact that Jesus used symbolism in the middle of the passage I don't see yet how there is enough proof to counter those verses. Jesus doesn't just state the he is food as he does when he states that he is the gate, vine, etc., but includes the word "real" in his statement (verse 55). Why would he include that word if it was only symbolic and why would many of his disciples be offended by this and leave him (verses 60-61)? Judaism is full of symbolism and tradition, one more symbol or tradition shouldn't have rocked the faith of his disciples unless it is more than just another symbol and they must eat his "real" flesh.<br /><br />I do not hold Catholic beliefs but I have a difficult time countering this point that is made by my Catholic friends. Any clarity you can give me would help. Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868063045467782492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-87059840488722663552010-01-21T10:19:14.887-08:002010-01-21T10:19:14.887-08:00Hello nuntym,
Concerning your first point on &quo...Hello nuntym,<br /><br />Concerning your first point on "vivid language", we need to note that there are things that are literal, and things that are symbolic, both in the gospel narratives as well as in the book of Revelation. But Revelation is not totally symbolic, just as John is not totally literal. Context will determine whether something is interpreted literally or symbolically.<br /><br />But you seem to have forgotten that there is symbolism right in the middle of Jesus’ "Bread of Life" sermon. But even if there wasn’t, "vivid" still does not prove "literal".<br /><br />Concerning point 2, emphasizing verses 53-56 does nothing to indicate "literalness". I believe I have provided plenty evidence in Part 1 to prove otherwise.<br /><br />In point 3, I'm not sure what you were intending to prove with those "blood of the covenant" verses. Perhaps your point in Exodus 8:24 was that the blood was "literal". Ok, no problem there. But that doesn't prove anything about the Eucharist. Your problem is to demonstrate that the wine turns into literal blood. Exodus 8 doesn't do this.<br /><br />Mentioning the New Testament verses that you did (Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Cor. 11) is just begging the question, and assuming what you are attempting to prove.<br /><br />Again, my whole point here was that the wine cannot be a literal covenant, because a covenant is an INTANGIBLE thing, and God uses physical things to represent the covenant, just as He has always done every time He made a covenant with man.<br /><br />In point 4, you assert that the authority for the Catholic Church's claim on the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Himself. But, as I said in the article, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." But I haven't seen ANY level of biblical proof of the Catholic concept of transubstantiation yet.<br /><br />In point 5, you ask, "which saves, observable miracles or faith?" I'm not fully sure why you ask this, but to answer your question, I'll say that faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is what saves us, not miracles. But it was the observable and verifiable miracles that Jesus did which VALIDATED His ministry. They let everybody know that He was the "real deal" and not a fake. The Catholic Church claims a "miracle" in the Eucharist, yet, where is the proof? In order for the Catholic Church to validate its claims, we’d have to see evidence of transubstantiation each and every time the host is consecrated. But we don’t. So, nuntym, what are we to think?<br /><br />In point 6, you ask, "Why is Jesus still looking as if slain in Heaven, if the Crucifixion was all in the past and not made present?"<br /><br />Of course it was an event in the past, never to be duplicated. Neither you nor I fully understand the things that are going on in Heaven. But I believe that this event (Calvary) will ever be displayed somehow before us in Heaven to constantly remind us of the work He did. The event was a one-time thing, but its EFFECTS are eternal.<br /><br />But this doesn't mean that this event is (or can be) physically "RE-presented" as the Catholic Church teaches.<br /><br />In point 7, you said, "Jesus' sacrifice as High Priest threw away the need for the yearly sacrifice of the high priest for the atonement of sins."<br /><br />As for as the church is concerned, Jesus' one sacrifice threw away the need for a "ministerial" priesthood, altogether. Remember, there is no more offering (sacrifice) for sin (Hebrews 10:19), and there are no “ministerial” priests in the New Testament, as in the Old.<br /><br />You also asked, "Well how can someone be a high priest if there are no subordinate priests under him?" <br /><br />Simple, we (Christians) ARE His "subordinate" priests now. We are the "universal" priesthood. (I Peter 2:5)Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-33578809306229542322010-01-19T01:00:56.525-08:002010-01-19T01:00:56.525-08:00(continued)
5) "Although Catholics claim a “...(continued)<br /><br />5) "Although Catholics claim a “special” miracle in the Eucharist, the miracles we see in Scripture were very different from this. They were VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE."<br /><br />You quoted earlier Pope Paul VI: The Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority." So which saves, observable miracles or faith? (read Mark 2:1-12 for a hint).<br /><br />6) "Calvary is a historical event, which is no more physically “made present” at the Mass than the death of every Egyptian first-born son was physically “made present” every time the Old Testament Jews celebrated the Passover. It is absurd to think that a past historical event would be physically “made present.” To claim that this event is made present in a “sacramental” sense (as some say) is simply begging the question. There is no such thing in Scripture."<br /><br />"I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain..." Rev 5:6<br /><br />Why is Jesus still looking as if slain in Heaven, if the Crucifixion was all in the past and not made present?<br /><br />7) "Jesus presented Himself as a sacrifice to God ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10). Please read it again… “ONCE…FOR…ALL.” He does not NEED to be “re-presented” to God, nor CAN He be. Why the need to “re-present” the payment for a debt that has been paid? While souls are hanging in the balance, the Catholic Church is playing word games and inventing special terminology, in an attempt to justify its twisting of the gospel. This “RE-presenting” concept is a dangerous and unbiblical idea which only blurs and complicates the simple message of the gospel, and it attempts to give a power to the priest that few have ever dared to dream of."<br /><br />The Letter to the Hebrews' exposition on sacrifice was of the role of Jesus Christ as High Priest as well as the Sacrifice for the Atonement of Sins during Yom Kippur. <br /><br />http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/yom_kippur.html<br /><br />Jesus' sacrifice as High Priest threw away the need for the yearly sacrifice of the high priest for the atonement of sins.<br /><br />HOWEVER, remember that the Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus is the High Priest. Well how can someone be a high priest if there are no subordinate priests under him? <br /><br />And if there is the yearly sacrifice of Yom Kippur, there are also the daily sacrifices made by subordinate priests: the PERPETUAL SACRIFICE.<br /><br />Num 28:3 - "This is the offering by fire which you shall offer to the LORD: two male lambs a year old without blemish, day by day, as a continual offering."<br /><br />http://www.religion-cults.com/Judaism/p-festiv.htm<br /><br />And this perpetual offering is made every day, every hour, somewhere in the world, during the Holy Eucharist.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824634648027054143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-43239468511172952982010-01-19T01:00:24.106-08:002010-01-19T01:00:24.106-08:00Again, very thorough. However, I also have some o...Again, very thorough. However, I also have some objections:<br /><br />1) "As for as “vivid” language, if one takes a look at the book of Revelation (which is, interestingly enough, also written by John) he would see some very “vivid” language used there also, and very much of it is undeniably symbolic. So this Catholic argument that “vivid means literal” is another one that fails."<br /><br />You are comparing a Gospel narrative with an apocalyptic book on being literal?<br /><br />2) "Now, we are not against word studies to improve our understanding of the Scriptures, but rather than trying to nit-pick to death individual words, we should allow the CONTEXT to be the main focus in determining the meaning of this (or any) passage. And, as demonstrated in Part 1, the context of John 6 strongly suggests the symbolism of the bread and wine."<br /><br />I commented on this in part 1. However, I would just post v 53-56 and let the readers judge what is the context of Jesus' words:<br /><br />"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."<br /><br />3) "However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”"<br /><br />Exodus 8:24 - "And Moses took the BLOOD (of oxen) and threw it upon the people, and said, 'Behold THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.'"<br /><br />Matt 26:28 - "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."<br /><br />Mark 14:24 - "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."<br /><br />Luke 22:20 - "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."<br /><br />1 Cor 11:25 - "This cup is the new covenant in my blood."<br /><br />4) "But this type of argument could be used to support almost any “mysterious” concept (whether true or false) as long as they claim it rests upon “divine authority.” This is a cop-out and does nothing to help the credibility of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it."<br /><br />Actually from all of my studies about the Eucharist, the only divine authority that the Church got her doctrine about the Holy Eucharist from is Jesus Christ.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824634648027054143noreply@blogger.com