The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, said
(From the NKJV)
Matthew 26: 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body.''
27. Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I Cor 11: 27. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.
29. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Questions…..
Do you believe what Jesus said that the consecrated bread and wine do become the body and blood of Him?
If not, why not?
:) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)

Here we go again! Did Jesus speak in the present tense? Yes. Was His blood still in His veins? Yes. Was His body still in one piece? Yes. Simple logic or reason tells us the statement was symbolic.

With God is all things possible, yes,

Galveston1 ,
No that is in no way symbolic.
Jesus blessed then was holding and distributing the bread and wine that He said are His body and blood.
He also said to do this in remmebrance of me.
That is to say that the consecrated bread and wine are His body and blood.
The passage beginning from 1 Cor 11:27 affirms that if a person who partakes of it in and unworthy manner is GUILTY of the Body and Blood of Jesus Chrsit.
That IS telling us in another way that the consecrated bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Jesus of which he said those who partake of it He WILL raise them up on the last day.
He said that He is the bread of life and that His body is food INDEED and bis blood drink INDEED.
He did not say they were symbolic.
The word Jesus used "INDEED" does not mean symbolic it means the opposite of that.
I think you know that about INDEED.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Here we go again! Did Jesus speak in the present tense? Yes.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

You might want to study your English tenses again. The words "I will give" are not in the present tense.


Was His blood still in His veins? Yes. Was His body still in one piece? Yes.

But as He previously said, He wasn't ready to give them up yet. He said, "the bread that I will give is my flesh".


Simple logic or reason tells us the statement was symbolic.

A true reading of the Chapter shows you that He was speaking in real terms. That is why the Jews and many of His disciples said, "this is a hard saying, who can take it." And they left.

Why? Because they believed He was speaking in real terms. Not in symbols.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
Exactly right.
I like the way you said that.
Fred

The Jews understood it literally, true. They misunderstood many things about Jesus. The Host is made of flour, looks like bread, and tastes like bread. It is then blessed by a priest and so becomes literal flesh. No wonder that Voltaire said that when a man enters a church, he must leave his intelligence at the door. His observation was correct, he just did not bother to look for the truth and dismissed Christianity and religion out of hand.

The Jews understood it literally, true. They misunderstood many things about Jesus. The Host is made of flour, looks like bread, and tastes like bread. It is then blessed by a priest and so becomes literal flesh. No wonder that Voltaire said that when a man enters a church, he must leave his intelligence at the door. His observation was correct, he just did not bother to look for the truth and dismissed Christianity and religion out of hand.

Is it that you don't believe in miracles? You don't believe in the Supernatural? Or you don't believe in the power of God's Word who created this universe from nothing?

1 Corinthians 1 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 22 For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well : at least Voltaire made a valid point !

If a grown up enters a church, and is supposed to believe that watery wine is blood, and wafers are flesh, and both represent the blood and body of Christ, yes than that grown up has to leave his intelligence at the door.

:rolleyes:

Credendovidis,
I HAVE TO prove nothing.
I have a Christian faith and that is much MORE than JUST belief.
That sort of faith is far beyond belief; it is belief, trust and a KNOWING that those without faith can not comphrehnd.
As examples I do not just believe God exists, I know it.
I do not just believe that Jesus is God the Son who rose from the dead, I KNOW it to be true.
I also know that you want scientific proof of that and I know that you will not get it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred : that's old hat !

Why don't you reply to what I stated in my post, instead of reacting to my signature lines ?

Of course you do not have to prove anything. But if you don't prove anything I am fully in my right to question whatever you and others believe to be "true"!!

You know very well that I am tolerant to whatever you or others believe to be "true".
What I oppose is the idea that whatever you and/or others believe is therefore reality.
The claim that it is reality has to be proved. Not what you believe !

Have tomorrow a nice day Fred (after a good night sleep ! )

:)

Well : at least Voltaire made a valid point !

If a grown up enters a church, and is supposed to believe that watery wine is blood, and wafers are flesh, and both represent the blood and body of Christ, yes than that grown up has to leave his intelligence at the door.

:rolleyes:

From Galveston, that view is inconsistent with his/her belief in God's omnipotence.

From you, this view is consistent with your disbelief in miracles.

This is the point at which our faith means believing that which we don't see. But you said you had no problem with what we believe, right?

Sincerely,

De Maria

No, my view on the validity of trans-substantiation does not conflict with my faith in a miracle working God. I simply disagree with the Catholic understanding of the scripture involved. What is being taught is cannabilism and eating blood (you insist that it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of Jesus). That conflicts with other Bible teaching, and the Bible is not contradictory, Cred notwithstanding.

It is not sound theology to take one scripture and build a doctrine around it. There will be supporting scriptures for every sound doctrine.

No, my view on the validity of trans-substantiation does not conflict with my faith in a miracle working God. I simply disagree with the Catholic understanding of the scripture involved. What is being taught is cannabilism and eating blood (you insist that it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of Jesus). That conflicts with other Bible teaching, and the Bible is not contradictory, Cred notwithstanding.

I believe this teaching and I don't believe the Bible contradicts Itself.

I guess it's a matter of faith. Do you have enough faith to believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist? Most Christians (I don't know whether this includes you), Protestant or Catholic would say, "Yes!"

The difference is, those Protestants believe in a SPIRITUAL presence. Whereas Jesus did not say, "This bread is my spiritual flesh." He said, "this bread is my flesh".

Therefore, we believe that Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

As for the charge of cannibalism. This is a tough one. Jesus is our Pasch (Our Passover):
1 Corinthians 5 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

He is the Lamb of God:
John 1 29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

And the Passover Lamb is eaten:
Exodus 12 1 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: 2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year. 3 Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb.

Show me where Scripture contradicts?

However, the dietary laws remain forbidding the eating of any blood:

Genesis 9 3 And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: 4 Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat.

Leviticus 3 17 By a perpetual law for your generations, and in all your habitations: neither blood nor fat shall you eat at all.

But all has been made clean:
Mark 7 18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? 20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

21 For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.

So do you eat fat?


It is not sound theology to take one scripture and build a doctrine around it. There will be supporting scriptures for every sound doctrine.

That is what I tell you guys all the time. You've got this thing against tradition because Jesus said,
Mark 7 8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.

But Scripture also says:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But you said you had no problem with what we believe, right?
Yes. I have no problem with that.
But what has that to do with what Voltaire stated? His point was totally valid!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Galviston1,
The Catholic teaching about the Eucharist depends on far more than a verse or two.
It depends on many verses in both the old and new Testaments.
In the old Testament is the many verses regarding the Passover when the blood of a flawless lamb is painted over door posts and the body of that lamb is eaten.
In the New Testament Christ gives us the Christian Passover, Himself, the flawless lamb of God to be consumed. No symbols but the real thing as he insisted repeatedly in several verses.
The Catholic teaching on that is bible based, anchored with MANY verses.
I hope you can understand that.
Keep in mind that Christ said that if you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood you have NO life in you, but if you do eat His flesh and drink His blood He WILL raise you up on the last day.
He said that when we do that we become ONE with Him.
For the sake of your soul, believe it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Yes. I have no problem with that.
But what has that to do with what Voltaire stated? His point was totally valid !!!


As I've stated before, in summary, we have reviewed the evidence for the truth of Church Teaching. Since we have learned that the Church teaches the truth in those doctrines, we can have faith in the others which we can't verify with observable evidence.

Therefore, Voltaire is wrong. One checks his hat at the door in believing Voltaire. But in believing the Church, one is given the freedom to believe the evidence provided by the Fathers and by Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,
Well said.
In addition I believe that God through His Church has given us freedom from the bondage of being wrong.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't believe that the "Last Supper" story about transubstantiation is a real teaching of Jesus... it reads like a forgery added later by those with an agenda. This is not something that the man who taught spirituality by parable would include in his view of how to make a Kingdom of God on Earth.

His teachings were about people changing their minds and hearts... not about ANYTING ELSE. :)

Why does it matter so much whether the wine and bread actually become flesh and blood, or are symbols that represent them? But if it is so terribly important to know, it should be fairly easy to distinguish muscle tissue from wheat flour, and blood from wine in the laboratory. Why not just test them?

Why does it matter so much whether the wine and bread actually become flesh and blood, or are symbols that represent them? But if it is so terribly important to know, it should be fairly easy to distinguish muscle tissue from wheat flour, and blood from wine in the laboratory. Why not just test them?

Didn't you know, Jesus was made from wheat flour and wine...

Let's try this again. Why do you insist on a literal undrstanding of Jesus' words at that last supper, but not on this occasion?

Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

I posted this on another thread, but it is just as valid as evidence here.

Galveston1,
I insist on understanding literally what Jesus said at His last Passover supper BECAUSE it was at a Passover supper that he said them.
Thus Jesus IS the Lamp of God who takes away the sins of the world and gives us life eternal.
Jesus is the living Lamb of the Christian Passover called the Eucharist (which means give thanks).
At the original Passover in the old Testament the flawless lamb was slain, it's blood painter over door posts to cause the angel of death to passover and the lamb's flesh was eaten.
With Jesus as the lamb of the Christian passover his blood is drink indeed and his flesh food indeed as He said.
I believe what Jesus said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred, you didn't answer my question. I believe everything you said about Jesus, I just don't believe in the Catholic dogma of trans-substantiation, because I don't believe scripture requires it.

Galveston1,
I DID answer your question.
I said, "I insist on understanding literally what Jesus said at His last Passover supper BECAUSE it was at a Passover supper that he said them."
Jesus said this IS my body... This IS my blood.
I believe what He said.
Thus he IS the sacrificial Lamb of God that takes away sins and gives life.
He IS the living Passover not a symbol like in the old Testament.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Let's try this again. Why do you insist on a literal understanding of Jesus' words at that last supper, but not on this occasion?

Matt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (KJV)

I posted this on another thread, but it is just as valid as evidence here.

It was no more valid then when I wrote:

In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of "brother" so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

************************************************** ****
And to the Eucharist we find the bible to be literal.

John 6:48 I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

No play on word, direct simple language, understood then and understood now. “I am the bread,” eat and drink and you will have “life in you”. Eat and you will be raise. Eat my flesh, drink my blood and live. Little doubt as to what Christ meant.

Matt 26:Take ye and eat. This is my body 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

In Mathew we see, “This IS my body”. What is not written here is "this is like my body"; "this is symbolic of my body". What is done here is the first transubstantiation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3); "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being"; from bread and wine to the essence of Christ. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist


It's not that Catholics take one literal and the other figuratively. We take both sets of verses as they were intended by the authors. The Eucharist has been and will continue to be the central part of Catholic life.

JoeT

JoeT777 ,
Excellent. Well done and well said.
Also Catholics are not the only ones who believe in the Eucharist. There are several other denominations that do so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

It’s not that Catholics take one literal and the other figuratively. We take both sets of verses as they were intended by the authors.
By what means do you become privy to the intentions of the authors?

In Mathew we see, “This IS my body”. What is not written here is "this is like my body"; "this is symbolic of my body".

Well done, you've identified that it is a metaphor and not a simile. Just like the world is not actually a stage, although Shakespeare said, metaphorically, that it is. It's still just a literary technique, nothing more.

Why does it matter so much whether the wine and bread actually become flesh and blood, or are symbols that represent them? But if it is so terribly important to know, it should be fairly easy to distinguish muscle tissue from wheat flour, and blood from wine in the laboratory. Why not just test them?


It's a matter of faith. In the beginning, God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit or they will die. They didn't believe Him, ate of the fruit and died spiritually.

In the New Covenant, God told the Apostles that the bread is His Flesh. Those who believe Him will live eternally. Those who don't will die the death.

Genesis 2 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well done, you've identified that it is a metaphor and not a simile. Just like the world is not actually a stage, although Shakespeare said, metaphorically, that it is. It's still just a literary technique, nothing more.

We don't deny the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. It is however an efficacious symbol. Jesus made His Flesh appear in the guise of bread in order to signify that it is food for the soul.

However, the Bread is His Flesh. He said so.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to Mary Magdalene, "Christ is risen!" Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever receives Christ.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1391 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1391.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

More metaphors! Fantastic! You guys are getting the hang of this!

De Maria,
Well said. Well done.
Jesus clearly said what He meant to say clearly.
Fred

Capuchin,
If you refuse to believe that Jesus said the consecrated bread and wine ARE his body and blood, that is your business.
I will believe what Jesus clearly said.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We don't deny the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. It is however an efficacious symbol. Jesus made His Flesh appear in the guise of bread in order to signify that it is food for the soul.

However, the Bread is His Flesh. He said so.

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

De Maria

I disagree because the body and blood was given by Christ to saves us, to give us life from the death of sin. We are to eat His flesh as the bread of life, and not like bread alone that is nourishment. Our nourishment from God is the Spiritual Truth that gives life. We are to remember as we drink and eat, that Christ is the that Spiritual Truth, and Christ was worthy in the death of the cross.

Scripture provides evidence of eating Spiritual Truth as the Word of God

Eat The Little Book

Revel 10 : 9-10 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Live By The Word Of God

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Worship Only The Lord

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.

Man lives by the Word Jesus

Deu 8:8 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Well done, you've identified that it is a metaphor and not a simile. Just like the world is not actually a stage, although Shakespeare said, metaphorically, that it is. It's still just a literary technique, nothing more.

No doubt you've heard this question before: if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a noise? We know that the phenomenon that creates pressure waves in the atmosphere (noise) still occurs whether human receptors are present. To prove it we might put recording devices in the forest (removing the human presence) and wait for the tree to fall. Once it does we have physical proof of the tree falling and that it did, in fact, cause a noise. Even this requires a modicum of faith, not that the tree falling didn't make noise, but faith that the recording was done technically correct, or that the reporting agent interpreted the data correctly. Furhter, this agent telling us about his understanding, may let us hear the recording, or he can write a report. Either way, he needs tell us in a way that relates to our understanding. In doing so he may use metephoric or symbolic language.

Similarly, Gospels factually report what Christ had commanded and what Christ had said would happen. So that we can relate, this may be metaphoric or symbolic in the telling, but this telling doesn't somehow undo the fact of the occurrence. Catholics hold that whether you or I are present, whether you or I believe, the consummated Eucharist transitions from the bread and wine into the real presence of Christ.

JoeT

I disagree because the body and blood was given by Christ to saves us, to give us life from the death of sin. We are to eat His flesh as the bread of life, and not like bread alone that is nourishment. Our nourishment from God is the Spiritual Truth that gives life. We are to remember as we drink and eat, that Christ is the that Spiritual Truth, and Christ was worthy in the death of the cross.

Scripture provides evidence of eating Spiritual Truth as the Word of God

Eat The Little Book

Revel 10 : 9-10 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take , and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Live By The Word Of God

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Worship Only The Lord

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.

Man lives by the Word Jesus

Deu 8:8 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

If we are to eat the “spiritual word” then why did Christ say? I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever (John 6:55). Why then did he make his will known even stronger? [I]"He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life" (John 6:55)

If Christ wanted us to eat the spiritual word then why did the Apostle John refer to Christ as, “the word made flesh” (John 1:14)? Scripture not only provides evidence of eating Spiritual Truth as the Word of God, but literal truth too, as Christ said, “eat my flesh,” “drink my blood.”

Where in the above list of your veses, does it say “eat my flesh,” “drink my blood,” and you shall have “everlasting life”? The verses you quoted above only gave good advice for living in this world; but Christ's command to “eat” gives the solution to everlasting life. So, you'll settle for some good advice when you're offered eternity?

Are you not just picking through verses just to bolster your argument? How much more explicit can a verse be? This is figurative and the rest are binding? John 6:48 I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.



JosephT

JoeT777,
Well done.
You are correct, Jesus was NOT speaking anything other than clearly.
He meant what He said and those listening to him knew it.
We know that from the way they reacted.
Some walked away complaining that what Jesus said was a "hard saying".
Peace and kindness.
Notice that He let them go and stood by what He said.
Fred

Do you believe what Jesus said that the consecrated bread and wine do become the body and blood of Him?


I don't, because Jesus Himself said that He was not speaking of actual flesh.

John 6:61-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
NKJV

Further, it would be sinful if Jesus were to have commanded cannibalism. Cannibalism is seen as a sign of wickedness, and a judgment against those who turn away from God, for example:

Isa 9:18-20
18 For wickedness burns as the fire;
It shall devour the briers and thorns,
And kindle in the thickets of the forest;
They shall mount up like rising smoke.
19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts
The land is burned up,
And the people shall be as fuel for the fire;
No man shall spare his brother.
20 And he shall snatch on the right hand
And be hungry;
He shall devour on the left hand
And not be satisfied;
Every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm.
NKJV

Jesus says in John 6 that those who believed that He commended eating of actual flesh were those who betrayed Him.

I know that there are many who believe it to be true, but I will stand by what scripture says.

Tj3
It is not cannibalism as you and the ancient pagans claimed.
It is bread that has been consecrates into Christ's body as He said.
That proves right there that you just can not or refuse to believe Jesus when He clearly said, "This IS my body" and "This Is my blood" about His consecrated bread and wine.
There is no sense discussing this any further with you.
You mind is made up as is mine.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't, because Jesus Himself said that He was not speaking of actual flesh.

John 6:61-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
NKJV

Further, it would be sinful if Jesus were to have commanded cannibalism. Cannibalism is seen as a sign of wickedness, and a judgment against those who turn away from God, for example:

Isa 9:18-20
18 For wickedness burns as the fire;
It shall devour the briers and thorns,
And kindle in the thickets of the forest;
They shall mount up like rising smoke.
19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts
The land is burned up,
And the people shall be as fuel for the fire;
No man shall spare his brother.
20 And he shall snatch on the right hand
And be hungry;
He shall devour on the left hand
And not be satisfied;
Every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm.
NKJV

Jesus says in John 6 that those who believed that He commended eating of actual flesh were those who betrayed Him.

I know that there are many who believe it to be true, but I will stand by what scripture says.

I realize this is difficult for you to accept, but Christ was speaking of His own flesh. The flaw, once again, is interpreting scripture with a lack of foundation in the Tradition of the RC.

This is the difficulty that Sola Scripturist or Bible Only renditions encounter. Your interpretation above fails miserably. Doesn’t it seem the least bit strange that Christ would say, in John 6: 55 “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” and as a consequence of that “hard” saying lose his following, and then seemingly making a 180 degree turn in thought? Why would Christ insist on the vulgar eating of human flesh and then turn around and say, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” Were the Apostles to understand this to mean that they were to eat his flesh but it wouldn’t bring them any understanding? Or were the apostles to understand this to mean not to eat his flesh; saying this right after, “eat my flesh”? To believe the latter would mean that Christ was schizophrenic. To believe the former would mean that Christ was addled. The third and correct meaning of this passage leads to the Eucharist.

Apostolic tradition is the living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit preserving the original intent of the Scripture. Looking at verse 63, in John 6, through the tradition of the Church we see a play on opposite meaning words, “sprit” and “flesh”. A literary technique allows us to picture a spiritual understanding as efficacious and the understanding through flesh as inefficacious. Still better, another way of saying it is that he, who receives understanding spiritually profits, and he receives understanding carnally, profits nothing. (Cf. St. Chrysostom on John, HOMILY XLVII)

“But what is, “understands carnally”? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?” (Cf. St. Chrysostom on John, HOMILY XLVII)

Cannibalism doesn’t enter the discussion as transubstantiation, transforming from bread and wine to the essence of body and blood Christ, removes the objection of eating Christ’s flesh not having the intrinsic accidents of flesh. So in God’s infinite mercy He has provided every inducement for you to partake of the sacrament, and removed every objection.

JoeT

JoeT777,
Once again well said and well done.
It demonstrates the VALUE of Holy Spirit inspired theology in the Apostolic Tradition of The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Are you not just picking through verses just to bolster your argument? How much more explicit can a verse be? This is figurative and the rest are binding? John 6:48 I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

JosephT

There is a difference in what we agree upon when what I believe is the nourishment of God's Word is Jesus. His body and blood are the flesh of this earth given as the worthy sacrifice for sin. [That was physical flesh]

The bread of eatting, known as the flesh, will feed the soul. Our souls belong to God. Christ's flesh sacrifice was for on earth intended and given to bring our souls home. So as it is written throughout the scriptures we are to eat of Spiiritual Truth for it will nourish our souls. Quote: Not like the manna that was given to nourish in hunger.

This is a physical world on earth, and heaven is spiritual. Physical substance is not the treasure because anything physical can be taken away, lost or stolen.

The bread of life is not a physical substance, but it is a spiritual nourishment that can not be lost, stolen or taken away. Spiritual nourishment is digested within the mind, heart and soul. With this bread of life our souls do have everlasting life.

Christ said [I will give you..] And He, Himself did indeed give us that bread. No one else can hand you the bread of life. Christ gave it to you, and said eat and drink what I give you.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Tj3
It is not cannibalism as you and the ancient pagans claimed.

Fred,

Eating human flesh is cannibalism - you cannot define it any other way.


It is bread that has been consecrates into Christ's body as He said.

You claim this, but then you ignore what He said when He explained what He said that it symbolized.


There is no sense discussing this any further with you.
You mind is made up as is mine.

Yep, I made up my mind years ago to submit my beliefs to scripture.

Yep, I made up my mind years ago to submit my beliefs to scripture.


Thus deny thyself and man of this world, to follow Christ.. The Word is Christ Jesus.. This was even a warning to Peter, that what is written of Christ is Truth.. And Peter was told for him to speak contrary was an offence unto Christ.

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

I realize this is difficult for you to accept, but Christ was speaking of His own flesh. The flaw, once again, is interpreting scripture with a lack of foundation in the Tradition of the RC.

I allow scripture to translate it rather than insist that scripture be bent to force fit a manmade denominational theological system. I prefer to hear what God has to say, than follow the traditions of man.


This is the difficulty that Sola Scripturist or Bible Only renditions encounter. Your interpretation above fails miserably. Doesn't it seem the least bit strange that Christ would say, in John 6: 55 “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” and as a consequence of that “hard” saying lose his following, and then seemingly making a 180 degree turn in thought?

Actually, if you read the whole chapter, you will find a consistent message.

John 6:26-28
26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
NKJV

This builds on from when Jesus blessed the food and a miracle occurred where so many people were fed by such little food. Jesus is starting the sermon based upon that incident and speaking about the food that they eat being the food that perishes. He then tells us that He will give food that does not perish. This brings up the first problem, because as we know, not only did the manna (bread) in the desert perish when the Israelites tried to store it for too long, but we also know that human blood and human flesh will indeed perish and will indeed go bad if it it left for too long. Therefore to interpret this as referring to human flesh and blood, we have our first problem. Keep this in mind as we get closer to the end and find out what Jesus says that He is speaking about and we will find out why the bread that He speaks of will never perish.


John 6:27-28
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." 28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
NKJV

Following from that, the question put to Jesus is: "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"

John 6:29
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
NKJV

Jesus then goes on to clarify the theme/context.

John 6:29-33
30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
NKJV

The bread from heaven which he is speaking about is compared to the manna which came down in the desert in Exodus chapter 16. The bread of haven however, Jesus says in verse 35 of John 6 is He.

John 6:33-35
33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
NKJV

They ask for the bread of life, and Jesus explains that they have seen him and yet do not believe. Thus again this appears to confirm that He is the bread that they seek.

John 6:36-42
36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
NKJV

He said in different ways that he is the bread that came from heaven but they did not appear to understand or believe.

John 6:42-47
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
NKJV

Note that Jesus says that He is the bread of life and that whosoever eats that bread shall live and not die. Further, we are told that those who ate the flesh in the wilderness died. The bread in the desert, the manna, was simply symbolic of Jesus, with Jesus being the true bread of life.

John 6:47-56
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
NKJV

Jesus says that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life. Let's continue in John 6, for now we are at the verses which are used to justify the manmade tradition doctrine of transubstantiation holds firmly to the view that we need to actually be cannibals and eat the flesh of Jesus and to drink His actual blood. Sound exegetical analysis of scripture requires that we use the literal meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. In this case, we need to read the full context and not just stop here if we need to find if indeed this is referring to actual human flesh and blood.

John 6:54-61
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
NKJV

Eating the flesh that Jesus speaks of and eating the blood means that we abide in Jesus and will live forever. Note: Taken literally, up to this point, this appears to provide a second means of salvation – if we were to eat His flesh and drink His blood, we gain eternal life. Is that what is meant? If we were to stop here, it would appear that the Catholic denominational tradition is right. But to stop without reading the full context would not be using sound Biblical exegesis, so lets continue on.

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

Now Jesus now says that the flesh profits nothing. This appears contrary to verses 53-4 that state that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if we do, we receive eternal life, but then Jesus clarifies by stating that Jesus says that the words are the spirit and the life. This is why it is important to continue on and read the full context because Jesus has just struck to the very heart of the doctrine of transubstantiation by saying that the flesh does not profit us at all. Rather He says, that the life comes from the spirit, not the flesh and it is the words that bring the spirit.


Words = spirit = life, Flesh does not profit anything.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 4:

Matt 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
KJV

It is God's word that brings life and the spirit, not eating the flesh. Therefore, even if the bread were changed to flesh, there would be no benefit from eating it. Now, remember earlier in this document, it was noted that human flesh and blood do perish and yet the bread that Jesus offered did not perish? Here is the explanation. Jesus was not speaking of bread, or of blood or of flesh but was speaking of the words of God which bring life. God word and the life which comes from God's word (the Gospel) are eternal. Bread, flesh and blood are perishable, but God's word and salvation which comes from receiving the gospel are eternal.

In post #22 I asked ANY CATHOLIC a question. So far, none has come up with an answer. I assume it is because of faulty theology on their part. I still wait.

In post #22 I asked ANY CATHOLIC a question. So far, none has come up with an answer. I assume it is because of faulty theology on their part. I still wait.

That is an excellent question! I am very interested to see if any of them have an answer.

In post #22 I asked ANY CATHOLIC a question. So far, none has come up with an answer. I assume it is because of faulty theology on their part. I still wait.


I believe I did ====>> see my post no. 26 (link) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/body-blood-jesus-christ-256404-3.html#post1266447)

JoeT

It was no more valid then when I wrote:
In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25.

Most scholars agree that adelphos means physical brothers, whereas if a broader relationship is indicated, the word which would be used is anepsios. The term is used here:

Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV

Further, we have prophetic testimony from the OT. In a Messianic reference in Psalms we find:

Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV

It is hard to argue that His mother's children are nor his brothers and sisters.


With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings.

You may not be aware but the books of Matthew and John are part of the NT, not the OT. When we discuss passage in the OT, we can see what it says in context.


If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of "brother" so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn't that redefine John 19:26-27?

The context of this is clear, therefore your argument here does not hold.



************************************************** ****
And to the Eucharist we find the bible to be literal.

John 6:48 I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

If you take this literally, why do you not accept Jesus' explanation of what He meant to be literal? Why did you not continue to quote the rest of what He said?

John 6:63-64
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
NKJV

John 6:63-64
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
NKJV

See my priovious post ====>>>> (click here) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/body-blood-jesus-christ-256404-5.html#post1270615)


JoeT

See my priovious post ====>>>> (click here) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/body-blood-jesus-christ-256404-5.html#post1270615)
JoeT

Maybe you should actually engage in the discussion that we are having.

I Actually, if you read the whole chapter, you will find a consistent message. Christ was telling them they weren’t seeking Him rather a full belly. Because even those they say miracles, eat miracles, it wasn’t Christ they were seeking.
John 6:26-29
26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." 28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." NKJV

Christ was saying, “It was not, He says, the miracle of the loaves that astonished you, but the being filled.” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John. It was the crowd that demanded to see how the trick was done. Christ immediately replied that, “this is the work of God”
Unfortunately we see nothing of the poor refrigeration system of the Jews, nor do we see Manna gone bad. Christ clarifies nothing in verse 29 except to challenge the Jews when he proclaims, “[God] that you believe in him who hath sent.”
Christ was reproaching the crowd because they wanted proof in the form of more miracles when they already partook of the Eucharist and failed to notice the “real presence” of Christ. St. John Chrysostom tells us to consider that Christ was saying, “You seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the bread, and were filled; He touched them by the reproof, He showed them what food they ought to seek, saying, Labor not for the meat that perishes; He set before them the prize, saying, but that which endures unto everlasting life; then provided a remedy for what might have been an objection, by declaring that He was sent from the Father.” And yet the crowd still has the audacity to ask for the “formula” of how the miracle is done.

John 6:29-33
30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will you do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' “32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Nothing more senseless, nothing more unreasonable, than these men! While the miracle was yet in their hands, as though none had been done, they spoke after this manner, What sign do you show? And having thus spoken, they do not even allow Him the right of choosing the sign, but think to force Him to exhibit none other than such a one as was wrought in the days of their fathers; wherefore they say, Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, thinking by this to provoke Him to work such a miracle as might supply them with carnal nourishment. Else why did they mention none other of the miracles of old, though many took place in those times, both in Egypt and at the sea and in the wilderness, but only that of the manna? St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John
The “Real Presence” is what Christ offers the throng; and both you and this horde demand none other than “manna from heaven,” thereby lowering Christ to the status of Moses.
T he bread from heaven which he is speaking about is compared to the manna which came down in the desert in Exodus chapter 16. The bread of haven however, Jesus says in verse 35 of John 6 is He. But Christ tells the people, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” Nevertheless, “Because the infirmity of His hearers was great... For not even when He had spoken thus did He secure their attention, although He said at first, You seek Me, not because ye saw the miracle, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. John 6:26”


John 6:33-35
33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. NKJV
Christ proclaims to the horde of people that God had sent life unto the world that everyone may see (Cf. (John 6:40), not only is the “Real Presence” in the form of bread, but we are to look to this bread for life. This said after they had eaten with carnal knowledge. Later the crowd demands this “bread,” which Christ proclaimed was the bread of life, and if you hunger and believe in Christ “he shall never thirst.”
“And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. “But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not (John 6:35). All that God gives to Christ will be risen on the last day (Cf John 6:40)

John 6:36-42
36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" NKJV
Those risen will be only those to be risen in the last days are those “who see the Son.” If Christ is speaking of a spiritual “word” as the bread of life, how then do we “see” Christ unless it’s in the Eucharist? Words mean things, Christ’s words create. Then should we take this figuratively, so that your private sensitivities are maintained. Or should we “see” Christ in the “Real Presence”?

John 6:42-47
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. NKJV
The multitude ate of the bread of life with knowing only the carnal aspects; it filled the belly, without seeing the truth revealed by spiritual truth standing before them. Yet they murmur. They don’t know how or what to make of these sayings, what to make of this man they called the son of Joseph; again they were more lost in their habit of believing beyond that which can be measured by the senses.


John 6:47-56
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. NKJV

John 6:48 I am the bread of life…If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

No play on word, direct simple language, understood then and understood now. “I am the bread,” eat and drink and you will have “life in you”. Eat and you will be raise. Eat my flesh, drink my blood and live. Little doubt as to what Christ meant.

Matt 26:Take ye and eat. This is my body 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

In Mathew we see, “This IS my body”. What is not written here is "this is like my body"; "this is symbolic of my body". What is done here is the first transubstantiation; "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being"; from bread and wine to the essence of Christ. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

John 6:55-64
Doesn’t it seem the least bit strange that Christ would say, in John 6: 55 “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” and as a consequence of that “hard” saying lose his following, and then seemingly making a 180 degree turn in thought? Why would Christ insist on the vulgar eating of human flesh and then turn around and say, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” Were the Apostles to understand this to mean that they were to eat his flesh but it wouldn’t bring them any understanding? Or were the apostles to understand this to mean not to eat his flesh; saying this right after, “eat my flesh”? To believe the latter would mean that Christ was schizophrenic. To believe the former would mean that Christ was addled. The third and correct meaning of this passage leads to the Eucharist.

Apostolic tradition is the living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit preserving the original intent of the Scripture. Looking at verse 63, in John 6, through the tradition of the Church we see a play on opposite meaning words, “sprit” and “flesh”. A literary technique allows us to picture a spiritual understanding as efficacious and the understanding through flesh as inefficacious. Still better, another way of saying it is that he, who receives understanding spiritually profits, and he receives understanding carnally, profits nothing. (Cf. St. Chrysostom on John, HOMILY XLVII)

“But what is, “understands carnally”? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?” (Cf. St. Chrysostom on John, HOMILY XLVII)

In summary, the Apostle John instructs us in the sacrament of the Eucharist that provides an everlasting spiritual life by encompassing the carnal senses spiritually with the body and blood of Christ.


JoeT

Christ was saying, “It was not, He says, the miracle of the loaves that astonished you, but the being filled.”

It is not the miracle vs being filled as you claim, it was that they were seeking food for their stomach, not Christ is what scripture says. The message here is that Jesus is comparing food which goes into your mouth in comparison to, or symbolic of the real food which He provides. Food which provides eternal life.

I have no interest in establishing my doctrine on the opinions of men, whether it be John Chrysostom or anyone else. My doctrine is established on the word of God.


The “Real Presence” is what Christ offers the throng;

If by that you mean that He offers the chance to eat Him, no He does not. That is your claim, but you have yet to establish it. Simply making the statement does not make it true.


and both you and this horde demand none other than “manna from heaven,” thereby lowering Christ to the status of Moses.

Interesting claim when what i seek is what Jesus said to seek - the word of God - whereas you tell us to eat wafers/cookies.


No play on word, direct simple language, understood then and understood now. “I am the bread,” eat and drink and you will have “life in you”. Eat and you will be raise. Eat my flesh, drink my blood and live. Little doubt as to what Christ meant.

I find it funny that whenever I have this discussion with Catholics, it is hard as pulling hen's teeth to get them to read beyond that verse, because Christ then goes on to explain the symbolism, and to condemn those who believe that He is speaking of cannibalizing His body as betraying Him.

John 6:60-64
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV


In Mathew we see, “This IS my body”. What is not written here is "this is like my body"; "this is symbolic of my body". What is done here is the first transubstantiation; "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being"; from bread and wine to the essence of Christ. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Just as with John 6, taking verses out of context leaves a person at risk of misleading and false doctrine. First is to understand what it is that they are doing at this supper. It is the passover feast. Passover is where the perfect lambs were sacrificed to save the people, which is symbolic of the sacrifice on the cross. The blood of the lambs had no effect - we are told that in Hebrews - it is symbolic.

So when He said - this is my body, it is a reflection on the passover feast and the symbolism. He was saying - "I am the perfect lamb of God prophesied by the passover feast.". Further, it could not be His blood and flesh that they were eating - He was there in front of them. What did He say that they were drinking?

Matt 26:28-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV

The blood had not yet been shed on the cross. This was before the event. It is therefore symbolic of that which was to come. Further proof is that Jesus makes it clear what it was that theyw ere drinking in reality:

Matt 26:29
29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
NKJV

They were drinking of the "fruit of the vine". It was wine, not blood. Jesus said so Himself.


Doesn't it seem the least bit strange that Christ would say, in John 6: 55 “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” and as a consequence of that “hard” saying lose his following, and then seemingly making a 180 degree turn in thought?

Jesus often said things to get people's attention and then explained what He meant. Are you saying that He lied when He said that He was NOT speaking of actual flesh and blood? Why would He explain it that way if it were not true?


Why would Christ insist on the vulgar eating of human flesh and then turn around and say, “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Because He wanted to show who it was who understood what He was really saying and who those were who would betray Him:

John 6:60
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
NKJV

They said, as you are, that it is hard to understand why He said it that way.

John 6:61-65
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV

Do we stand with the Apostles who understood that it was His word that give life? Or do we stand with those who thought that He commanded them to sin in cannibalism, and then betrayed Him?

That is the question that what we are left with. I will stand with Jesus and His word.

I believe I did ====>> see my post no. 26 (link) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/body-blood-jesus-christ-256404-3.html#post1266447)

JoeT
Here you correctly argue that those Jesus called His mother, and brethren, was to be understood in a spiritual sense. Why then do you insist that the words spoken at the Last Supper be understood in a literal, carnal sense? As TJ has pointed out repeatedly, Jesus explained that what He gives is spiritual. When scripture and dogma differ, I choose scripture, and yes, there are several instances when they clash.

What do you guys think of PZ myers' desecration of a communion wafer?

Outlined at the bottom of this post on his blog: Pharyngula: The Great Desecration (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php)

What do you guys think of PZ myers' desecration of a communion wafer?

Outlined at the bottom of this post on his blog: Pharyngula: The Great Desecration (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php)

In reality, there is no more significance than to do the same thing to any cracker. However, I think that what he did is wrong and I would oppose it because it appears that his action had no other purpose than to offend Catholics.

In reality, there is no more significance than to do the same thing to any cracker. However, I think that what he did is wrong and I would oppose it because it appears that his action had no other purpose than to offend Catholics.

Would it have offended you if he had done it with a page of the bible? Would you ever yourself destroy a bible, even if you had several more at home? After all, in reality, it's just the same as any book.

Would it have offended you if he had done it with a page of the bible? Would you ever yourself destroy a bible, even if you had several more at home? After all, in reality, it's just the same as any book.

They consider the cracker/wafer to be God or a god. I would oppose doing it to their cracker/wafer simply out of respect for the people, not the cracker/wafer. Further, I do not consider the Bible to be God or a god, but rather it is the written word of God. One cannot destroy His words by putting a nail through a book. Thus, while it would show disrespect for my faith and my God, all they are doing is damaging paper, and perhaps wasting some of their own money to buy the book. I recognize that there are many, indeed the majority, who do not recognize or accept the God that I worship, and would take it with that perspective. I would therefore not be personally offended and would remain open to sharing the gospel with him. After all, God came to earth manifest in the flesh, and was nailed to the cross by those who rejected Him, and what was His response?

Luke 23:34
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
NKJV

Would I destroy a Bible? If I have a Bible which is old and no longer able to serve any useful purpose (pages torn and falling out, maybe many are missing), why not? If however, it is still useful, and I have several, I would rather give it to someone else to make use of it for the same reason that I would do so with anything else which may still serve a useful purpose.

One cannot destroy His words by putting a nail through a book.
One can burn a book and destroy with the book also the letters. But not all books!
For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!


Afterall, God came to earth manifest in the flesh, and was nailed to the cross by those who rejected Him...
That is what you BELIEVE !

:rolleyes:

For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!

There were multitudes of Christians murdered by others who claimed to be Christians also. Read "Foxes Book of Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html)" for example.

They consider the cracker/wafer to be God or a god. I would oppose doing it to their cracker/wafer simply out of respect for the people, not the cracker/wafer. Further, I do not consider the Bible to be God or a god, but rather it is the written word of God. One cannot destroy His words by putting a nail through a book. Thus, while it would show disrespect for my faith and my God, all they are doing is damaging paper, and perhaps wasting some of their own money to buy the book. I recognize that there are many, indeed the majority, who do not recognize or accept the God that I worship, and would take it with that perspective. I would therefore not be personally offended and would remain open to sharing the gospel with him. Afterall, God came to earth manifest in the flesh, and was nailed to the cross by those who rejected Him, and what was His response?

Luke 23:34
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
NKJV

Would I destroy a Bible? If I have a Bible which is old and no longer able to serve any useful purpose (pages torn and falling out, maybe many are missing), why not? If however, it is still useful, and I have several, I would rather give it to someone else to make use of it for the same reason that I would do so with anything else which may still serve a useful purpose.

I believe he was trying to get people to recognize that a cracker is just a cracker, even if it symbolizes something else. His point is that he has no qualms about sticking a nail through a cracker, and any offense people feel about it is their own problem, because it is just a cracker. Like he says, no symbol should be held as sacred.

I believe he was trying to get people to recognize that a cracker is just a cracker, even if it symbolizes something else. His point is that he has no qualms about sticking a nail through a cracker, and any offense people feel about it is their own problem, because it is just a cracker. Like he says, no symbol should be held as sacred.

Agreed. But Catholics do not believe that the wafer/cracker symbolizes God - they believe that it is God (Jesus), and worship it as such.

I also would have no qualms whatsoever about sticking a nail through the wafer/cracker, even if it came directly from the priest's blessing. My opposition would be simply a concern that if I were to do so in front of one or more Catholics, it may cause an offense that may make them to be closed to listening to the gospel if they are not yet saved. In such a case, I would not want to see a person end up in hell for this reason. There are times when offense is necessary, but I don't see any reason why it would be appropriate in this case.

On the other hand, I think that it would be interesting if a priest would submit a sample of a "consecrated" wafer to a lab for chemical and/or DNA analysis. That would prove once and for all if it is truly flesh.

There were multitudes of Christians murdered by others who claimed to be Christians also.
That may be so, but does not invalidate what I stated :

One can burn a book and destroy with the book also the letters. But not all books!

For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

That may be so, but does not invalidate what I stated :

One can burn a book and destroy with the book also the letters. But not all books!

For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!


I was not attempting to invalidate what you said. Read again.

I was not attempting to invalidate what you said. Read again.
I read properly the first time... Do you now blame me for many "christians" to be a murderous lot?

:rolleyes:

I read properly the first time ... Do you now blame me for many "christians" to be a murderous lot?

:rolleyes:

John,

You seem to be trying to create a problem where there is none. I blamed you for nothing - what exactly is your point? Or are you just trying to once again take yet another thread off track?

Tommy Smith aka toms777 :

You seem to be trying to create a problem where there is none. I blamed you for nothing - what exactly is your point? Or are you just trying to once again take yet another thread off track?
Complete nonsense and you know that!! It was you who posted :

One cannot destroy His words by putting a nail through a book.
To which I replied :
One can burn a book and destroy with the book also the letters. But not all books!
For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!

And you also posted :

Afterall, God came to earth manifest in the flesh, and was nailed to the cross by those who rejected Him...
To which I replied :
That is what you BELIEVE !

All the rest were reactions to your onesided remarks.
Seems more that YOU are the only one who wants to run this discussion off track because you go nowhere with your "arguments"...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

One can burn a book and destroy with the book also the letters. But not all books!
For many centuries "christians" destroyed those who were non-christian by burning them. But not all non-christians!


You answered my question - you are trying to hijack the thread. You will note that I have not disagreed with you, I stated so specifically, I put up a post which supported what you said (and even went further pointing out that many who claimed to be "christians" also murdered multitudes of Christians, and yet you keep spamming the thread with this post, and put up comments attacking me as though we are in disagreement. - What is it? - do you want confrontation so badly that you cannot handle agreement?

You answered my question - you are trying to hijack the thread.
No Tommy Smith aka Toms777 aka Tj3 :
No, I do not have any intention to do so. The only one of us two with some hidden agenda is you.
As you always have, knowing you already for so many years...

Now if you REALLY want to get back to the thread : do not react to this.

:rolleyes:

No Tommy Smith aka Toms777 aka Tj3 :
No, I do not have any intention to do so. The only one of us two with some hidden agenda is you.
As you always have, knowing you already for so many years ....


Still playing games I see.

Now let's try to get this thread back on track.


I believe he was trying to get people to recognize that a cracker is just a cracker, even if it symbolizes something else. His point is that he has no qualms about sticking a nail through a cracker, and any offense people feel about it is their own problem, because it is just a cracker. Like he says, no symbol should be held as sacred.

Agreed. But Catholics do not believe that the wafer/cracker symbolizes God - they believe that it is God (Jesus), and worship it as such.

I also would have no qualms whatsoever about sticking a nail through the wafer/cracker, even if it came directly from the priest's blessing. My opposition would be simply a concern that if I were to do so in front of one or more Catholics, it may cause an offense that may make them to be closed to listening to the gospel if they are not yet saved. In such a case, I would not want to see a person end up in hell for this reason. There are times when offense is necessary, but I don't see any reason why it would be appropriate in this case.

On the other hand, I think that it would be interesting if a priest would submit a sample of a "consecrated" wafer to a lab for chemical and/or DNA analysis. That would prove once and for all if it is truly flesh.

Now let's try to get this thread back on track.



Agreed. But Catholics do not believe that the wafer/cracker symbolizes God - they believe that it is God (Jesus), and worship it as such.

I also would have no qualms whatsoever about sticking a nail through the wafer/cracker, even if it came directly from the priest's blessing. My opposition would be simply a concern that if I were to do so in front of one or more Catholics, it may cause an offense that may make them to be closed to listening to the gospel if they are not yet saved. In such a case, I would not want to see a person end up in hell for this reason. There are times when offense is necessary, but I don't see any reason why it would be appropriate in this case.

On the other hand, I think that it would be interesting if a priest would submit a sample of a "consecrated" wafer to a lab for chemical and/or DNA analysis. That would prove once and for all if it is truly flesh.


Tom, Capuchin, et al:

As soon as Capuchin referenced Meyers, I could not continue in good conscience; especially with the comments highlight above. I found it to be sacrilegious.


JoeT

Tom, Capuchin, et al:
As soon as Capuchin referenced Meyers, I could not continue in good conscience; especially with the comments highlight above. I found it to be sacrilegious.
JoeT

You may consider the wafer/cracker to be God, but I do not. Regardless, you apparently did not read that I said:

"I would oppose doing it to their cracker/wafer simply out of respect for the people, not the cracker/wafer."

And

"My opposition would be simply a concern that if I were to do so in front of one or more Catholics, it may cause an offense that may make them to be closed to listening to the gospel if they are not yet saved. In such a case, I would not want to see a person end up in hell for this reason. There are times when offense is necessary, but I don't see any reason why it would be appropriate in this case."

You can believe what you wish, but you cannot control the faith of others. While recognizing that differences in beliefs will exist, you need to be prepared to accept those differences. You may also wish to consider how you feel at these comments when you are posting comments about the faith of others.

JoeT777,
Yes you DID answer it and well.
I also answered Galvison's question.
Apparently He does not understand the answer, no did not see or read them or just rejects the fact that Jesus did speak literally.
I get that opinion from Galviston saying that no one answered his question when in fact both you and I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You may consider the wafer/cracker to be God, but I do not. Regardless, you apparently did not read that I said:

"I would oppose doing it to their cracker/wafer simply out of respect for the people, not the cracker/wafer."

And

"My opposition would be simply a concern that if I were to do so in front of one or more Catholics, it may cause an offense that may make them to be closed to listening to the gospel if they are not yet saved. In such a case, I would not want to see a person end up in hell for this reason. There are times when offense is necessary, but I don't see any reason why it would be appropriate in this case."

You can believe what you wish, but you cannot control the faith of others. While recognizing that differences in beliefs will exist, you need to be prepared to accept those differences. You may also wish to consider how you feel at these comments when you are posting comments about the faith of others.


Don’t flatter yourself.


JoeT

Don’t flatter yourself.


JoeT

It actually frightens me that some people are so controlled by their faith that they would refuse to put a nail through a piece of wheat flour. That's a dangerous type of control.

Don’t flatter yourself.


JoeT

I didn't. But apparently you missed the point of what I said.

Bread is made from flour, water, and oil. A priest speaks some Latin words over it, thereby calling Jesus down from Heaven into the bread. It then becomes the body of Jesus Christ and is worshipped as such. To me (my opinion) this is idolatry. The priest made it and consecrated it and then declared it to be the object of worship. It must not be chewed, but swallowed whole.

Rom 10:6-9
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(KJV)

Man cannot call Jesus down from Heaven. He will return at the proper time as LORD of LORDS and KING of KINGS, not as a wafer.

Still playing games I see.
And you keep hyjacking this topic with your fanaticism and personal aggression in support of your own wounded ego...

:D :rolleyes: :p :) ;) :D

.

Bread is made from flour, water, and oil. A priest speaks some Latin words over it, thereby calling Jesus down from Heaven into the bread. It then becomes the body of Jesus Christ and is worshipped as such. To me (my opinion) this is idolatry. The priest made it and consecrated it and then declared it to be the object of worship. It must not be chewed, but swallowed whole.

Rom 10:6-9
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(KJV)

Man cannot call Jesus down from Heaven. He will return at the proper time as LORD of LORDS and KING of KINGS, not as a wafer.

Quite right.

And at the risk of being repetitive, I wonder why no priest has yet taken the opportunity to prove what they claim to believe is true, and submit a sample for testing to prove that it is actually flesh and blood.

Posts here by everyone are to such a level of disrepect of anothers belief, and so attacking, the thread is closed