How do I deal with the 1500 year gap?

[notuptome]

[/COLOR]Matthew 26:26-28"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life. (which may be why they "walked away" John 6:66.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.
2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

They didn't use a symbolic lamb.



Wrong. James accommodated the Jews complaining about the Gentiles disregarding Mosaic dietary laws, but that was a local temporary ruling, not a universal one. Acts 15 has nothing to do with the institution of the Eucharist.

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.


What you are saying is that in order to be a Christian you have to be a martyr. "cup" is used 71 times in the bible, with many different meanings and applications.


It is men's traditions that have reduced Jesus' Body and Blood to grape juice and crackers.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.



OK, so you are a Jehovah's Witness.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

The mass is to re-crucify Christ every time it is observed. Hebrews tells us that this a shame to Christ.

The blood of the Passover Lamb was never eaten. The blood of Christ is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies in heaven. The body of Christ is glorified and in the presence of the Father in heaven.

What the catholic church teaches in this matter is utter insanity.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Christ fulfilled the symbols in the OT as they are shadows pointing to Him,; why would He introduce another symbol?

Why indeed? We celebrate the communion as a way to remember what Christ has done. We also look forward to yet unfulfilled promises that He made. The best as it is said is yet to come.

Jesus said as you see Me go so shall you see Me come again. He also said that He was going to prepare a place that where He is we may be also.

A lot of NT symbolism and we have not even addressed Revelation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

I realize the problem was in the maaner they partook; but if what they partook was only a symbol why such a radical punishment? And I thought in Christ, symbols were done away with.
Just questions bro, don't taze me

Best not to touch the third rail.

God still deals with the heart attitudes. Takes something solemn and pollute it with a party atmosphere and you have a recipe for trouble.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kepha]

True that.....true that.

Wasn't it the Catholics that taught the muslims how?
I say that as a joke but for real, the catholic church was indeed instrumental in starting this muslim empire that's flourishing today, yes?

No.
The idea that Islam was conceived by the Catholic Church is traced back to a conspiracy theorist named Alberto Rivera, a con-artist who claimed to be a Jesuit. (how he can be a priest in Europe while raising his two sons in America is anybody's guess)


Alberto said that the “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to do three missions:

1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).
2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.
3. Conquer Jerusalem for “His Holiness” in the Vatican.​

These commands, for one thing, cannot be found in any primary account whatsoever. What is a primary account? We need to know this if we are going to understand the nature of our inquiry. When trying to reach an historical conclusion, or make historical observations, one must focus first on one type of evidence: first hand accounts, or primary sources.

A primary source is a document written in, or around the time, of the particular historical event in question, being based on eye-witness accounts and first hand materials. To use an example that we are all familiar with, I will ask a simple question: The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, how do we know that it happened? Because Moses, who was the leader of Israel’s liberation, wrote about it. We would never know about the Exodus, if Moses never wrote a book about it. Exodus, then, is a primary source account. Would you, then, rather read the Book of Exodus, or a modern book on the Exodus? The only way to fully comprehend the Exodus, is to read Exodus.

So then, how would we learn about the invention of Islam? We would need to read ancient documents, both Islamic and non-Islamic. We would have to read the primary source accounts. And when reading on the origins of Islam, based on the primary source accounts, we have absolutely zero substantiation for any of Rivera’s claims.
Now, Rivera says that he learned of Islam’s Catholic inventors from one Cardinal Bea. But when we research the statement that Rivera attributes to Bea, all we find are books and articles, written by anti-Catholic polemics, and not one statement from anything ever written by Bea. Therefore, to simply conclude Rivera’s quoting of Bea as factual, is both empty of scholarship and absent of any cognitive reasoning expected of the historian.

Truth is found through both will and reasoning, not sensation or exciting novelties. That the Catholic Church invented Islam, is just that, a sensational novelty. And in regards to the rest of the rubbish Alberto said in regards to Islam’s creation, there is not one piece of primary evidence (I dare anyone to show me just one).

 

[kepha]

If we are going to analyze the origins of Islam, what must be first comprehended is the innate focal point of Islamic theology: Islam is a religion of a book; it is primarily revolved around the Koran, and secondarily fixated on what interpretation Muslim authorities deduce on the Koran.

Without the Koran, there is no Islam. Therefore, in order to understand the origins of Islamic theology, one must read the Koran. And when we do, what we find is not evidence of a Catholic creation, but actually statements that are openly anti-Catholic.

One of the most quoted Koranic verses by exposers of Islam, is Surah 9:29, which states:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.​

But when one reads the verse in conjunction with the subsequent verses, one finds that the Christians it is commanding to war with, are in fact Catholics. Here is the full verse:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9:29-31)​

The existence of the word monks, in the verse, signifies that it is referring to Catholics, both Eastern and Western. How do we know this? Let us look to the interpretation of this verse by Abu Bakr, the successor to Muhammad, and one who was amongst the most elite of Muhammad’s companions. Before invading Syria, he declared:

You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. …You will meet people who have shaved the crowns of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Strike them with the sword.​

Those who have their hair shaven to the shape of a crown, can only be referring to Catholic monks; for the tradition behind this hairstyle, symbolizing the crown of glory given to the martyrs, and the crown of thorns placed on Christ’s head, is purely one of Catholic origin.


The first people that Abu Bakr mentions, the ones who “set themselves apart in hermitages”, were the heretical Christians, or the Arians, Nestorians, and other subscribers to false doctrines.


So, when Rivera claims that “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to kill the Jews and the “true Christians,” the only Christians that the Koran initially commanded to kill are the Catholics. Why would the Catholics create a system that is innately adverse toward the Catholic Church? It makes no sense, and anyone who upholds such an ahistorical statement, is not committed to historical truth and reasoning, but a mere opinion that is both groundless and ignominious.


Those who believe this slanderous lie will argue that the Muslims broke off from Rome and began to fight Catholics; and to those who say this, I will ask you to bring me one primary source account that proves this claim.


Furthermore, the idea that Islam was invented by the Catholic Church is void of any evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers. In order to understand Islam’s history, we read the Koran and the Hadith; in order to understand Catholic history, we read the Church Fathers. We find absolutely nothing close to what Rivera claims in any book written by any of the Church Fathers or ancient Catholic theologians who lived closest to the early days of Islam.

In fact, in looking to the earliest Christian opinion on Islam, what we find are Catholics writing against Muhammad as a damnable heretic and enemy to Rome. One of the best examples of this are the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah, the bishop of Harran who lived in the 9th century, when Islam was still quite a young cult.

Theodore affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church, and viewed Islam as an enemy toward the Church. On the primacy of the Church of Rome, Theodore writes:

Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” [Luke 22:32-33] we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. (1)​

Theodore goes on to write how when the heresy of Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) arose, the Church commenced the Council of Nicaea to combat it; when Nestorianism (the denial that God became flesh in Mary’s womb) arose, the Church of Rome commanded the Council of Ephesus. (2) Islam intrinsically coincides with both of these heresies, in that it rejects Christ’s divinity, and the Incarnation of God in Mary’s womb.

Since the Church of Rome was the one that first commenced the two councils that went against these two false doctrines and their followers, it is therefore impossible that the Catholic Church would then turn around and create a heresy that upholds them and desires to kill the very people (Catholics) who were adverse to these heresies.

The Catholic Church preserved and protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in so doing it condemned and fought against Islam more than any other institution in history (if you don’t believe me, read any detailed history book on the Crusades). The first Church leader to lead and organize a crusade against Islam was St. Pope Leo IV who, in the year 849, led a battle against Muslims who were trying to sack the Vatican.

As soon as Arianism came about, the Church combated it; and when Islam arose, with its very Arian doctrine, the Church combated it. Catholicism’s war against Islam is a continuation of its war against Arianism. There is therefore no evidence or documentation to prove that the Catholic Church suddenly decided to invent an extension of the very doctrine it was bent on crushing and suppressing.

For the Catholic Church inventing Islam, we have no evidence. What we do have, however, are an abundance of ancient records of Catholics fighting Muslims, and Muslims striving to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church, a goal which, to this day, they have not given up.