Wow! The Eucharist In The Bible

[geetarplayer]

The Eucharist is foreshadowed in Jeremiah 15:16, "When I found your words, I devoured them; they became my joy and the happiness of my heart, Because I bore your name, O Lord, God of hosts..." keeping in mind John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth."

Pretty neat, huh? Even if you guys already knew about this, it's still cool, isn't it?

-Mark, aka [b]a Catholic dork[/b]

[Maddalena]

lol Non-Catholics would probably say it's taken out of context.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Maddalena' date='Jul 9 2004, 06:59 AM'] lol Non-Catholics would probably say it's taken out of context. [/quote]
Nah, I agree with it, but I thought Catholics were banned from interpreting scripture...?

[Catholic_4_Life]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 9 2004, 12:05 AM'] Nah, I agree with it, but I thought Catholics were banned from interpreting scripture...? [/quote]
I've never heard that before.

[prov31girl]

I don't see it as taken out of context. It makes perfect sense to me.

[RemnantRules]

yea it makes perfect sense to us just like with John 6:66 and The Last Supper but but we're in the truth so it's easier to just make sense.

[Carnanc]

yes that is awesome, theres tons of stuff like that in the Old Testament, I really ought to read it more Edited July 13, 2004 by slywakka250

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

Isaiah is chocked full of that stuff... I haven't had a chance to read it though...

[MorphRC]

Jeremiah 15:16:

[b]16.[/b][i]your words:[/i]Yahweh had placed his own words in the prophets mouth (1:9), and Ezekiel had to eat a scroll inscribed with Yahweh's words; this is a dramatic definition of the prophet's mission as the minister of God's word (dabar; cf. Jer 18:18). [i]I bore your name:[/i] The expression reveals a protective presence of God on His messenger (cf 14:9).

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, [i]2nd Edition[/i], Published 2000. Pg 280, Jeremiah (15:1-17:1) [b]18:49-52[/b]

Got nothing to do with the Eucharist.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Maddalena' date='Jul 9 2004, 03:29 PM'] lol Non-Catholics would probably say it's taken out of context. [/quote]
Church says.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 9 2004, 03:35 PM'] Nah, I agree with it, but I thought Catholics were banned from interpreting scripture...? [/quote]
No. But the Church encouraged them to learn from a priest, or a trained theologian so nothing is taken out of context, and then Catholics go the way of the protestants, 50000 differing churches.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Jul 16 2004, 11:56 AM'] Jeremiah 15:16:

[b]16.[/b][i]your words:[/i]Yahweh had placed his own words in the prophets mouth (1:9), and Ezekiel had to eat a scroll inscribed with Yahweh's words; this is a dramatic definition of the prophet's mission as the minister of God's word (dabar; cf. Jer 18:18). [i]I bore your name:[/i] The expression reveals a protective presence of God on His messenger (cf 14:9).

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, [i]2nd Edition[/i], Published 2000. Pg 280, Jeremiah (15:1-17:1) [b]18:49-52[/b]

Got nothing to do with the Eucharist. [/quote]
16: Thy words were found, and I ate them, and thy words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I am called by thy name, O LORD, God of hosts.


There is nothing wrong with seeing this as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist.

The New Jerome Commentary is certainly not infallible..!!!

[MorphRC]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 17 2004, 01:53 AM'] 16: Thy words were found, and I ate them, and thy words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I am called by thy name, O LORD, God of hosts.


There is nothing wrong with seeing this as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist.

The New Jerome Commentary is certainly not infallible..!!! [/quote]
Its got nothing to do with the Eucharist. The bible can only have one meaning for one section, you cant have 2-3-4-5 different interpretations for one verse, or section. Its got nothing to do with the Eucharist, its a reference to the Prophets job, thats it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Who says?

A verse can have a literal meaning, and be typology at the same time

Edited July 16, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Aloysius]

yeah, seriously, a verse does not only have one meaning. where did you get that c.a.r.p?

[MorphRC]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 17 2004, 03:15 AM'] Who says?

A verse can have a literal meaning, and be typoloy at the same time [/quote]
The Church, Three of the best Priests, and a Top 3 Biblical Commentary of time. The verses can have only one meaning. 'Interpretation of the Bible in the Church - [i]Document[/i], 2000, [i]Pauline Media[/i]'.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 17 2004, 03:19 AM'] yeah, seriously, a verse does not only have one meaning. where did you get that c.a.r.p? [/quote]
Double Standards again. If something suites you, you agree with it, if it doesnt, you argue with it, even though its sanctioned by the Church. Its got nothing to do with the Eucharist.

1: ITS OLD TESTAMENT
2: ITS A JEWISH MANUSCRIPT
3: THE CHURCH SAYS SO

[dUSt]

Moving to the Debate Table.

[cmotherofpirl]

Question: Is it possible that in Exodus 17: 8-13 we have the pre-figurement of the Holy Trinity and the Church? The chosen men (apostles) are picked to do battle as Aaron the High Priest (Jesus) and Hur (the Holy Spirit and husband of Miriam the Old Testament Hand Maid to the God) support the arms of Moses (God), together as one as the power of God is sent forth to the battle against "evil" while sitting on the Rock (the Church of Peter) "and upon this rock I will build my Church".

Answer: Works for us! [u]The trick to remember about typological readings is that such readings are permissible so long as a) we do not contradict the teaching of the Church and b) we do not insist that everybody else has to agree with us. [/u]There are a few typological readings which have divine sanction (e.g. the Bronze Serpent is an image of Christ crucified (John 3:14) or the manna is an image of the Eucharist (John 6)). But most typological readings, while they may be fruitful and are certainly permitted by the Church, are not required and nobody can demand that the faithful say "This and this alone is what Exodus 17:8-13 has to mean". On the other hand, unless a typological reading is contrary to the teaching of the Church, nobody can say "You can't see that type or prefigurement in Exodus 17:8-13." In short, the basic attitude of the Church toward typological readings is: if it is fruitful for your spiritual life and doesn't contradict the Church's teaching (as, for instance, Charles Manson's reading of Revelation as a license for murder did) then have at it. Just don't demand everybody else see things your way (and don't ignore the literal sense of the text in the process of reading it typologically). For a handy guide to this way of reading Scripture see Mark P. Shea's Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did.

Edited July 16, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Double Standards again. If something suites you, you agree with it, if it doesnt, you argue with it, even though its sanctioned by the Church. Its got nothing to do with the Eucharist.[/quote]

I'd read it as.. Jesus said Eat my flesh.. Jesus was the word.. so Jesus's command to eat his flesh is to be taken spiritually to eat His words. the same way as that prophet did.