Jump to content

peppermint

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

peppermint last won the day on June 30 2015

peppermint had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17 Good

About peppermint

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile

  • Den
    Catholic
  1. I am confident it was a venerable moment :)
  2. Veneral Bede, not only have I said nothing in this thread about same sex marriages but I have said nothing even remotely like the false accusations brought against me in post #50 in any thread or any forum anywhere. The entire post appears to be little else than a personal attack made for no better reason than it's author being unable to answer what was said in my post about accepting and believing what the Lord Jesus Christ said in the last supper dialogues; namely "this is my body". Since the topic of this thread is that short phrase and since all seem willing to admit that changing the phrase to "this means my body" is a gross abuse of the translation process I think that the core argument of the original post is established as true; namely that only those who are willing to change the holy scriptures to fit their doctrine can be satisfied with a translation and explanations that make the passage mean "this means my body". I thank you, Bede for your defence but I think you may need to edit it since you kept refering to 'cornelius' whene I am confident that you meant 'peppermint'.
  3. I see not real value in rehashing material that's already been posted and replied to. The bread is said by the Lord Jesus Christ to be his body and I believe what he said and I believe it at face value without expecting the bread to cease looking like bread, tasting like bread, etcetera. The details of Catholic teaching on this matter have either been posted directly in this thread or referenced by link to a thread in 'Catholicism'; I refer you to the thread in Catholicism.
  4. Post #43 starts with some linguistic gibberish. 'Is' does not mean 'communion'. After the gibberish comes the unconvincing misuse of the following passage: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 KJV) Since it is the translators who chose to say 'communion' let's see what alternatives are available in commonly used English bibles. The New American Bible says: 1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?l 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. As I am writing this reply from my tablet computer I can only give a few examples so one more will be my limit 1 Corinthians 10:16-17New American Standard Bible (NASB) 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Being "a participation in the blood" or "a sharing in the blood" means nothing else than that one drinks the blood of Christ. Similarly eating the bread is eating the body of Christ. Now trun the page of your printed bible and you see these words: 1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “ This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “ This cup is the new covenant in my blood . Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. One ought to feel acute embarrassment about a theology that needs to deny the plain sense of so many passages of holy scripture. The correct translation is 'is' not 'means' nor 'is like' nor any other substitute what makes the passage a metaphor rather than leaving it to say "this is my body".
  5. Matthew chapter twnety three is clearly addressed to the scribes (Lawyers in first century Judah) and Pharisees (a sect of Judaism) so those who think that they see the Church in those verses are practising eisegesis. That, of course, is a very common thing for folk who want to force the bible to fit their theology.
  6. I always think of the Lord Jesus Christ as the primary teacher of Christians and he teaches by means of the Spirit. Saint Paul is the echo of Christ by which I mean he teaches what Jesus teaches not something new or something different. So when your post (post #34) says that 'is' means 'communion' I am waiting for the scripture that actually says that. I know that the Lord says "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26 KJV) and I know that saint Paul says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 KJV) So what does 'communion' mean in saint Paul's passage. Does it mean 'is'? No. It has quite a different meaning. The word that our translators translate as 'communion' is 'κοινωνια' which means 'participation in' in fact 'communion' in English means 'sharing' which is a fairly close approximation to the Greek word. But one thing is certain 'communion' does not mean 'is' and it does not mean 'means'. So the claim in post #34 is in error. Saint Paul does not explain 'is' as meaning 'communion'. The other claim about the bread and the wine not being the subject of the verses we're looking at seems kind of odd; Jesus is the subject "this is my body" has 'my' as its subject and the bread is the object of the phrase. There is no significance in the objection as your post words it; specifically "This [bread (it is bread, the subject)] is (communion with) my body" because you have to insert a heap of your own words into the words of the gospel 'this is my body'. How bad must the theology behind the position offered in post #34 be when it has to import more of your words into the gospel phrase than are actually present in the gospel phrase "this is my body"? In addition the added words "communion with" add nothing to the teaching of Christ they just obfuscate a very clear phrase - 'this is my body'.
  7. Have a listen/look at this sermon, skip the hymns at the beginning if you like and skip to 14 mins 17 secs into the clip.
  8. Post #31 isn't adding anything that has not already been adequately answered and post #32 is just a bit of name calling. Please, offer serious replies that really address the matters under discussion.
  9. The creeds also speak of Christ's continued humanity as the proof and assurance of our own resurrection and glorification (theosis). Consider the Athanasian creed's words in the last sections that deal with the incarnation.
  10. The first seven words in your post are mistaken; consider carefully these words "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5 KJV) Christ our high priest took bread, gave thanks, and said "take eat for this is my body". If the first holy supper required the words of Christ the high priest of our profession then it is to be understood that only a priest in communion with Christ may speak the words of consecration. This appears in the three synoptic gospels and in saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Some have a different church polity and lack ordained priests so they cannot have the holy supper presided over by one but must rely on others to preside, many have their pastor preside, some an elder (presbyter), and some a lay person. Catholics have a priest preside for the reason given and all the ancient churches do the same.
  11. The first three words in your post answer your question. Jesus is not only God but also a man. Men have flesh and blood. The Lord Jesus Christ gives his flesh as true food and his blood as true drink (see John 6:55 KJV). In my previous post I cited the relevant passage in the gospel according to saint John and I quoted some salient verses. I don't think it will profit us to repeat them if they will not be read and received as true. I*n reference to the next set of underlined words; my previous post also dealt with the interpretation that treats the Lord's emphatic language as a metaphor. All one can say in reply to that is that the disciples who left Jesus did so because his language was not a metaphor and the Lord never budged an inch to soften the blow that his non-metaphorical language dealt to the disciples who left. The explanation offered in your post is the sort of explanation that would have satisfied the departing disciples yet the Lord did not offer it to them and that suggests that he does not offer it to those who wish it today.
  12. The translators use 'is' because 'means' isn't a valid definition for the Greek word. τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου translates to 'this is the body of me' the bold words are the ones in which we're currently interested. ἐστιν means 'is'. I know of only one bible that changes the word to something quite different and that one bible is the one that Jehovah's witnesses created. They are willing to impose their theology on the holy scriptures so for them the phrase is translated 'this means my body' which suits their theology of the last supper very well even though it twists the scripture into saying something that it does not say. In your post you ask what Jesus is teaching about communion (I presume you mean the meal rather than the abstract concept, though I suppose you may mean the concept or both, please tell us which meaning you intend) the answer is found in a careful reading of the gospel according to saint John chapter six and especially verses 41 to 71 which passage offers the most complete explanation of the meaning of the sacrament in the new testament. The passage is long so I will not quote it in its entirety but some salient verses are these: I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:48-51 KJV) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:53-58 KJV) These verses are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ about who he is and what he offers to his people. Some see this as metaphor by which they appear to mean that Christ's teaching is like flesh to be eaten and Christ's words are like blood to be drunk both to be received spiritually as spiritual nourishment. I am inclined to see in the words no metaphor at all; Christ is indeed flesh to be eaten and blood to be drunk and the nourishment received in his meal is real and sacramental because it not only points to a grace to be received but actually is that grace. It is not a spiritual partaking that is in view but a real one made effective for salvation by the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit partaking leads not to life but to guilt and damnation (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 KJV). But much of this is discussed at some length in a post I added to the Catholicism sub-forum some time ago and whose location is here.
  13. I can't help but think that this thread is in the wrong place. I created it in general theology and I think it ought to be there. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of Jehovah's witnesses.
  14. I did, and I am not using bold except in headings within 'daily light'
  15. Yes, it is like a civic duty or a civic fee, just as one pays for roads regardless of use so one would pay for medical insurance regardless of use. It could either be by means of private insurance companies or by means of something similar to socil security.
×
×
  • Create New...