PDA

View Full Version : Eucharist idol exposed by Celiac Disease



clefty
July 10th, 2017, 10:37 PM
That the Church has to take special action for those suffering from allergies to wheat exposes the idolatry of the Eucharist tradition.

This recently on how careful it must be:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the_eu charist/1323886


This on the issue of those with allergies:

http://www.hprweb.com/2013/06/celiac-disease-and-holy-communion-a-medical-and-spiritual-dilemma/


The fact that there are allergic reactions to the wheat after the bread is transubstantiated into flesh the Body of Christ entire can either mean His flesh has gluten or the allergen is in the accidents as of course the substance is changed. Right?

HalleluYah that His creation through its process of biology and chemistry reveals this ancient idolatry of man's tradition.

The fact that allergic reactions to gluten occur proves the bread remains bread.

The host must be wheat by the Church's canon law. Rather than change that tradition they insist to make those suffer celiac disease suffer additionally and go without "His real presence"...

And yet the Church made changes to unleavened bread to seperate themselves from the orthodox...

Wick Stick
July 11th, 2017, 12:19 AM
This late-breaking bulletin has just been handed to me...

A man in Italy talks to bread. The bread continues to loaf. Film at 11.

#notnews

Eeset
July 11th, 2017, 12:42 AM
This late-breaking bulletin has just been handed to me...

A man in Italy talks to bread. The bread continues to loaf. Film at 11.

#notnews
Defense attorney claims it is a bad wrap.

Epoisses
July 11th, 2017, 06:38 PM
Crust me, I'm on a roll.

Epoisses
July 11th, 2017, 06:44 PM
Rye, rye miss American pie

Dunked a ciabatta in the coffee and the coffee went dry.

Epoisses
July 11th, 2017, 06:46 PM
Wholey grain, I'm losing my mind

oatmeal
July 12th, 2017, 04:38 AM
That the Church has to take special action for those suffering from allergies to wheat exposes the idolatry of the Eucharist tradition.

This recently on how careful it must be:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the_eu charist/1323886


This on the issue of those with allergies:

http://www.hprweb.com/2013/06/celiac-disease-and-holy-communion-a-medical-and-spiritual-dilemma/


The fact that there are allergic reactions to the wheat after the bread is transubstantiated into flesh the Body of Christ entire can either mean His flesh has gluten or the allergen is in the accidents as of course the substance is changed. Right?

HalleluYah that His creation through its process of biology and chemistry reveals this ancient idolatry of man's tradition.

The fact that allergic reactions to gluten occur proves the bread remains bread.

The host must be wheat by the Church's canon law. Rather than change that tradition they insist to make those suffer celiac disease suffer additionally and go without "His real presence"...

And yet the Church made changes to unleavened bread to seperate themselves from the orthodox...

As you must well know, the number priority in the RC is itself, not scripture, that comes a distant third, if at all.

clefty
July 12th, 2017, 06:26 AM
As you must well know, the number priority in the RC is itself, not scripture, that comes a distant third, if at all.

It is odd that He would demand we do something injurious to ourselves.


As if the miracle of transubstantiation can not also prevent an allergic reaction.


What they ascribe to the His last supper is Sacred Tradition or religious peer pressure and is merely man's tradition otherwise known as idolatry,

The passover lambs were killed the following day...

clefty
July 13th, 2017, 06:54 AM
Wholey grain, I'm losing my mind

Crusty and stale


Thing about idols n images

they claim because cherubim were made we can make images too

Once made and put in place those things were viewed only by the high priest

And that only once a year...

As if He abolished His own law with His executive order...

clefty
July 24th, 2017, 04:09 PM
As you must well know, the number priority in the RC is itself, not scripture, that comes a distant third, if at all.

I really did hope someone here would explain to me why the priest would not turn the bread into flesh enough for it not to be an allergenic for someone who with celiac disease.

Why are they withholding His flesh from their flocks?

User Name
July 28th, 2017, 01:44 PM
It is odd that He would demand we do something injurious to ourselves.


As if the miracle of transubstantiation can not also prevent an allergic reaction.


What they ascribe to the His last supper is Sacred Tradition or religious peer pressure and is merely man's tradition otherwise known as idolatry,

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall 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 that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

clefty
July 28th, 2017, 05:50 PM
1 Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall 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 that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

So because members ate and drank unworthingly they became allergic to the gluten?

Not sure how this text applies to a supposed miracle that completely transforms bread into flesh still responds to the WHEAT...is His flesh made of WHEAT?

Only that would explain why those suffering celiac respond with allergies to it...

Or maybe the bread doesn't turn into flesh?

Stuu
July 30th, 2017, 05:31 AM
And don't they get upset when you pocket the blessed host and walk off with it...

Stuart

clefty
July 30th, 2017, 06:19 AM
And don't they get upset when you pocket the blessed host and walk off with it...

Stuart

It does get akward for them:

https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=328042

Does one chew the host or not chew it?

But make sure you swallow the host before it loses its form as bread or else you havent properly received Jesus, in other words dont let Him dissolve completely in your mouth.

Maybe those suffering from celiac should swallow the bread whole to ensure it is flesh and not bread...



Here are further medical vs tradition issues;

You may have heard about a case in the Diocese of Phoenix in which there is controversy over a 10-year old autistic boy’s ability to receive Communion.

The boy’s autism apparently causes him to spit out things with certain textures, and a typical Host has such a texture. Neither can he swallow the Precious Blood, according to his father.

The solution that the family has arrived at is for their son to receive Communion in the form of the Host and, after a few seconds, for the boy’s father to take the Host and consume it himself.

http://jimmyakin.com/2006/03/unusual_canon_l.html

Stuu
July 30th, 2017, 01:12 PM
It does get akward for them:

https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=328042

Does one chew the host or not chew it?

But make sure you swallow the host before it loses its form as bread or else you havent properly received Jesus, in other words dont let Him dissolve completely in your mouth.

Maybe those suffering from celiac should swallow the bread whole to ensure it is flesh and not bread...



Here are further medical vs tradition issues;

You may have heard about a case in the Diocese of Phoenix in which there is controversy over a 10-year old autistic boy’s ability to receive Communion.

The boy’s autism apparently causes him to spit out things with certain textures, and a typical Host has such a texture. Neither can he swallow the Precious Blood, according to his father.

The solution that the family has arrived at is for their son to receive Communion in the form of the Host and, after a few seconds, for the boy’s father to take the Host and consume it himself.

http://jimmyakin.com/2006/03/unusual_canon_l.html
Interesting, and in the case of the chewing controversy, hilarious.

It's not called 'Bells and smells' for nothing!

Stuart

clefty
July 30th, 2017, 03:28 PM
Interesting, and in the case of the chewing controversy, hilarious.

It's not called 'Bells and smells' for nothing!

Stuart

Ha...bells and smells...yes the incense being prayers of to the saints...

Idolatry and its "It was appealing"...Satan knows its through the senses and sensuality and sentimentality which will cause our distraction from hearing the good news and believe without seeing...

Political correctness liberation theology emotionalism and feel good prosperity nonsense et al has only been the work of the counter reformation...

jsanford108
July 30th, 2017, 06:26 PM
I originally was not going to respond to this post, due to the clear bias found within it. However, subsequent posts have convinced me that there should be an intellectual input.

While your premise is interesting, it falls quite flat, on a logical level. Each of the posts, detailing how the Eucharist is "exposed" as a fraud, is really quite silly. One says that because an autistic boy cannot swallow, it exposes the truth. Another, that celiac disease exposes the truth. But allow us to compare these examples, and the logic therein, against other "miracles."

For celiac disease, as the OP pointed out, persons are limited to being able to receive the Host. Of course, the alternative is the Chalice. However, the OP says that "biology" has exposed the truth of the idolatry. Let us utilize this logic, and apply it to the most important event in history, the Resurrection. Biology states that nothing can physically come back from death. Death, biologically, is a final act. An everlasting act. If biology, thus, natural law, restricts all miracles, then Christ, by this logic, did not rise from the dead.

To use the very atheist restrictions of natural law upon the supernatural, you end up denying the abilities of God. It would make sense for an atheist to utilize such logic, as they dismiss supernatural. But for a Christian to utilize such logic contradicts the very core beliefs they should hold, namely the Resurrection.

I know. The first rebuttal will declare "but if it is the 'body of Christ,' how can a person be allergic to it?" Simple. Transubstantiation does not alter the physical properties of matter. The Host will still taste, appear, and have the physical properties of bread. As Christ, God Incarnate, had the physical appearance and properties of man (Thus, being 100% God and 100% Man). If you claim this is possible within the physical incarnation of God, why could He not do this with something as simple as bread?

To the autistic case....

I wish to applaud clefty for actually researching Catholic sources for his information. I believe that is demonstrating an apt sense of research ability.

This claim of "exposing the truth" is less rational than the celiac disease. For it relies on a person's handicap as a base of reason. How could God, being truly present in the bread, allow a person to be unable to consume Him? This goes back to my original reason, relating to celiac disease. But let us apply this logic to other "truths," widely accepted by Protestants. Protestants often cite Romans 3:23 as a means of proving Mary was not full of grace. "For all have sinned." According to Protestants, this means every single individual, without exception. Catholics view this as a widely accepted, and truthful, generalization. All? Really?

One would agree that in order to commit a sinful act, one must have knowledge of their actions, no? Thus, a person must have the cognitive ability to know right from wrong. So, with that, does a mentally handicapped person, incapable of higher cognitive ability, commit sin? Remember, they must do this knowingly, having the ability to discern right from sin. Thus, the "all without exception" rule is broken.

Now, let us apply this to the autistic child being unable to consume the Host. There is no rule that says "all must consume." Anytime consumption of the Host is mentioned, it is a generalization. As evidenced by people with celiac disease, or other mitigating factors. The reason this is, is because common sense prevails. Catholicism knows that there will inevitably be factors that may inhibit a person from full participation in Communion. Thus, the solution being the father being allowed to step in and consume the Host for his son.

Clefty expounds by citing a "controversy" about chewing. There is really no controversy on chewing. The term utilized for reception of the Host is "consume." According to Catholicism, every consecrated Host is to be consumed. By chewing, swallowing (which obviously must be done), etc. It is a matter of respect and obedience. Naturally, Catholics are angered by people who would not consume the Host, stick it in their pocket, and walk away. Obedience to Christ is to "eat," not walk away. It is also viewed as the Living Body of Christ. So, to be so disrespectful as to place it in one's pocket is blasphemous. Satanists, for their black masses, try to obtain a consecrated host, in order to commit vile acts against it (such as ejaculate on it, stab it, mutilate it, etc.). Why would Satanists, clearly opposed to Christianity, treat a mere piece of bread in such a manner, unless they too believed it to be more than bread?

clefty
July 30th, 2017, 08:36 PM
The first rebuttal will declare "but if it is the 'body of Christ,' how can a person be allergic to it?" Simple. Transubstantiation does not alter the physical properties of matter. The Host will still taste, appear, and have the physical properties of bread.

...so you must argue the allergen is in the aesthetics of the bread...so what it looks like causes an allergic response?

I understand pagan thought helps with its Aristotelian accidents and substance but the body itself by its chemistry and biological process of digestion is still detecting it as wheat gluten...not flesh...it remains bread not because of its form but its substance. The substance should have been changed from bread into flesh (but yes of course still looking like bread)

Why cant this miracle (yes extra biological or super natural power) be more complete to change/remove the allergen...the allergen resides in the thing which makes the thing the thing not its appearance affect or accident but its essence...flesh or bread...you claim it is made flesh miraculously then it should be digested as flesh


As Christ, God Incarnate, had the physical appearance and properties of man (Thus, being 100% God and 100% Man). If you claim this is possible within the physical incarnation of God, why could He not do this with something as simple as bread? Sure its simple and He could do it but He didnt and doesnt...is why the host is still bread and contains an allergen and is not flesh which would not contain an allergen...why is this miracle so sloppy incomplete?

Death is indeed biological and the decay which follows is as well...that's why the tests were necessary for the disbelieving disciples...they had to see Him alive...hear Him...touch Him...watch Him eat

That is why the resurrection is a miracle...complete miracle and completed...tested and proven...the host remaining still an allergen is His not making a miracle complete...making the bread completely into flesh would be an easy miracle...but CILIAC disease still detects it as bread and not transformed into flesh as the allergen is in the substance and not in its accidents...so He didnt and doesnt do this miracle...

As to your all have sinned being a generalization...there is a reason you baptize infants which have less than little understanding of sin

jsanford108
July 30th, 2017, 09:20 PM
...so you must argue the allergen is in the aesthetics of the bread...so what it looks like causes an allergic response?

I understand pagan thought helps with its Aristotelian accidents and substance but the body itself by its chemistry and biological process of digestion is still detecting it as wheat gluten...not flesh...it remains bread not because of its form but its substance. The substance should have been changed from bread into flesh (but yes of course still looking like bread)

Why cant this miracle (yes extra biological or super natural power) be more complete to change/remove the allergen...the allergen resides in the thing which makes the thing the thing not its appearance affect or accident but its essence...flesh or bread...you claim it is made flesh miraculously then it should be digested as flesh

Sure its simple and He could do it but He didnt and doesnt...is why the host is still bread and contains an allergen and is not flesh which would not contain an allergen...why is this miracle so sloppy incomplete?

Death is indeed biological and the decay which follows is as well...that's why the tests were necessary for the disbelieving disciples...they had to see Him alive...hear Him...touch Him...watch Him eat

That is why the resurrection is a miracle...complete miracle and completed...tested and proven...the host remaining still an allergen is His not making a miracle complete...making the bread completely into flesh would be an easy miracle...but CILIAC disease still detects it as bread and not transformed into flesh as the allergen is in the substance and not in its accidents...so He didnt and doesnt do this miracle...

As to your all have sinned being a generalization...there is a reason you baptize infants which have less than little understanding of sin

You are clever to add the subtle "pagan" part. Well played. But alas....

You are failing to understand Transubstantiation. And I can understand, because it defies nature. But that is what makes something "supernatural" (supernatural translates into "beyond the natural"). Thus, the bread will have all the physical properties, including the allergens, but will be miraculously the Flesh. As Christ, before the Crucifixion, if examined medically and scientifically would appear a normal human. One would not expect to find a "God particle" or supernatural matter. He was 100% human. But we know that He was also God. God being undetectable, yet ever Present. The same can be attributed to a consecrated host.

Now, a very good argument, is that just because Christ can do something, He doesn't always do it. A very valid argument, especially given your perspective. And I would say that this argument is true for many questions that arise (such as "why does God not eliminate evil right now"). Your claim is that Christ just doesn't allow Himself to become consumable. However, I disagree, as evidence by the Gospel (assuming that the Gospel is accepted by you as inerrant evidence). If you read John 6, Christ explicitly mentions the eating and drinking of His Body and Blood. In John 13, we have the Last Supper. If we examine all of John's Gospel, we see that anytime Christ speaks figuratively, clarification is given. If not by Christ, then by the author. Yet, in John 6 and 13, no such clarification of figurative speech is provided. Thus, it would stand that the author knew these to be as they were received literally. After all, many of the followers who heard these things that Christ spoke of left Him, because they knew He spoke of literally eating His Flesh. If they misunderstood, why would Christ let them walk away? Christ never let someone walk away due to misunderstanding (evidenced within all the Gospels).

You also submit that the Resurrection is a "tested" miracle. It was evidenced by many, correct? Even Roman histories (pagan) describe the mystery of Christ's Body being gone from the tomb, and hundreds bearing witness to seeing the risen Christ. Such early letters also bear witness to the Eucharist, citing that Christians should be persecuted for "gathering to eat the flesh of their god." They understood that early Christians believed in the literal Body being consumed in Communion.

If you require more scientific evidence, there is the Miracle of Lanciano. I will provide a link for you. A priest, who did not believe in Transubstantiation, was convinced by the Bread and Wine changing physically (in all aesthetics) into Flesh and Blood.

Thus, your testing of sources, witness, and science does point to Eucharistic truth.

As far as infant baptism, I can address that if you wish; but I believe it would be more prudent to discuss one topic at a time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

clefty
August 4th, 2017, 05:18 PM
You are clever to add the subtle "pagan" part. Well played. But alas.... relying on pagan thought to explain Him His way is at best awkward...leave it to a mystery...mysteries are needed see rev 17


You are failing to understand Transubstantiation. And I can understand, because it defies nature. But that is what makes something "supernatural" (supernatural translates into "beyond the natural"). Thus, the bread will have all the physical properties, including the allergens, but will be miraculously the Flesh. I understand transubstantiation, I also believe in miracles...but what you describe is not trans enough...the bread BECOMES flesh is the proper teaching...that it is a complete trans of the substances...

your miracle sounds more like consubstantiation retaining all the physical properties but miraculously remains flesh too...that is NOT Church teaching...it becomes flesh with the appearance/accidents/aesthetics of bread

but our digestive system doesnt have eyes to see it as flesh or touch sensations to feel it as flesh etc and is why the biological and chemical process of digestion has the body respond to it (the Host) now supposedly flesh as what it remains...bread unchanged...and not changed trans-ed into another substance flesh which has no gluten

You can't convince me that the allergen remains in what it looks like.


As Christ, before the Crucifixion, if examined medically and scientifically would appear a normal human. One would not expect to find a "God particle" or supernatural matter. He was 100% human. But we know that He was also God. God being undetectable, yet ever Present. The same can be attributed to a consecrated host. yes Consubstantiation was "developed" to argue this "duality" this "con" of Christ...and developed in hopes to drag it into yet another catagory...



Now, a very good argument, is that just because Christ can do something, He doesn't always do it. A very valid argument, especially given your perspective. And I would say that this argument is true for many questions that arise (such as "why does God not eliminate evil right now"). all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)


Your claim is that Christ just doesn't allow Himself to become consumable. However, I disagree, as evidence by the Gospel (assuming that the Gospel is accepted by you as inerrant evidence). If you read John 6, Christ explicitly mentions the eating and drinking of His Body and Blood. He clearly clarifies it to His disciples because despite staying with Him they murmur at this hard saying and He asks why they are offended/troubled with the idea they have to eat Him...oh no wait He clarifies it "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING" wow...duh...The Spirit gives life not flesh (the gnawing of it) but the words He speaks they are life...just as the Spirit causes flesh to ascend where He was before...so its not the FLESH but the WORDS/SPIRIT... THEY are the life...


In John 13, we have the Last Supper. ummm...John 13 the only bread eaten is bread He handed to Judas...He dipped bread not flesh...
If we examine all of John's Gospel, we see that anytime Christ speaks figuratively, clarification is given. If not by Christ, then by the author. Yet, in John 6 and 13, no such clarification of figurative speech is provided. wut? And I just showed you where He clarified to the murmuring disciples reluctant to cannibalize Him that it was the Words He spoke which was the Life as flesh profits NOTHING but it is the Spirit...


Thus, it would stand that the author knew these to be as they were received literally. After all, many of the followers who heard these things that Christ spoke of left Him, because they knew He spoke of literally eating His Flesh. If they misunderstood, why would Christ let them walk away? Christ never let someone walk away due to misunderstanding (evidenced within all the Gospels). He let many walk away...few were with Him at the end... the poor disciples even misunderstood Him after He rose from the dead...that glory of Israel thingy


You also submit that the Resurrection is a "tested" miracle. It was evidenced by many, correct? Even Roman histories (pagan) describe the mystery of Christ's Body being gone from the tomb, and hundreds bearing witness to seeing the risen Christ. Such early letters also bear witness to the Eucharist, citing that Christians should be persecuted for "gathering to eat the flesh of their god." They understood that early Christians believed in the literal Body being consumed in Communion. not my fault wolves in sheep clothing came in to the 1st century fold to spread lies and deception...even in Acts false witnesses attempted to slander Paul with false testimony that he taught the Law was changed...

The 2000 year old slander continues and includes recent debates I have seen on youtube where claims by "learned defenders of the Church" emphatically insist He made cannibalism ok by making all meats clean in Mark 7...it is that rediculous


If you require more scientific evidence, there is the Miracle of Lanciano. I will provide a link for you. A priest, who did not believe in Transubstantiation, was convinced by the Bread and Wine changing physically (in all aesthetics) into Flesh and Blood. well then that Host could be eaten with no allergic reaction to gluten as it wouldnt exist...it was transubstantiated...from actual bread to actually meat


Thus, your testing of sources, witness, and science does point to Eucharistic truth.

As far as infant baptism, I can address that if you wish; but I believe it would be more prudent to discuss one topic at a time.
yes yes...one Church error at a time please...

jsanford108
August 7th, 2017, 04:34 PM
relying on pagan thought to explain Him His way is at best awkward...leave it to a mystery...mysteries are needed see rev 17

I understand transubstantiation, I also believe in miracles...but what you describe is not trans enough...the bread BECOMES flesh is the proper teaching...that it is a complete trans of the substances...

your miracle sounds more like consubstantiation retaining all the physical properties but miraculously remains flesh too...that is NOT Church teaching...it becomes flesh with the appearance/accidents/aesthetics of bread

but our digestive system doesnt have eyes to see it as flesh or touch sensations to feel it as flesh etc and is why the biological and chemical process of digestion has the body respond to it (the Host) now supposedly flesh as what it remains...bread unchanged...and not changed trans-ed into another substance flesh which has no gluten

You can't convince me that the allergen remains in what it looks like.

yes Consubstantiation was "developed" to argue this "duality" this "con" of Christ...and developed in hopes to drag it into yet another catagory...


all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)

He clearly clarifies it to His disciples because despite staying with Him they murmur at this hard saying and He asks why they are offended/troubled with the idea they have to eat Him...oh no wait He clarifies it "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING" wow...duh...The Spirit gives life not flesh (the gnawing of it) but the words He speaks they are life...just as the Spirit causes flesh to ascend where He was before...so its not the FLESH but the WORDS/SPIRIT... THEY are the life...

ummm...John 13 the only bread eaten is bread He handed to Judas...He dipped bread not flesh... wut? And I just showed you where He clarified to the murmuring disciples reluctant to cannibalize Him that it was the Words He spoke which was the Life as flesh profits NOTHING but it is the Spirit...

He let many walk away...few were with Him at the end... the poor disciples even misunderstood Him after He rose from the dead...that glory of Israel thingy

not my fault wolves in sheep clothing came in to the 1st century fold to spread lies and deception...even in Acts false witnesses attempted to slander Paul with false testimony that he taught the Law was changed...

The 2000 year old slander continues and includes recent debates I have seen on youtube where claims by "learned defenders of the Church" emphatically insist He made cannibalism ok by making all meats clean in Mark 7...it is that rediculous

well then that Host could be eaten with no allergic reaction to gluten as it wouldnt exist...it was transubstantiated...from actual bread to actually meat


You utilize very good debate techniques, and present well formed arguments. I thank you for that. I apologize for a delay in responding, I have been quite busy with remodeling a house.

I admit, I have not quite learned how to do the excellent quote breakdown, as you have, so forgive my archaic form of simply quoting (I will underline your quotes, as I believe I did previously).

"all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)": This is a point that I agree with you on. God/Christ will not do some things. Christ would not rise on the second day. Why? Because 1) He did not, and 2) He said the "third day." So we are in complete agreement on this premise.

The issue you are highlighting is the presence of an allergen in a "miraculously transformed food" (my words, not yours). Would you agree on this analysis?

If you agree, I ask, what blood type did Christ have? Sure, it doesn't really matter. But some people's blood types are incompatible with alternate types. So, what if a person with incompatible blood, was given a transfusion, by Christ? Now I know, this is really trivial, and an impossible hypothetical question; But the essence of this question is the exact same as the allergen argument that you have put forth. It is an argument over individual, biological, and physical inefficiencies trumping divine attributes. The fallacy present within your argument is that you are "debunking" Divine aspects using biological restrictions. ( I have avoided using the term "fallacy," but at this point, I may have to use it in order to describe various approaches to this discussion). This style of arguing is slightly false, due to arguing with two different ideas: divine/mystical and biological/physical. By using an individual's physical and biological incompatibilities and inefficiencies in order to "debunk" a "miraculous" and "divine gift," you have skirted around using theological proof, relying on an illusion of the natural affecting the supernatural.

We no doubt agree that the supernatural can and does affect the natural, but the natural is unable to affect the supernatural. Now, you can argue your original point of "how can this 'miracle' of transubstantiation not bypass a person's allergies?" And that goes back to my point on the fact that the substance of the bread is not changed. The Host retains all the physical attributes of bread, as Christ retained all the physical attributes of Man. The difference is that the Divine is also wholly present.

"not my fault wolves in sheep clothing came in to the 1st century fold to spread lies and deception...even in Acts false witnesses attempted to slander Paul with false testimony that he taught the Law was changed...
The 2000 year old slander continues and includes recent debates I have seen on youtube where claims by "learned defenders of the Church" emphatically insist He made cannibalism ok by making all meats clean in Mark 7...it is that rediculous": For this point, I will utilize Catholic vernacular, as thus far, I have used names such as "John," but now I will use "St. John," as it will ease your ability to cross check the various names and information I present, if you so wish.

These people you label as "wolves" were early Christians, Apostles, disciples, etc. For example, here are several of the early Christians who taught Eucharist doctrine, as it is taught and held today:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 AD) *Ignatius was a disciple of John, the Apostle of Christ.
St. Pliny the Younger (32-114 AD)
St. Polycarp (155 AD) *Polycarp was a disciple of John, the Apostle of Christ.
St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
St. Irenaeus (130-200 AD) *Irenaeus listened to many sermons of John and Polycarp.
St. Clement of Alexandria (150-225 AD)
St. Tertullian (160-225 AD)
St. Origen (185-254 AD)
St. Eusebius (260-340 AD)
St. Athanasius (296-373 AD)
St. Basil the Great (330-386 AD)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)
St. Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD)

So, for 300 years, all these early Christians, who knew the Apostles, were listening to the apostolic teachings, and then teaching those things, themselves. Why, in any letter from the early Apostles, do we not have a correction of these men or their teachings, if it was a false doctrine?

"well then that Host could be eaten with no allergic reaction to gluten as it wouldnt exist...it was transubstantiated...from actual bread to actually meat": There is actually a common falsehood spread that the early Church legalized cannibalism, in order to be able to teach the doctrine of the Eucharist. This is simply a falsehood, easily debunked by the slightest of research. But the issue that you put forth, actually relates back to some early questionings of the Eucharist, in terms of actual consuming of flesh. One of the letters by the aforementioned men actually addressed this issue, declaring that it was not cannibalism in any form. The saint also reiterated this point using the very passage I used, from John 6.

Here is where it is best to address your first point, on the "flesh profits nothing." A good charge. However, the verse you refer to, John 6:63, is Christ saying that we, people, cannot accept the mystery if we think of it in too human form, having too much of an earthbound view. AKA: placing human and natural restrictions on the miraculous and supernatural. This is further expounded upon and seen, when observing this whole passage. This idea of consuming Christ, the Eucharist, caused arguments (v. 52) among those listening in Capernaum, scandalized some (v. 61), and led many to give up following Christ. Those to closed themselves to the divine were not ready to accept anything which went beyond their limited physical horizons.

clefty
August 11th, 2017, 04:08 PM
You utilize very good debate techniques, and present well formed arguments. I thank you for that. I apologize for a delay in responding, I have been quite busy with remodeling a house. good luck with the remodeling...

...are you remodeling only the aesthetics/accidents of the house or the substance as well?


"all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)": This is a point that I agree with you on. God/Christ will not do some things. Christ would not rise on the second day. Why? Because 1) He did not, and 2) He said the "third day." So we are in complete agreement on this premise.

no we certainly are not...His Father's law does not allow eating of human flesh nor drinking of blood but you would have His Son counter this law to cannibalize and consume blood.

Yours argue that Yah's law was changed and its ok to drink blood and eat human flesh.

See it for yourself

https://youtu.be/QPL1JKOdWvc

Begin at minute 31

At 31:30 the Papist insists Yahushua abolished His Father's law at the sermon of the mount.

But "Think not" He said


The issue you are highlighting is the presence of an allergen in a "miraculously transformed food" (my words, not yours). Would you agree on this analysis? yes more specifically why is the miracle NOT COMPLETE enough to allow all to partake and not just those who are not allergic to gluten? Does an allergy have more power than a miracle?


If you agree, I ask, what blood type did Christ have? Sure, it doesn't really matter. But some people's blood types are incompatible with alternate types. So, what if a person with incompatible blood, was given a transfusion, by Christ? Now I know, this is really trivial, and an impossible hypothetical question;

Not really. It reveals He was human and given the means He could transfer His blood but if
His blood was not compatible with the recipient then it would not work...unless by a miracle Divine intervention willed it to take ...but without that...His donation would fail.


But the essence of this question is the exact same as the allergen argument that you have put forth. It is an argument over individual, biological, and physical inefficiencies trumping divine attributes. nope...His blood was human and in and of itself nothing miraculous...His flesh was human flesh...also nothing miraculous about It...is why He insisted it was the Spirit...the words He spoke they were the life...flesh profits nothing


The fallacy present within your argument is that you are "debunking" Divine aspects using biological restrictions. ( I have avoided using the term "fallacy," but at this point, I may have to use it in order to describe various approaches to this discussion). not at all...I am not claiming the donkey did not speak as it still looked like a donkey...or could not speak because it was a donkey...the Divine is never restricted by biology Instead I am arguing that the donkey remained a donkey even as it spoke...miraculously by the working power of the Spirit



This style of arguing is slightly false, due to arguing with two different ideas: divine/mystical and biological/physical. By using an individual's physical and biological incompatibilities and inefficiencies in order to "debunk" a "miraculous" and "divine gift," you have skirted around using theological proof, relying on an illusion of the natural affecting the supernatural. it is NOT an illusion that people actually get sick from the bread and drunk from the wine...indeed if the wine is to become blood why are people getting drunk?...or alcoholics not to be served?


We no doubt agree that the supernatural can and does affect the natural, but the natural is unable to affect the supernatural. exactly why I argue that no miracle takes place and the bread remains bread does not become flesh and triggers those that are allergic to wheat...no way an allergen can override a supernatural event



Now, you can argue your original point of "how can this 'miracle' of transubstantiation not bypass a person's allergies?" And that goes back to my point on the fact that the substance of the bread is not changed. that is contrary to Church teachings which are the substance does change the accidents or aesthetics do not...

The substance is essential and is changed

what is essential is also determined by church law and that is that the bread is not merely bread but that it is wheat bread...that it contains wheat

It being wheat is not merely an accident or an accident but the substance...which is to be changed by divine intervention into flesh which contains no gluten...



The Host retains all the physical attributes of bread, as Christ retained all the physical attributes of Man. The difference is that the Divine is also wholly present. again sounds closer to consubstantiation as you have both present

But the substance is "transed"...the bread is changed into flesh...it just looks like bread.

And I maintain the allergen is not in what the bread looks like...


So, for 300 years, all these early Christians, who knew the Apostles, were listening to the apostolic teachings, and then teaching those things, themselves. Why, in any letter from the early Apostles, do we not have a correction of these men or their teachings, if it was a false doctrine? those early christians who knew the apostles did not live to the third century...already before the temple was destroyed Peter and Paul were dealing with those who wished to slander them and accuse them that changes were made...another gospel new teaching wolves in sheep's skin

transubstantiation was a later development in attempts to make what was understood as a metaphor/symbol more than it really was...for the comfort of the gullible "He is in you now...literally"


Here is where it is best to address your first point, on the "flesh profits nothing." A good charge. However, the verse you refer to, John 6:63, is Christ saying that we, people, cannot accept the mystery if we think of it in too human form, having too much of an earthbound view. AKA: placing human and natural restrictions on the miraculous and supernatural. This is further expounded upon and seen, when observing this whole passage. This idea of consuming Christ, the Eucharist, caused arguments (v. 52) among those listening in Capernaum, scandalized some (v. 61), and led many to give up following Christ. Those to closed themselves to the divine were not ready to accept anything which went beyond their limited physical horizons.

So this tradition is claimed to have started from the first century just needed much clarification as time went on and people began to doubt


There is actually a common falsehood spread that the early Church legalized cannibalism, in order to be able to teach the doctrine of the Eucharist. This is simply a falsehood, easily debunked by the slightest of research. But the issue that you put forth, actually relates back to some early questionings of the Eucharist, in terms of actual consuming of flesh. One of the letters by the aforementioned men actually addressed this issue, declaring that it was not cannibalism in any form. The saint also reiterated this point using the very passage I used, from John 6.

I just gave you a video which shows this clearance to cannibalize is still being taught when those who would go against the Fathers Law are backed into a corner...as if the Son would counter His Father's Law.

I am not restricting the supernatural I am simply arguing that nothing supernatural occurs and that is why those who partake of eucharist and are allergic to it are responding not to its becoming flesh but its remaining bread...

As for being closed off to the divine many sadly still are due to ciliac disease and/or alcoholism...as if it is because the miracle is not strong enough to spare them?

If there was an allergic reaction to FLESH then the supernatural has indeed occurred...bread to flesh

or if they reacted to the blood...but instead people still get drunk if given access to the consecrated wine which was supposedly turned into blood...

I maintain the allergen is not in the accidents but in the substance which should have been miraculously changed into another substance which shouldnt harm the partaker

jsanford108
August 11th, 2017, 10:07 PM
I am remodeling simple aesthetics. A few internal elements needed replacing, thus my delay.

I appreciate you understanding. As well as, your response. I will do my best to give my rebuttal tomorrow.

God Bless.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

clefty
August 13th, 2017, 09:38 PM
I am remodeling simple aesthetics. A few internal elements needed replacing, thus my delay. indeed...complicated relationship that of simple aesthetics with internal elements replaced...

Hopefully what was once a door has not been changed into a wall yet still with accidents of a door...


I appreciate you understanding. As well as, your response. I will do my best to give my rebuttal tomorrow.

God Bless.

These poor saints need more patience than I:

"Catholics recently diagnosed with celiac disease experience a profound sense of loss for many of the things they loved and enjoyed in life. The loss of the Eucharist can be devastating. No longer able to receive Holy Com- munion as a part of the larger Church community, many Catholic celiacs feel abandoned by their Church and isolated from their Faith. They describe their feelings about facing Holy Communion with terms such as “marginalized”, “spiritual leper”, “beggar at the banquet”, “anxious”, “set apart”and “awkward”. This sense of loss is reinforced by the emphasis that is placed on the “Bread of Life”during the Mass (in hymns and in terms of communion) and the lack of parity that is demonstrated for Christ’s Precious Blood."

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/CatholicCeliacOverview.pdf

Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?

What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed

Biology says otherwise...

Here is a brave attempt to explain:

"The chemical effects of the gluten on the intestinal wall will consequently still remain, just as much as the appearance and texture of bread, for they are just as accidental to the real nature of what is there as the appearance and texture. Here lies the miracle and the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. It would be a miracle if the accidental qualities of gluten were not to harm the intestine. Although such miracles can happen, we cannot depend upon such an extraordinary intervention of Almighty God."

http://shamelesspopery.com/the-eucharist-for-those-suffering-from-celiac-disease/

REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?

Besides it is ecclesial law which makes wheat gluten not the accident but the essence the substance the thing of the thing...which changes transubstantiates to flesh...

And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....

It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...

Is a little allergic reaction too much?

Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...

jsanford108
August 14th, 2017, 10:29 AM
indeed...complicated relationship that of simple aesthetics with internal elements replaced...

Hopefully what was once a door has not been changed into a wall yet still with accidents of a door...



These poor saints need more patience than I:

"Catholics recently diagnosed with celiac disease experience a profound sense of loss for many of the things they loved and enjoyed in life. The loss of the Eucharist can be devastating. No longer able to receive Holy Com- munion as a part of the larger Church community, many Catholic celiacs feel abandoned by their Church and isolated from their Faith. They describe their feelings about facing Holy Communion with terms such as “marginalized”, “spiritual leper”, “beggar at the banquet”, “anxious”, “set apart”and “awkward”. This sense of loss is reinforced by the emphasis that is placed on the “Bread of Life”during the Mass (in hymns and in terms of communion) and the lack of parity that is demonstrated for Christ’s Precious Blood."

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/CatholicCeliacOverview.pdf

Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?

What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed

Biology says otherwise...

Here is a brave attempt to explain:

"The chemical effects of the gluten on the intestinal wall will consequently still remain, just as much as the appearance and texture of bread, for they are just as accidental to the real nature of what is there as the appearance and texture. Here lies the miracle and the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. It would be a miracle if the accidental qualities of gluten were not to harm the intestine. Although such miracles can happen, we cannot depend upon such an extraordinary intervention of Almighty God."

http://shamelesspopery.com/the-eucharist-for-those-suffering-from-celiac-disease/

REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?

Besides it is ecclesial law which makes wheat gluten not the accident but the essence the substance the thing of the thing...which changes transubstantiates to flesh...

And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....

It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...

Is a little allergic reaction too much?

Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...

Do not be dismayed about my remodeling. I trusted the knowledge and blueprints of those who existed before me to give accurate and precise teachings on the substance and layout of my house. Turns out, they were accurate.

"Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?
What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed
Biology says otherwise...": I believe I have addressed this, but I shall attempt to again, as it may be more clear with your phrasing. Christ's Body probably does contain substance that individuals' biology would reject. Such as blood type. A naturally occurring biological defect does not negate supernatural. We would not say Christ was not fully God if a blood transfusion of His was rejected by a person with O-, would we? Of course not. Because we know of such mutagens to be of natural origin, and unable to coexist within a person. Therefore, to reject the idea of the Eucharist, based on naturally occurring biological defects, is a fallacy inducing approach to miracles.

"REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?": This is a faith issue. Such arguments could easily be utilized by those being persecuted for being born different than those in power. Do those African tribes, slaughtered for an opposing tribe, cry out, "why can I not depend on God for deliverance from this persecution?! Is he not faithful?!" But I am sure you do not dismiss the merciful nature of God, based solely on his lack of intervention in such brutal affairs. Why?

Likewise, a human, biological flaw is no reason to dismiss a supernatural miracle. As the explanation you provided stated, the Eucharist is wheat. It is the substance, aesthetics, appearance, etc. of bread. Just as Christ was the substance, aesthetics, appearance, etc. of man. But we know that He was fully God. As we know that the Eucharist is fully Christ. (Granted, if you deny the hypostatic nature of Christ, that is a different discussion altogether; and one that would make your current stance on the Eucharist make more sense from your perspective)

"And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....
It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...
Is a little allergic reaction too much?": The Church allows those who have gluten allergies to receive the wine. That is not an issue at all. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying there. If so, I apologize. And if you ask me, an allergen is an acceptable cross to bear. Unless there was an extreme circumstance, I would say that those who complain about their allergy, using it to draw attention, etc, are no better than the pharisee praying loudly in public, demonstrating how much they fast.

The Church understands that people have allergies. Biological issues which may hinder them in some capacity. As I am sure Christ does. But He used bread at the Last Supper, did He not? He didn't ask if each apostle was okay with using something that might create allergy issues. God made plants with pollen. He did not consult people with severe outdoor allergies. Why? Because it should not hinder one's ability to understand the glory of God.

"Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...": Most people with celiac disease don't drink, due to gluten being in most alcoholic beverages. Also, if someone is such a bad alcoholic that they can't have church wine, which has such small percentage of alcohol in it, then they need to really get their life in shape. That is a whole different degree of self-control being let go in order to feed a sinful preference.

jsanford108
August 14th, 2017, 10:34 AM
A knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out another piece of information, which I would like to present.

Now, maybe my previous points on Scripture and clarifications made by the Apostle John were enough. But, my friend pointed out that the verses where Christ describes "eating flesh," He kept using personal pronouns, such as "my flesh." Christ keeps insisting that His Flesh is indeed food and drink. But when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing," it was impersonal. Thus, a change of subject and noun. Scholars infer this passage of "the flesh" to be talking about looking at things from a worldly perspective vs eyes of faith.

I was advised to perhaps make that point clearer. If my previous point was already clear enough, I apologize, but I thought the suggested clarification did add to the discussion.

God Bless.

clefty
August 16th, 2017, 07:05 PM
A knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out another piece of information, which I would like to present.

Now, maybe my previous points on Scripture and clarifications made by the Apostle John were enough. But, my friend pointed out that the verses where Christ describes "eating flesh," He kept using personal pronouns, such as "my flesh." No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...

Why would He even need the bread and wine?




Christ keeps insisting that His Flesh is indeed food and drink. yes to keep to the symbolism and metaphor of the teaching and keeping his students on their toes as every good teacher does...best to follow "I am a door" with "I am the way" really rounds out the lesson...


But when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing," it was impersonal. Thus, a change of subject and noun. subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?

You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right? His flesh killed on the cross profited yes? So He lied? Or did He mean actually literally eating Him...as that is what the lesson was about which disturbed the disciples...luckily He clarified it...the Spirit...the words He speaks they profit not the His flesh as food...


Scholars infer this passage of "the flesh" to be talking about looking at things from a worldly perspective vs eyes of faith. that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...


I was advised to perhaps make that point clearer. If my previous point was already clear enough, I apologize, but I thought the suggested clarification did add to the discussion.

God Bless. thanks...indeed add to the discussion

jsanford108
August 18th, 2017, 09:47 AM
No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...

Why would He even need the bread and wine?



yes to keep to the symbolism and metaphor of the teaching and keeping his students on their toes as every good teacher does...best to follow "I am a door" with "I am the way" really rounds out the lesson...

subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?

You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right? His flesh killed on the cross profited yes? So He lied? Or did He mean actually literally eating Him...as that is what the lesson was about which disturbed the disciples...luckily He clarified it...the Spirit...the words He speaks they profit not the His flesh as food...

that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...

thanks...indeed add to the discussion

I am unsure how you break down a quote like you do, but it is very impressive. Forgive my archaic form. If I figure out how to break down quotes like you, I will surely switch to that formatting technique.

"No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...": First, I can find no evidence of cannibalism being cleared. I thought I had addressed that, so forgive the lack of attention on my part. But, alas, I have searched for such sources that state an "okaying" of cannibalism in order to defend the Eucharist; I can find no such document.

I would not expect Christ to use another pronoun, rather than "my," due to my obvious stance. He was explicitly referring to His own flesh. If Christ was being symbolic, why is no clarification added by John or Christ? As stated before, any time Christ spoke figuratively, symbolically, etc., clarification was provided by either Christ, or the gospel writer. In the passage about "eating my flesh," no clarification is given. If Christ was being symbolic, can you point to where that is demonstrated in the Scripture? As I said, historical evidence points to the constant teachings of the Eucharist by the Apostles and their protegees.

"Why would He even need the bread and wine?": This is a question that I would say serves no purpose, as I am sure you would agree. Akin to asking "Why did God create the universe in 6 days?" Granted, I will say that bread and wine were utilized as a means of renewing/fulfilling the Paschal feast, first initiated by God, through Moses, in Egypt. Hence, the unleavened bread and wine.

"subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?": I would disagree with the subject remaining the same. "my flesh" is not the same subject as "the flesh." Like "my body" is different subject-wise from "your body." One show's possession, while the other is generalized.

The reason Christ's flesh had to be pierced is to fulfill the Scriptures. His Body had to be broken, as the bread is, to be available for all to partake. There is your symbolism and allusion.

"You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right?": I would say that your point here proves my claim. If, as you say, Christ spoke true saying "the flesh profits nothing," meaning literal flesh, then His physical sacrifice would mean nothing. However, if Christ was changing subjects, making "the flesh" into "the things of the world," as it is commonly referenced, then there is no contradiction. By equating these two phrases, as many do, one creates a paradox in Christ's teaching, negating the need for physical sacrifice on His part. Therefore, by applying my claim, that His Flesh is true food, and "the flesh" (the things of the world) profit nothing, then Christ has not contradicted Himself, and instituted the Eucharist.

"that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...:" We are in a slight agreement. The scholars are in agreement with my claim though. And, I think you agree on the premise that I stated "the flesh profits nothing" would mean that the things of this world do us no good. It is the most logical analysis of that statement. Which, makes it a different statement, bearing no parallel in vocabulary, with "My flesh is true food."

If you submit that "the flesh profits nothing" refers to actual flesh, and thus negating "My flesh is true food," then yes, the Last Supper is pure symbolism. But this creates two errors. First, Christ and John never gave the clarification of John 6 being symbolic, and allowed a multitude to turn away without hearing such "truth." Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense. But, if you are merely partaking of a symbol, then what sin have you committed? But if the Eucharist is real, then unworthy partaking is grievous, for you are sinning against the actual Body of Christ.

Examine the follow up verse as well. "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Corinthians 11:30) This could easily be inferred that many, "those who sleep," do not recognize the legitimacy of the Eucharist. Thus, the logical progression, combining the Gospel according to John, as well as this passage from Paul, points to the Eucharistic teachings being accurate and fact.

*Now, I am sure you have a different interpretation than I. However, I would argue that my claims follow a simple logical progression throughout Scripture; without the need to jump to another book in order to clarify meaning, only to jump back to the previous book in an attempt to cement the claim.
I do applaud you on your discussion tactics. I really do enjoy your responses, despite my disagreement. Your claims are very well formed.

clefty
August 20th, 2017, 10:48 AM
I am unsure how you break down a quote like you do, but it is very impressive. Forgive my archaic form. If I figure out how to break down quotes like you, I will surely switch to that formatting technique.

Let nothing be a mystery on this thread but let my words be bread to eat the code to type by the Spirit of truth to be your guide.

When wishing to respond to a text simply use the brackets "[" and "]" around the word "quote" and that begins the section of text you wish to respond to... so hit "reply with quote" button and type "[" "quote" "]" to begin the text you wish to respond to


end the desired text section with again the bracket "[" but now include back slash "/" then the word "quote" and final bracket "]" this now contains the text you wish to respond to... this looks like "[" "/" "quote" "]"



May the Spirit of Truth reveal even more

clefty
August 25th, 2017, 11:29 PM
First, I can find no evidence of cannibalism being cleared. I thought I had addressed that, so forgive the lack of attention on my part. But, alas, I have searched for such sources that state an "okaying" of cannibalism in order to defend the Eucharist; I can find no such document. well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?


I would not expect Christ to use another pronoun, rather than "my," due to my obvious stance. He was explicitly referring to His own flesh. If Christ was being symbolic, why is no clarification added by John or Christ? As stated before, any time Christ spoke figuratively, symbolically, etc., clarification was provided by either Christ, or the gospel writer. In the passage about "eating my flesh," no clarification is given. If Christ was being symbolic, can you point to where that is demonstrated in the Scripture? As I said, historical evidence points to the constant teachings of the Eucharist by the Apostles and their protegees.

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption


"Why would He even need the bread and wine?": This is a question that I would say serves no purpose, as I am sure you would agree. no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him


Akin to asking "Why did God create the universe in 6 days?" you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too


Granted, I will say that bread and wine were utilized as a means of renewing/fulfilling the Paschal feast, first initiated by God, through Moses, in Egypt. Hence, the unleavened bread and wine. the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually


The reason Christ's flesh had to be pierced is to fulfill the Scriptures. so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth


His Body had to be broken, as the bread is, to be available for all to partake. There is your symbolism and allusion. again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...


If, as you say, Christ spoke true saying "the flesh profits nothing," meaning literal flesh, then His physical sacrifice would mean nothing. but I don't say that...I know His physical sacrifice means something...and NOT "dinner is served" that is NOT what is meant as He clarified the words He spoke the truth the Spirit of them...etc...

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up




However, if Christ was changing subjects, making "the flesh" into "the things of the world," as it is commonly referenced, then there is no contradiction. By equating these two phrases, as many do, one creates a paradox in Christ's teaching, negating the need for physical sacrifice on His part. Therefore, by applying my claim, that His Flesh is true food, and "the flesh" (the things of the world) profit nothing, then Christ has not contradicted Himself, and instituted the Eucharist. but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart



If you submit that "the flesh profits nothing" refers to actual flesh, and thus negating "My flesh is true food," then yes, the Last Supper is pure symbolism. true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment


But this creates two errors. First, Christ and John never gave the clarification of John 6 being symbolic, and allowed a multitude to turn away without hearing such "truth." Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

Verse 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" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism


Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense. But, if you are merely partaking of a symbol, then what sin have you committed? Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.


But if the Eucharist is real, then unworthy partaking is grievous, for you are sinning against the actual Body of Christ. profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

If you cant understand His teaching and symbolisms I imagine Paul is even more difficult...many still are sick and weak and dead among us...spiritually

Sleekbacksmile
August 26th, 2017, 12:33 AM
CATHOLICS ARE STILL ASKING, TO THIS VERY DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat

Lets Remember that the Greek word Eucharist Simply MEANS - THANKFULL - Thanks. Gratitude.

The Term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the Food at the Supper Dinner.

And Lets Remember that Not a Single Apostle or Disciple in the Scriptures, Taught that the Bread and Wine was Transformed into the Blood and Body Of Jesus.

Not a Single one of the Disciples or Apostles. not One. !


Please LOOK CLOSLY at 1Co 11:22 What? WHAT ? HE ( Paul ) SAYS

Paul says WHAT ? - have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

they are comming to CHURCH to have a big DINNER.

People are eating before the dinner starts and being dis ~ respectful to the others Who DONT have FOOD at HOME. . to bring OR EAT....

The FULL people COME to CHURCH FULL ..and embarrass the hungry, making them feel OUT OF PLACE and ashamed....

Why do Catholics always PURPOSELY Leave out the CONTEXT and the subject ?
.In every Catholic doctrine They ALLWAYS leave out the main PURPOSE of the scriptures...
NOTICE - Paul IN just the VERY chapters ABOVE.....

Paul is telling the ACTION of this PARTICULAR CHURCH.

Why and HOW would ONE be bringing DAMNATION on themselves...

WHY ? ?
Lets READ the REAL BIBLE story.

GO UP to 1Co 11:19 and lets look at PAUL TELLING this CHURCH that there are heresies among THEM

WHY ...WHATS THE PROBLEM in SUBJECT ?

When they come together people are filling UP on food before the OTHERS begin eating.

and PEOPLE are GETTING DRUNK…… Drinking and Getting DRUNK...
and PEOPLE are Disorganized

Not Participating in the purpose, MEANINGFULL Communion of the CHURCH - Which Is The Literal BODY OF JESUS … THE CHURCH is the ....BODY OF JESUS
WOW… Paul wants to remind them THEY are there to REMEMBER as a MEMORIAL ...... JESUS, With Respect. THEY / THE CHURCH...are the body of Christ. And they are disrespecting in blasphemous damnation. LOOK CLOSLY

1Co 11:22 What? WHAT HE SAYS - Paul says WHAT ?
have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? THEM THAT HAVE NO FOOD...
They are there To do some Serious eating and drinking. But paul tells them they are not there just TO GET ALL DRUNK....and disorganized and LOOSING the meaning.

SIMPLE Thats what the BIBLE is saying......

These Catholics are inventing something That is IN NO WAY at all within the pages of scripture..

N O T I C E HERE......... CLOSLY

1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, .. that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1Co 11:21 For in eating, every one taketh before others his own supper:
Greek 4301 prolambanoŻ to take in advance, that is, (literally) eat before others have an opportunity;

overtake, take before. and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame shame them that have not?

Don’t be fooled by Catholic junk theology That is so full of lies.... ONE has to LITERALY BE BLIND and unable to read a book OF GOD Called the BIBLE .

ALSO REMEMBER

The biblical ..... SYMBOLOGY in Eze 39:17
Here God is describing the symbolic prophecy of a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, …
A HUGE sacrifice to THOSE who shall be filled at Gods table . a depiction of a battle.
Eze 39:20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
They will literally EAT ! GNAW CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOW ...... literally HORSES and CHARIOTS .. They will EAT ! … GNAW .. mighty men, and with all men of war of flesh, and to literally drink blood.
They will BE ! …GNAWING......cHOMP CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOWING ...... literally .. Eating the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in 1st Ch 11:19
David said, SHALL I ... DRINK and LITERALLY SWALLOW ..gurgling .... THE BLOOD of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy......
Therefore he would not drink it. LITERALLY SWALLOWING THEIR VERY BLOOD ! * ! !
I literallyDRINK THE BLOOD of these ...... men ?

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Psa 119:103

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

LITERAL words will be GNAWED and CHEWED tasting like...... LITERAL ;;;;REAL..HONEY..... ! ! * Ooh mY ! ^*)

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in.. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
THE LITERAL ! * "}{" TAST of DeaTh

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:14 -

Heb 5:14 - DECLARES Strong MEAT belongs to them that are of full age WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
Strong LITERAL gnawed , powerfull hardend and tough chewy difficult MEAT..... belongs to them that are of full age, WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

" Revelation 12:14 the WOMAN ..... LITERALLY ...GREW. REAL FEATHERS and WINGS UPON her back ...... The WOMAN FLEW To the wilderness .. with Literal WINGS/// like a BIRD squawk squawk ! shrieK chirP ... ! literal wings.... !

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

Heb 13:15 Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. the fruit of our lips grapes and ORANGES and WATERMELONS and LIP LIKE TOMATOES....

LITERAL fruit of our lips GNAWED and REAL fruit ~~~~ DRIPPING WITH JUICE ? fruit ?

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:12


Heb 5:12...... The oracles ,,,,,,,,,,, of God; ARE of milk, and of strong meat. ....

LITERAL MILK FROM REAL live.....tittiCAL BREAST MILK / ARE of LITERAL milk REAL... LIVE warm MILK ?
REMEMBER
Christ applied spiritual hunger as a sign of spiritual life... Jesus taught in MAT 5:6, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: .... Meat will come in due season."
Paul declared.....clearly ...... 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Paul and THE ENTIRE BIBLE... .IS NEVER...MENTIONING...... is never, EVER...EVER,..... refering...to anyone~~~ ~~ EVER , EVER ONCE...transforming OR CHANGING ANY bread and wine INTO human flesh and blood....OFFERING IT UP AS A VICTIM....and SACRIFICE.


Catholics deliberately ignore ..THAT THE CUP OF BLESSING .....{.OF WINE..}...IS THE the
COMUNION, FELLOWSHIP of the body of christ 17 FOR WE being many ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY:

Paul Clearly declares as well that
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

The CHURCH / SAINTS / Beleivers, BRIDE

WE are the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST……..

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:

this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,

in remembrance of me.


1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

REMEMBER

Mat 13:10 the disciples ASKED JESUS Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 Jesus said "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles ?
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. Parables . .and. mysterious puzzles....
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but
to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

THE JEWS ASKED , saying, HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?

{ JESUS REPLIED TO THE VERY QUESTION.... THAT THE JEWS ASKED , ""HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?"""

63 { JESUS REPLIED saying } It is the spirit that quickeneth; Greek zoŻopoieoŻ to vitalize (make alive, give life, quicken. JESUS CONTINUED THIS flesh / MEAT, FOOD profiteth nothing:

BUT the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
these catholics..thought,,Jesus ment his physical...flesh and blood...TOO

JESUS corrected them in his Word...Saying..that their idea..was wrong,,and that by thinking he ment,, physical... flesh..* blood....THEY WERE UNBELEIVERS.
Jesus Clarified...... to the subject.. .on the MATTER OF EATING His HUMAN

JESUS said that his " THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT profiteth nothing: BUT the words that HE speaks unto MAN.~~~ IS THE spirit, and life.

THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT {sarx} profiteth nothing

The Bible is filled with Symbolic use of Eating, Chewing and consuming type words of SYMBOLIC Statements.

Jesus was Speaking to a Hebrew Crowd who understood this. Caholics Who have no Scriptures for their Faith , Must jump to conclusions to invent new traditions

Thousands of Verses like the one below - Are what Caused Jesus to Use the parable of Eating his Flesh. because the Bible is filled with this same eXact symbology.

Num 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies

CATHOLICS STILL ASK TO THIS DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[/FONT]

Truster
August 26th, 2017, 01:07 AM
That the Church has to take special action for those suffering from allergies to wheat exposes the idolatry of the Eucharist tradition.

This recently on how careful it must be:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the_eu charist/1323886


This on the issue of those with allergies:

http://www.hprweb.com/2013/06/celiac-disease-and-holy-communion-a-medical-and-spiritual-dilemma/


The fact that there are allergic reactions to the wheat after the bread is transubstantiated into flesh the Body of Christ entire can either mean His flesh has gluten or the allergen is in the accidents as of course the substance is changed. Right?

HalleluYah that His creation through its process of biology and chemistry reveals this ancient idolatry of man's tradition.

The fact that allergic reactions to gluten occur proves the bread remains bread.

The host must be wheat by the Church's canon law. Rather than change that tradition they insist to make those suffer celiac disease suffer additionally and go without "His real presence"...

And yet the Church made changes to unleavened bread to seperate themselves from the orthodox...

I have an allergic reaction to error and false doctrine as do all the sheep in the flock...


My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

clefty
August 26th, 2017, 06:30 AM
CATHOLICS ARE STILL ASKING, TO THIS VERY DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat

Lets Remember that the Greek word Eucharist Simply MEANS - THANKFULL - Thanks. Gratitude.

The Term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the Food at the Supper Dinner.

And Lets Remember that Not a Single Apostle or Disciple in the Scriptures, Taught that the Bread and Wine was Transformed into the Blood and Body Of Jesus.

Not a Single one of the Disciples or Apostles. not One. !


Please LOOK CLOSLY at 1Co 11:22 What? WHAT ? HE ( Paul ) SAYS

Paul says WHAT ? - have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

they are comming to CHURCH to have a big DINNER.

People are eating before the dinner starts and being dis ~ respectful to the others Who DONT have FOOD at HOME. . to bring OR EAT....

The FULL people COME to CHURCH FULL ..and embarrass the hungry, making them feel OUT OF PLACE and ashamed....

Why do Catholics always PURPOSELY Leave out the CONTEXT and the subject ?
.In every Catholic doctrine They ALLWAYS leave out the main PURPOSE of the scriptures...
NOTICE - Paul IN just the VERY chapters ABOVE.....

Paul is telling the ACTION of this PARTICULAR CHURCH.

Why and HOW would ONE be bringing DAMNATION on themselves...

WHY ? ?
Lets READ the REAL BIBLE story.

GO UP to 1Co 11:19 and lets look at PAUL TELLING this CHURCH that there are heresies among THEM

WHY ...WHATS THE PROBLEM in SUBJECT ?

When they come together people are filling UP on food before the OTHERS begin eating.

and PEOPLE are GETTING DRUNK…… Drinking and Getting DRUNK...
and PEOPLE are Disorganized

Not Participating in the purpose, MEANINGFULL Communion of the CHURCH - Which Is The Literal BODY OF JESUS … THE CHURCH is the ....BODY OF JESUS
WOW… Paul wants to remind them THEY are there to REMEMBER as a MEMORIAL ...... JESUS, With Respect. THEY / THE CHURCH...are the body of Christ. And they are disrespecting in blasphemous damnation. LOOK CLOSLY

1Co 11:22 What? WHAT HE SAYS - Paul says WHAT ?
have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? THEM THAT HAVE NO FOOD...
They are there To do some Serious eating and drinking. But paul tells them they are not there just TO GET ALL DRUNK....and disorganized and LOOSING the meaning.

SIMPLE Thats what the BIBLE is saying......

These Catholics are inventing something That is IN NO WAY at all within the pages of scripture..

N O T I C E HERE......... CLOSLY

1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, .. that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1Co 11:21 For in eating, every one taketh before others his own supper:
Greek 4301 prolambanoŻ to take in advance, that is, (literally) eat before others have an opportunity;

overtake, take before. and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame shame them that have not?

Don’t be fooled by Catholic junk theology That is so full of lies.... ONE has to LITERALY BE BLIND and unable to read a book OF GOD Called the BIBLE .

ALSO REMEMBER

The biblical ..... SYMBOLOGY in Eze 39:17
Here God is describing the symbolic prophecy of a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, …
A HUGE sacrifice to THOSE who shall be filled at Gods table . a depiction of a battle.
Eze 39:20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
They will literally EAT ! GNAW CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOW ...... literally HORSES and CHARIOTS .. They will EAT ! … GNAW .. mighty men, and with all men of war of flesh, and to literally drink blood.
They will BE ! …GNAWING......cHOMP CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOWING ...... literally .. Eating the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in 1st Ch 11:19
David said, SHALL I ... DRINK and LITERALLY SWALLOW ..gurgling .... THE BLOOD of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy......
Therefore he would not drink it. LITERALLY SWALLOWING THEIR VERY BLOOD ! * ! !
I literallyDRINK THE BLOOD of these ...... men ?

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Psa 119:103

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

LITERAL words will be GNAWED and CHEWED tasting like...... LITERAL ;;;;REAL..HONEY..... ! ! * Ooh mY ! ^*)

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in.. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
THE LITERAL ! * "}{" TAST of DeaTh

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:14 -

Heb 5:14 - DECLARES Strong MEAT belongs to them that are of full age WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
Strong LITERAL gnawed , powerfull hardend and tough chewy difficult MEAT..... belongs to them that are of full age, WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

" Revelation 12:14 the WOMAN ..... LITERALLY ...GREW. REAL FEATHERS and WINGS UPON her back ...... The WOMAN FLEW To the wilderness .. with Literal WINGS/// like a BIRD squawk squawk ! shrieK chirP ... ! literal wings.... !

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

Heb 13:15 Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. the fruit of our lips grapes and ORANGES and WATERMELONS and LIP LIKE TOMATOES....

LITERAL fruit of our lips GNAWED and REAL fruit ~~~~ DRIPPING WITH JUICE ? fruit ?

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:12


Heb 5:12...... The oracles ,,,,,,,,,,, of God; ARE of milk, and of strong meat. ....

LITERAL MILK FROM REAL live.....tittiCAL BREAST MILK / ARE of LITERAL milk REAL... LIVE warm MILK ?
REMEMBER
Christ applied spiritual hunger as a sign of spiritual life... Jesus taught in MAT 5:6, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: .... Meat will come in due season."
Paul declared.....clearly ...... 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Paul and THE ENTIRE BIBLE... .IS NEVER...MENTIONING...... is never, EVER...EVER,..... refering...to anyone~~~ ~~ EVER , EVER ONCE...transforming OR CHANGING ANY bread and wine INTO human flesh and blood....OFFERING IT UP AS A VICTIM....and SACRIFICE.


Catholics deliberately ignore ..THAT THE CUP OF BLESSING .....{.OF WINE..}...IS THE the
COMUNION, FELLOWSHIP of the body of christ 17 FOR WE being many ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY:

Paul Clearly declares as well that
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

The CHURCH / SAINTS / Beleivers, BRIDE

WE are the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST……..

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:

this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,

in remembrance of me.


1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

REMEMBER

Mat 13:10 the disciples ASKED JESUS Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 Jesus said "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles ?
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. Parables . .and. mysterious puzzles....
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but
to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

THE JEWS ASKED , saying, HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?

{ JESUS REPLIED TO THE VERY QUESTION.... THAT THE JEWS ASKED , ""HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?"""

63 { JESUS REPLIED saying } It is the spirit that quickeneth; Greek zoŻopoieoŻ to vitalize (make alive, give life, quicken. JESUS CONTINUED THIS flesh / MEAT, FOOD profiteth nothing:

BUT the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
these catholics..thought,,Jesus ment his physical...flesh and blood...TOO

JESUS corrected them in his Word...Saying..that their idea..was wrong,,and that by thinking he ment,, physical... flesh..* blood....THEY WERE UNBELEIVERS.
Jesus Clarified...... to the subject.. .on the MATTER OF EATING His HUMAN

JESUS said that his " THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT profiteth nothing: BUT the words that HE speaks unto MAN.~~~ IS THE spirit, and life.

THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT {sarx} profiteth nothing

The Bible is filled with Symbolic use of Eating, Chewing and consuming type words of SYMBOLIC Statements.

Jesus was Speaking to a Hebrew Crowd who understood this. Caholics Who have no Scriptures for their Faith , Must jump to conclusions to invent new traditions

Thousands of Verses like the one below - Are what Caused Jesus to Use the parable of Eating his Flesh. because the Bible is filled with this same eXact symbology.

Num 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies

CATHOLICS STILL ASK TO THIS DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[/FONT]

Yes some hearing what was to be eaten were not mindful of scriptures which had set this metaphor well into place

"Deuteronomy 8:3
And He humbled you and let you go hungry and fed you the manna, which you had never known nor your fathers had ever known, so that He might make you know that man lives not by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out from the mouth of Jehovah.

Job 23:12
As for the commandment of His lips, I have not turned back from it; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my apportioned food.

Psalm 119:103
How sweet are Your words to my taste! Sweeter than honey to my mouth!


Jeremiah 15:16
Your words were found and I ate them, And Your word became to me The gladness and joy of my heart, For I am called by Your name, O Jehovah, God of hosts.

Ezekiel 2:8—3:3
But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I give you.
And I looked, and there was a hand, put forth toward me; and in it there was a scroll book.
And He spread it before me. And it was written on the front and back, and on it were written lamentations, mourning, and woe.
Then He said to me, Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.
So I opened my mouth, and He gave me that scroll to eat.
And He said to me, Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your inward parts with this scroll that I am giving you. And I ate it, and it was like honey in my mouth in its sweetness."

Ignoring these instances reveals those that walked away were not called...they were unable to discern the spiritual truth...

Peter understood it was not eating Him but that He spoke the words of life...

The Word became flesh...not food...human flesh is not cleared to eat

jsanford108
August 26th, 2017, 10:44 AM
Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.


well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?[QUOTE]

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.


[QUOTE]I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption [QUOTE]

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

[QUOTE]no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him[QUOTE]

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.


[QUOTE] you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too[QUOTE]
You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.


[QUOTE] the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread[QUOTE]
False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

[QUOTE]Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually[QUOTE]
Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

[QUOTE] so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth [QUOTE]
This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

[QUOTE] again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...[QUOTE]
I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.


[QUOTE]Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up[QUOTE]
No disagreement there.


[QUOTE] but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.[QUOTE]
I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

[QUOTE]I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart[QUOTE]
An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.


[QUOTE] true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal[QUOTE]
You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

[QUOTE]Verse 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" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?[QUOTE]
This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

[QUOTE]Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism[QUOTE]
I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

[QUOTE]Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.[QUOTE]
How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

[QUOTE] profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good[QUOTE]
How?

[QUOTE]And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...[QUOTE]
I agree. It is not a memorial, but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ. It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.

[QUOTE]If you cant understand His teaching and symbolisms I imagine Paul is even more difficult...many still are sick and weak and dead among us...spiritually
Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

clefty
August 26th, 2017, 03:41 PM
Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

[QUOTE=clefty;5089130]well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?[QUOTE]

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.


[QUOTE]I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption [QUOTE]

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

[QUOTE]no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him[QUOTE]

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.


[QUOTE] you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too[QUOTE]
You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.


[QUOTE] the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread[QUOTE]
False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

[QUOTE]Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually[QUOTE]
Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

[QUOTE] so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth [QUOTE]
This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

[QUOTE] again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...[QUOTE]
I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.


[QUOTE]Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up[QUOTE]
No disagreement there.


[QUOTE] but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.[QUOTE]
I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

[QUOTE]I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart[QUOTE]
An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.


[QUOTE] true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal[QUOTE]
You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

[QUOTE]Verse 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" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?[QUOTE]
This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

[QUOTE]Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism[QUOTE]
I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

[QUOTE]Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.[QUOTE]
How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

[QUOTE] profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good[QUOTE]
How?

[QUOTE]And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...[QUOTE]
I agree. It is not a memorial, but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ. It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.


Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

First good good...you are able to start with the selection you wish to address but dont forget to end that which you wish to quote with "[" "/" "quote" "]"

You are forgetting the backslash in front of the word quote...all between brackets

clefty
August 26th, 2017, 05:48 PM
Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

[QUOTE=clefty;5089130]well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?[QUOTE]

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism. well then you go against the biblical prohibitions of consuming blood and its association to cannibalism as NOT good...

There remains blood in a "bloodless" sacrifice



I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption [QUOTE]

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. ummm...nope

He just asked the disciples if they would be offended at the Son of Man (flesh) ascending where He was before (spiritual realm). He now introduces the power of the Spirit (spiritual realm) who gives life the power to do just that. Spirit gives that sort of power not flesh eating.


If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." exactly...as it is the Spirit...even the bread He gave in the wilderness was not able to do (provide life eternal) what the Spirit is able to (provide life eternal)


Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless." If He were to chase down all the times His teachings were misunderstood...if what you infer is correct then Peter would have said "you have the flesh we must eat for eternal life" He did NOT but said "you have the words of eternal life".


The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically. except it counters Law against consuming blood and cannibalism...


no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him[QUOTE]

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat. of course we gain from proper worship...as a remembrance a memorial there is much to gain...just like there is to know He is the way but I cant actually walk on Him



you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too[QUOTE]
You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. you dont believe in creation? Time? That Sabbath was made for man?


That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything. not only before but certainly after the fall man had needs by which His Creator made Him to have...and by grace provided for...man needed to eat of the tree of life and it is a stretch to call that Yah's being restricted by man's need...the design of creation was to reveal NOT to keep mysterious



the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread[QUOTE]
False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...." events occuring before the feast of the Passover do not the Passover make.

John makes it clearest that when Judas was given the bread and departed the disciples thought he was leaving to get things for the feast the next day as he had the money box John 13:29

John 19:14 also makes clear that after the arrest and trial it was merely the day of preparation the 14th or the day when the lambs were killed the time He was...the lambs were eaten that same evening...the supper you insist He was eaten happened the night before...He offered the bread as a memorial before He was even killed...eating flesh before it is killed is well yuck and forbidden...




Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually[QUOTE]
Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion. direct call to what John the Baptist said...the supper of the Lamb happened the day His flesh was broken and He died...the day after the last supper...


so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth [QUOTE]
This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position. ummm no...context is key because things of the world do profit but for what?...not in this context...cannibalizing His flesh does not profit eternal life or ascending to heaven but the Spirit gives life


again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...[QUOTE]
I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said. you insist the body had to be broken for us to partake...yet the teaching is each broken bread is His whole body



Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up[QUOTE]
No disagreement there. HalleluYah as physical food does not provide eternal life and eating of body did not either as all who supposedly ate His body died



but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.[QUOTE]
I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about. in this case you are insisting we all have threshing floors and clean them...He spoke of His flesh as food realized it still troubled the disciples and clarified it's not bread nor flesh but the Spirit which gives life


I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart[QUOTE]
An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Modern miracles include things outside of scripture such as she is alive ascended to heaven and hearing prayers to take to her Son...


Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence. the staffs in the hands of the men of Pharaoh also turned to snakes...ain't denying



true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal[QUOTE]
You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech. Not attempting to prove anything. Peter did, said it was the words He spoke which were of eternal life not the eating of His flesh...and consuming of His blood. That is prohibited.


It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim) I did...showed where He clarified to His offended disciples it was the Spirit that gives life...the words He speaks are spirit they are life...not the flesh not even killed yet...Peter affirms it is belief and knowing He is the Christ...not eating of His flesh


Verse 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" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?[QUOTE]
This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57) you only changed "feeds on Me" to "eats me" the because is missed by you...


Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism[QUOTE]
I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God. Then why did He not say I am God eat of me?" Or something akin...He said "I live because of the Father" He was begotten of Him after all...


Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.[QUOTE]
How does this disprove my statement, because you claim we can falsely worship Him against His instructions because its merely symbolic therefore no sin...


"Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense." it makes sense symbolically as well


Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild." never said your claim is wild...but your insistence that this is more than the Spirit but the body itself is the only way unworthy worship is a sin...or only because it is literal and real can we worship without worth




profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good[QUOTE]
How? the bronze snake was symbolic but then became an idol...they thought it remained "real or spirit filled"




And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...[QUOTE]
I agree. It is not a memorial, sure it is...you add a living memorial...as if we are not to proclaim His one time death in real time but assist in His death a continuance in a spiritual miracle as He is both dying and alive...


but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ. communion includes hearing reading praying the words of the Spirit...not consuming His flesh...


It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely. yes like the bronze snake once healing but the event ended and now its become an idol...what was done is eternal...not its doing



Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

Oh I understand and agree with Peter...who knew it was His words of eternal life not eating His flesh...Peter kept kosher...never consuming blood...not even that of his Savior...especially not that of his Savior...his Savior would never go against His Father's law...from Whom He was begotten...

jsanford108
August 26th, 2017, 09:33 PM
[QUOTE=jsanford108;5089330]Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

[QUOTE=clefty;5089130]well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?[QUOTE]

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.


[QUOTE]I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption [QUOTE]

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

[QUOTE]no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him[QUOTE]

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.


[QUOTE] you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too[QUOTE]
You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.


[QUOTE] the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread[QUOTE]
False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

[QUOTE]Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually[QUOTE]
Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

[QUOTE] so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth [QUOTE]
This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

[QUOTE] again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...[QUOTE]
I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.


[QUOTE]Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up[QUOTE]
No disagreement there.


[QUOTE] but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.[QUOTE]
I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

[QUOTE]I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart[QUOTE]
An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.


[QUOTE] true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal[QUOTE]
You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

[QUOTE]Verse 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" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?[QUOTE]
This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

[QUOTE]Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism[QUOTE]
I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

[QUOTE]Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.[QUOTE]
How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

[QUOTE] profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good[QUOTE]
How?

[QUOTE]And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

First good good...you are able to start with the selection you wish to address but dont forget to end that which you wish to quote with "[" "/" "quote" "]"

You are forgetting the backslash in front of the word quote...all between brackets

Apologies. My Fault.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
August 26th, 2017, 09:47 PM
The hour is late. I will reply on Monday if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

clefty
August 26th, 2017, 09:57 PM
The hour is late. I will reply on Monday if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

No problem...when you hit "reply with quote" button on the bottom right you can see how quoted text is begun and ended...begun without back slash "/" ended with the backslash with the word quote between brackets...

jsanford108
August 29th, 2017, 12:07 PM
Okay, I apologize for making such a quoting mess. It has affected us both. My bad.

As for our debate on John 6, 48-58, and 63, I would say we have kind of reached an impasse. I am arguing simple basic interpretation, based on what is written, and you are arguing use of another verse to go back and prove a doctrine. Both of us are just arguing our doctrine, and the tactics used by our doctrines to prove themselves. So, I would say that we have exhausted that passage, debate-wise. If you disagree, then we can continue. I have just noticed we keep repeating the same things in a viscous cycle.

(I would like to apologize for providing a quote that was a mere two words different; I was reviewing two threads at once, and misplaced my accusation of misquoting. My bad.)

So, if I may, I will skip to your example of the snake going from something good to idolatry, as I believe that is a great example and excellent point for your argument.


because you claim we can falsely worship Him against His instructions because its merely symbolic therefore no sin...

never said your claim is wild...but your insistence that this is more than the Spirit but the body itself is the only way unworthy worship is a sin...or only because it is literal and real can we worship without worth

the bronze snake was symbolic but then became an idol...they thought it remained "real or spirit filled"

The bronze snake was a temporary fix, right? The Hebrews were even assured of this. It was they who made it into an idol. Now, it would be easy to make the claim that Catholicism did this with the Eucharist. But, there is not insistence that the Last Supper was a temporary, or brief thing. We do have the passage of "do this in remembrance of me." So either Catholics have it accurate and you are blaspheming Christ, or Catholics have it wrong and are idolaters, and you are right. But which one seems more sinful for the one in the wrong? After all, if you are correct, then Christ covered the sin of idolatry that we are committing, so no harm.


And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...
I agree. It is not a memorial,
sure it is...you add a living memorial...as if we are not to proclaim His one time death in real time but assist in His death a continuance in a spiritual miracle as He is both dying and alive...

but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ.
communion includes hearing reading praying the words of the Spirit...not consuming His flesh...
Where is this definition of "communion" found? I would say that "Communion" includes the reading and praying the words of the Spirit, but I call that "Consecration," where the priest reads and prays the passage where Christ said "This is My Body...."

And I am not saying Christ's death is continual, but that His Redemptive Sacrifice is. If it weren't, then people post-Christ could not receive salvation. As I outlined already in the below quote.


It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.
yes like the bronze snake once healing but the event ended and now its become an idol...what was done is eternal...not its doing



Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.
Oh I understand and agree with Peter...who knew it was His words of eternal life not eating His flesh...Peter kept kosher...never consuming blood...not even that of his Savior...especially not that of his Savior...his Savior would never go against His Father's law...from Whom He was begotten... Where are you receiving this knowledge that that is what Peter believed or knew? Because all of Peter's disciples, as well as those of the other Apostles, agree with my claim. So, they were all wolves who successfully kept their beliefs secret from all the Apostles, or I am right.

I would also like to posit these two links for consideration.
This first one is a list of five "Eucharistic Miracles."
http://dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/
If these are falsehoods, could you submit an explanation that disproves them.
Especially when considering that testing was done by both Catholic sources and secular sources, confirming the exact same conclusions. And, how did all these examples bear the exact same blood type (AB+, the universal receiver).

This second link is just a little more on the most recent of that list. So, nothing really new, just extra information.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/check-out-this-eucharistic-miracle-in-poland-96162/

KingdomRose
August 29th, 2017, 03:52 PM
That the Church has to take special action for those suffering from allergies to wheat exposes the idolatry of the Eucharist tradition.

This recently on how careful it must be:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the_eu charist/1323886


This on the issue of those with allergies:

http://www.hprweb.com/2013/06/celiac-disease-and-holy-communion-a-medical-and-spiritual-dilemma/


The fact that there are allergic reactions to the wheat after the bread is transubstantiated into flesh the Body of Christ entire can either mean His flesh has gluten or the allergen is in the accidents as of course the substance is changed. Right?

HalleluYah that His creation through its process of biology and chemistry reveals this ancient idolatry of man's tradition.

The fact that allergic reactions to gluten occur proves the bread remains bread.

The host must be wheat by the Church's canon law. Rather than change that tradition they insist to make those suffer celiac disease suffer additionally and go without "His real presence"...

And yet the Church made changes to unleavened bread to seperate themselves from the orthodox...

Excellent! That is proof that the wafers don't change to Christ's body! Hahahahaha.

KingdomRose
August 29th, 2017, 04:01 PM
And don't they get upset when you pocket the blessed host and walk off with it...

Stuart

Hey, I saw a priest (monsenior) with part of a wafer in his frock pocket! I was in the hospital and my room-mate called for this monsenior to come and see her. She and her sons asked him then to say a mass, or whatever they do that calls for the wafers. He felt in his pocket and brought out half of a wafer and showed it to the communicants. The curtain was drawn and I couldn't see what was going on, but there was a little laughter and he continued with the mass. Talk about "the blessed host"! It really isn't so "blessed," apparently.

KingdomRose
August 29th, 2017, 04:18 PM
To jsanford's post #17: It is sad that you can't see clearly what the point was in this whole issue---that there would be no problem if the host really did turn into the flesh of Jesus. If it did, then there would be no need to worry about anyone with celiac disease or any other intolerance to wheat.

It is, to us who are observing Catholic disasters, quite silly to insist that Jesus' body is literally in the wafers, and no, no one believes it is "more than bread"! (Satanists just want to show a lot of disrespect toward the church and Christianity in general.) Logically and intellectually your position is inferior.

KingdomRose
August 29th, 2017, 04:28 PM
No problem...when you hit "reply with quote" button on the bottom right you can see how quoted text is begun and ended...begun without back slash "/" ended with the backslash with the word quote between brackets...

You're STILL going at it with jsanford???? Your point has been supported over and over, and cannot be refuted. If Jesus' flesh was literally in the wafer, there would be ZERO problems with allergies! Period. No further discussion is necessary.

jsanford108
August 29th, 2017, 04:37 PM
Hey, I saw a priest (monsenior) with part of a wafer in his frock pocket! I was in the hospital and my room-mate called for this monsenior to come and see her. She and her sons asked him then to say a mass, or whatever they do that calls for the wafers. He felt in his pocket and brought out half of a wafer and showed it to the communicants. The curtain was drawn and I couldn't see what was going on, but there was a little laughter and he continued with the mass. Talk about "the blessed host"! It really isn't so "blessed," apparently.

That is because the host is kept in a special container, in a priest's pocket, when giving Mass or Communion outside of a Church.

So your point is actually not an argument against the Eucharist. Your conclusion is faulty.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
August 29th, 2017, 04:43 PM
To jsanford's post #17: It is sad that you can't see clearly what the point was in this whole issue---that there would be no problem if the host really did turn into the flesh of Jesus. If it did, then there would be no need to worry about anyone with celiac disease or any other intolerance to wheat.

It is, to us who are observing Catholic disasters, quite silly to insist that Jesus' body is literally in the wafers, and no, no one believes it is "more than bread"! (Satanists just want to show a lot of disrespect toward the church and Christianity in general.) Logically and intellectually your position is inferior.

If you are bold enough to make a claim such as "logically and intellectually your position is inferior," then demonstrate it with logical proofs, evidence, and arguments.

Your point with Satanists is also false. Basal research demonstrates the necessity of Black Masses having a consecrated host. You do have one truth, in that Satanists do wish to disrespect Christianity and the Church. But they specifically target Catholicism (hence, my capitalization of "Church").

I would say it is more sad how you make a declaration that God/Christ can't do something; using natural malfunction as grounds of proof (like atheists do).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

KingdomRose
August 29th, 2017, 05:02 PM
If you are bold enough to make a claim such as "logically and intellectually your position is inferior," then demonstrate it with logical proofs, evidence, and arguments.

Your point with Satanists is also false. Basal research demonstrates the necessity of Black Masses having a consecrated host. You do have one truth, in that Satanists do wish to disrespect Christianity and the Church. But they specifically target Catholicism (hence, my capitalization of "Church").

I would say it is more sad how you make a declaration that God/Christ can't do something; using natural malfunction as grounds of proof (like atheists do).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Your specious argument has been up-ended completely, and is unworthy of any further consideration.

jsanford108
August 29th, 2017, 05:45 PM
I expected nothing less, KingdomRose.

You enter a discussion, with arrogance, and attempt to sound superior. But, when called out on your show of intellectual superiority and capability, you retreat; Refusing to accept responsibility of proving your case, as a means of retiring with your pride intact. (Atheists do this all the time, as well, using the same fallacies you do; listed below)

Clefty has been nothing but courteous. Even if Clefty has privately disagreed with me solely because my point was devastating to his (assuming male, sorry if I am mistaken) claim, he has not resorted to trivial tactics, such as Homunculus fallacy and Argument of Intellect fallacy, as you have done.

Thus, my continued discussion with Clefty. Sure, we disagree. But at no point has he been immature and ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

clefty
August 29th, 2017, 07:24 PM
Okay, I apologize for making such a quoting mess. It has affected us both. My bad.no problem...practice makes perfect


As for our debate on John 6, 48-58, and 63, I would say we have kind of reached an impasse. You tapping out? You have just made it worse for yourself...again verse 63 "the words I speak to you" it is obviously NOT "the bread I offer you" much less "the flesh that I offer you to eat, it is the life"...

No instead it is "they are the life" notice its plural...words...many words He speaks...not His flesh singular...it profits nothing...Spirit gives life through the words spoken...


I am arguing simple basic interpretation, based on what is written, and you are arguing use of another verse to go back and prove a doctrine. Both of us are just arguing our doctrine, and the tactics used by our doctrines to prove themselves. So, I would say that we have exhausted that passage, debate-wise. If you disagree, then we can continue. I have just noticed we keep repeating the same things in a viscous cycle. yeah sounds like you are tapping out...

You keep with John 6 which if it was so important to John this new doctrine of bread becaming flesh and that His flesh was actually food you must note the irony that John completely omits the iconic "this is My body...this is My blood" scene but instead introduces the footwashing...

Back to John 6...He feeds +5000 bread...and knows the multitudes are chasing Him for more bread not because of the power of the Spirit verse 26 so no wonder He focuses on bread...it being near passover and all...the miracle of manna comes up...and teaching moments are everywhere...they know manna came down...not from moses but Yah Himself sent it He clarifies ...He now says "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, never thirst" you do understand this is a metaphor as all who come to Him still hunger and thirst...even die...

But so intent are the masses at getting more bread...other gospel writers have the multitude wishing to make Him king...He really has to push this teaching moment...desirous to teach not of bread but the Spirit which brings life He shakes and loses most of the class who were intent on things earthly anyhow...obviously...and they leave

But even the disciples who remain still remain troubled and offended and so He explains His "he who eats My flesh" as its the Spirit that brings life...duh

The metaphor is made most clear in verse 53 as He insists "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man...you have no life in you"...now tell me... were those who heard these words dead? No one had eaten His flesh yet...(and again John omits it entirely in His last supper account...so according to Johnthey never actually ate His flesh...of course those hearing these words had life in them...He was speaking of eternal life...the Spiritual realm...eating of the Spiritual bread...of Him spiritually...can you see its merely a spiritual lesson He wishes to teach using the temporal bread?


(I would like to apologize for providing a quote that was a mere two words different; I was reviewing two threads at once, and misplaced my accusation of misquoting. My bad.) the least of your issues here...trust me


So, if I may, I will skip to your example of the snake going from something good to idolatry, as I believe that is a great example and excellent point for your argument.



The bronze snake was a temporary fix, right? The Hebrews were even assured of this. It was they who made it into an idol. Now, it would be easy to make the claim that Catholicism did this with the Eucharist. But, there is not insistence that the Last Supper was a temporary, or brief thing. We do have the passage of "do this in remembrance of me." the hebrews could have kept the snake and merely used it as a memorial...but it was an idol...indicating they made something else of what had occurred with that bronze snake...likewise catholics make something else out of "do this in remembrance of Me"...they make it not a memorial but an on going death and cannibalizing of His flesh... keeping it a confusing mystery as to how this occurs...when in fact it is easily understood as a metaphor by even mindful and intention children..."I am the path" wouldnt prompt children to walk all over Him...



So either Catholics have it accurate and you are blaspheming Christ, or Catholics have it wrong and are idolaters, and you are right. adding to the word and what it says and means is worse than adding to the ceremony...or water into the wine...


But which one seems more sinful for the one in the wrong? After all, if you are correct, then Christ covered the sin of idolatry that we are committing, so no harm. How pray tell does He cover the continuous voluntary act of consuming human flesh and drinking blood? And insisting others do like wise...do note His abhorrence to the Pharisees their false teachings and causing others to fall...



Where is this definition of "communion" found? I would say that "Communion" includes the reading and praying the words of the Spirit, but I call that "Consecration," where the priest reads and prays the passage where Christ said "This is My Body...." yes as if the priest has the power to take bread and wine and conjure Him...how is that not communion...and eating Him...yes that is Him literally in you when the passage includes you are in Him verse 56...literally too? that might need another thread...communion to be sure but certainly not true worship of the Spirit


And I am not saying Christ's death is continual, but that His Redemptive Sacrifice is. If it weren't, then people post-Christ could not receive salvation. As I outlined already in the below quote. the consequence of His one time and ended (yes?...I mean He did rise yes/) His Redemptive Sacrifice is continual...is why we are to do this in remembrance...not actually...

salvation is not come from the bread or the water or the circumcision but the SPIRIT...

And when He finally actually drinks of the cup with us...does He drink His own blood then too?





Where are you receiving this knowledge that that is what Peter believed or knew? Because all of Peter's disciples, as well as those of the other Apostles, agree with my claim. So, they were all wolves who successfully kept their beliefs secret from all the Apostles, or I am right. Peter clearly said "You have the words of eternal life...we BELIEVE and KNOW You are the Christ" not one mention of eating Him His flesh...and this is right after the lecture of the Teacher...the high point of the semester...seems like Peter missed your doctrine and agrees with my understanding. Even later during the vision Peter receives he still insists he keeps kosher and abstains from that which is unclean...that would be a false claim made by him as he ate flesh not considered food and drank blood...and unnecessary if "all foods (even His Body) were make clean"...obviously Peter is NOT into eating Christ's flesh worried whether to chew it or swallow it or if his Savior's complete body is stuck in his teeth...much less drinking His blood...the Jerusalem council clearly upheld that prohibition


I would also like to posit these two links for consideration.
This first one is a list of five "Eucharistic Miracles."
http://dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/
If these are falsehoods, could you submit an explanation that disproves them.
Especially when considering that testing was done by both Catholic sources and secular sources, confirming the exact same conclusions. And, how did all these examples bear the exact same blood type (AB+, the universal receiver).

This second link is just a little more on the most recent of that list. So, nothing really new, just extra information.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/check-out-this-eucharistic-miracle-in-poland-96162/

I might view and comment...but for me I want to see why He would not make the alleged miracle complete enough that bread would completely turn into flesh so that celiac sufferers could still partake and not feel so alienated...

jsanford108
August 29th, 2017, 07:32 PM
no problem...practice makes perfect

You tapping out? You have just made it worse for yourself...again verse 63 "the words I speak to you" it is obviously not "the bread I offer you" much less "the flesh that I offer you to eat it is the life"..."they are the life" notice its plural...words...many words He speaks...not His flesh singular...it profits nothing...Spirit gives life

yeah sounds like you are tapping out...

You keep with John 6 which if it was so important to John this new doctrine that bread became flesh and that His flesh was actually food you must note the irony that John completely omits the iconic "this is My body...this is My blood" scene but instead introduces the footwashing...

Back to John 6...He feeds 5000 bread...and knows the multitudes are chasing Him for more bread not because of the power of the Spirit verse 26 so no wonder He focuses on bread...it being near passover and all...the miracle of manna comes up...and teaching moments are everywhere...manna came down...not from moses but Yah Himself sent...He know says "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, never thirst" you do understand this is a metaphor as all who come to Him still hunger and thirst...even die...

But so intent on more getting more bread...other gospel have the multitude wishing to make Him king...He really pushes this teaching moment...desirous to teach not of bread but the Spirit which brings life He shakes most of the class who were intent on things earthly anyhow...obviously...and they leave

But even the disciples remain troubled and offended and so He explains His "he who eats My flesh"...

The metaphor is made most clear in verse 53 as He insists unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man...you have no life in you"...now tell me were those who heard these words dead? No one had eaten His flesh yet...(and John omits it entirely in His last supper account...) of course they had life in them...He was speaking of eternal life...the Spiritual life...eating of the Spiritual bread...of Him spiritually...can you see the spiritual lesson He wishes to teach using the temporal bread?



the least of your issues here trust me

the hebrews could have held on to the snake and merely used it as a memorial...but it was an idol...indicating they made something else of what had occurred with that bronze snake...likewise catholics make something else out of "do this in remembrance of Me"...they make it not a memorial but an on going death and cannibalizing His flesh and keeping it a mystery as to how this occurs...when in fact it is easily understood as a metaphor by even mindful and intention children


adding to the word is worse than adding to the ceremony...or water into the wine...

How pray tell does He cover the voluntary act of consuming human flesh and drinking blood? And insisting other do like wise...do note His abhorrence to the Pharisees their false teachings...


yes the priest has the power to take bread and wine and conjure Him...how is that not communion...and eating Him...yes that is Him literally in you when the passage includes you are in Him verse 56...literally too? that might need another thread...

the consequence of His one time and ended Redemptive Sacrifice is continual...salvation is not come from the bread or the water or the circumcision but the SPIRIT...




Peter clearly said "You have the words of eternal life...we BELIEVE and KNOW You are the Christ" not one mention of eating Him His flesh...and this is right after the lecture of the Teacher...seems like Peter missed your doctrine and agrees with my understanding. Later during the vision Petter gets he still insists he keeps kosher and abstains from unclean...that would be a false claim and unnecessary if "all foods (His Body) were make clean"...obviously Peter is not into eating Christ's flesh worried whether to chew or swallow or if his Saviors complete body is stuck in his teeth...much less drinking His blood...Jerusalem council clearly upheld that prohibition



I might view and comment...but for me I want to see why He would not make the alleged miracle complete enough that is bread into flesh so that celiac sufferers could still partake and not feel so alienated...

I will address your challenges as soon as I can.

Consider me not tapped out, but standing firm. I am in this conversation as long as necessary and as long as it remains productive.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

clefty
August 29th, 2017, 07:52 PM
Excellent! That is proof that the wafers don't change to Christ's body! Hahahahaha.

It does seem that way...just trying to learn of this great mystery and miracle

Apparently if you chew Him too much and the bread loses its breadness before swallowing...it is invalidated...

Tricky stuff...

You are not supposed to eat 1 hour before receiving or too soon after...not quite sure when or what point in the biological process He is digested and expelled...

Also feel bad for the hidden crumb which is His Whole body unconsumed...for how long? I amean there He is on the floor...and as they all leave and the church goes empty...He waits...

The wine into blood was initial puzzling for me..if one would drink a lot of consecrated wine how is it they become drunk if it is blood? Does His blood intoxicate?

I am curious...

clefty
August 29th, 2017, 08:00 PM
Hey, I saw a priest (monsenior) with part of a wafer in his frock pocket! I was in the hospital and my room-mate called for this monsenior to come and see her. She and her sons asked him then to say a mass, or whatever they do that calls for the wafers. He felt in his pocket and brought out half of a wafer and showed it to the communicants. The curtain was drawn and I couldn't see what was going on, but there was a little laughter and he continued with the mass. Talk about "the blessed host"! It really isn't so "blessed," apparently.

The care and attention surrounding these ceremonies indeed seems excessive...

"The proper way to wash altar cloths, is to have the one who is qualified to purify the chalices etc.(priest, deacon or acolyte)..rinse the altar cloths in water before they are washed, but the water should be collected and poured down the sacrarium...the special sink that is in all sacrisities of a church....whereby the water goes under the church....and is not desecrated.For purificators and corporals, the precaution is taken of washing them first in water and then pouring the water into the sacrarium or into the earth. The reason is that if there should be any particles of the sacred host or drops of the precious blood on either, they are not just poured into the sewer. Then the altar cloths can be washed in a washing machine."

clefty
August 29th, 2017, 08:02 PM
You're STILL going at it with jsanford???? Your point has been supported over and over, and cannot be refuted. If Jesus' flesh was literally in the wafer, there would be ZERO problems with allergies! Period. No further discussion is necessary.

Yes...no one else has posted...

Besides I am learning...

clefty
August 30th, 2017, 05:26 AM
I will address your challenges as soon as I can.

Consider me not tapped out, but standing firm. I am in this conversation as long as necessary and as long as it remains productive.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

I went ahead and viewed those links...interesting to know the current pope was part of this as many within the catholic fold view him as an antipope heretic...

You ask how these breads began to bleed...even the magicians of pharaoh were able to make their staff become snakes...and complete snakes not just the blood, heart or ventricle of a snake...

I thought the Church's teaching was the bread became the whole living body of Christ not just the blood heart or ventricle. So this is yet another incomplete miracle.

Ironically now if truly this miraculous bread was completely made into the flesh of a human heart with AB+ blood then one suffering ciliac disease could eat it without allergenic reaction.

I need to know why the whole body of Christ is causing allergic reaction with those whose biological response to glutten is negative.

The allergen is not in the appearance of bread but the substance which is claimed to have been changed into flesh.

jsanford108
August 30th, 2017, 02:12 PM
You tapping out? You have just made it worse for yourself...again verse 63 "the words I speak to you" it is obviously NOT "the bread I offer you" much less "the flesh that I offer you to eat, it is the life"...

No instead it is "they are the life" notice its plural...words...many words He speaks...not His flesh singular...it profits nothing...Spirit gives life through the words spoken...
We are not in disagreement about verse 63 referring to words/teachings of Christ. There is no dispute there. My position is that verse 63 is not a direct reference, call back, or explanation for verses 48-58. Verses 60-71 are a different passage. Granted, I would label this as the disciples reaction. But, allow us to examine this passage. Many of the disciples said, "this is a hard saying." Then, Christ gives the words found in verse 63, "it is the spirit that gives life....the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (Emphasis my own) In consecration, the Spirit descends upon the host, thus consecrating it, giving it life.

Notice the passage continues. Christ knew that there there those who did not believe what He had said. Further, Christ said to the twelve, "Will you also leave?" Peter said, "to whom shall we go?" He expounds saying that Christ is God. So even in this moment, Peter is still having issues understanding what Christ is saying. Why? Because just like all the others, he has heard Christ speak of consuming His very flesh and blood. But, Peter remains, because the Holy Spirit has revealed that Christ is God. Therefore, there is nothing to do but obey and believe. After all, "This is a hard saying." But to obey simply out of faith, knowing that Christ is God, was all the twelve were left with.


You keep with John 6 which if it was so important to John this new doctrine of bread becaming flesh and that His flesh was actually food you must note the irony that John completely omits the iconic "this is My body...this is My blood" scene but instead introduces the footwashing...
An excellent point. This exclusion of the Last Supper by John makes sense when you examine the Gospels historically. Each Gospel was written with a specific audience in mind. Matthew wrote for the Jews, who needed proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah; which explains the numerous references to OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Mark wrote for the Christians of Rome who were suffering under Nero's persecutions. Luke wrote for the Gentiles; explaining the meaning behind numerous Hebrew-isms. John, being an Apostle, knew the content of the other Gospel accounts, thus, he wrote specifically about Christ and His Teachings.


Back to John 6...He feeds +5000 bread...and knows the multitudes are chasing Him for more bread not because of the power of the Spirit verse 26 so no wonder He focuses on bread...it being near passover and all...the miracle of manna comes up...and teaching moments are everywhere...they know manna came down...not from moses but Yah Himself sent it He clarifies ...He now says "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, never thirst" you do understand this is a metaphor as all who come to Him still hunger and thirst...even die... This is slightly a false approach. First, from a historical point. The Jews followed Christ for two reasons post miraculous feeding. The first is to see more miracles. The second is they were hungry. I mean, we are talking about poor desert people. Here is a guy who can feed multitudes with scraps. Yeah, I would follow Him, too. So, to apply the feverish followings of the Jews to modern Catholics is slightly dishonest, as there are clear societal differences of the times.


But so intent are the masses at getting more bread...other gospel writers have the multitude wishing to make Him king...He really has to push this teaching moment...desirous to teach not of bread but the Spirit which brings life He shakes and loses most of the class who were intent on things earthly anyhow...obviously...and they leave That is not why they left. Remember, they left after saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They interpreted this as cannibalism; using their limited earthly knowledge, rather than believing and trusting in Christ.



But even the disciples who remain still remain troubled and offended and so He explains His "he who eats My flesh" as its the Spirit that brings life...duhAs I said before, no disagreement. The Spirit is what truly consecrates a host. Thus, giving the bread life.



The metaphor is made most clear in verse 53 as He insists "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man...you have no life in you"...now tell me... were those who heard these words dead? No one had eaten His flesh yet...the Spiritual realm...eating of the Spiritual bread...of Him spiritually...can you see its merely a spiritual lesson He wishes to teach using the temporal bread?Were the people who left "dead?" I would say, yes. They were dead to the teachings of Christ, simply because they did not believe. Are people "dead in sin?" This is a metaphor, no? So, here you are utilizing a Equivocation fallacy. You are changing the meaning of certain words, "dead," halfway through your point. At first, you claim it is a metaphor, then say, if it is literal are these people not alive? But you maintain the use of "life" throughout the point, for both sides. Either it is entirely a metaphor, or it is not. Interchanging meanings dependent on which position is a fallacy. (This is not an attack on you, just pointing out the error within your argument)




the hebrews could have kept the snake and merely used it as a memorial...but it was an idol...indicating they made something else of what had occurred with that bronze snake...likewise catholics make something else out of "do this in remembrance of Me"...they make it not a memorial but an on going death and cannibalizing of His flesh... keeping it a confusing mystery as to how this occurs...when in fact it is easily understood as a metaphor by even mindful and intention children..."I am the path" wouldnt prompt children to walk all over Him...You keep insisting on calling the consummation of Christ, in Communion, "cannibalization." This is a false label. When God commands the Hebrews to destroy every living thing (man, woman, child, livestock, etc) is that murder? After all, God commanded it, yet we know that God can do, nor command, evil. Murder is evil. Of course, we would consider this obeying of God above morality, as everything God wills is Good. So, if Christ said "Eat my body," it cannot be cannibalism. Christ, being God, can not, nor ever will, call for evil. Christ/God exists above morality, because He is the Source of Good and morality. (I know that went really existential, but I believe it was necessary to point out)



adding to the word and what it says and means is worse than adding to the ceremony...or water into the wine... Not if "all sin has been paid for," as many protestant doctrines declare. Examination of many Protestant doctrine which is in disagreement with Catholic doctrine is exactly this, adding to Scripture and its meanings. But that is another topic all together.


How pray tell does He cover the continuous voluntary act of consuming human flesh and drinking blood? And insisting others do like wise...do note His abhorrence to the Pharisees their false teachings and causing others to fall... Refer to the aforementioned point about Christ's commands being absolute and absent of evil.



the consequence of His one time and ended (yes?...I mean He did rise yes/) His Redemptive Sacrifice is continual...is why we are to do this in remembrance...not actually...Are reenactments done in remembrance? For example, are Civil War reenactments actually the Civil War, or just remembrance activities?


salvation is not come from the bread or the water or the circumcision but the SPIRIT... No disagreement there. As I said, it is the Spirit which truly consecrates the hosts, through the actions of the priest. If you argue on whom the actions belong, I would point back to Moses. Did Moses separate the waters, or did God? Moses is the one who actively thrust his staff in the water.

{QUOTE]And when He finally actually drinks of the cup with us...does He drink His own blood then too?[/QUOTE] Christ did not eat, nor drink at the last supper. As evidenced by Him saying He shall not partake of the fruit of the vine until paradise.





Peter clearly said "You have the words of eternal life...we BELIEVE and KNOW You are the Christ" not one mention of eating Him His flesh...and this is right after the lecture of the Teacher...the high point of the semester...seems like Peter missed your doctrine and agrees with my understanding. Even later during the vision Peter receives he still insists he keeps kosher and abstains from that which is unclean...that would be a false claim made by him as he ate flesh not considered food and drank blood...Peter did not have to declare belief in eating the Flesh of Christ, solely because he already confessed belief in Christ. If Christ said it, it must be so, despite what makes natural sense (Such as the dead rising). Peter never says "it was only symbolic, your talk of eating you." So, to say that Peter is in agreement with your doctrine is a false conclusion. There is no clarification of symbolism on Peter's part. He solely confessed in believing Christ and that which Christ teaches and declares.



I might view and comment...but for me I want to see why He would not make the alleged miracle complete enough that bread would completely turn into flesh so that celiac sufferers could still partake and not feel so alienated... As my first response in this thread pointed out, this is placing human inefficiencies and biological inabilities above the abilities of Christ. It goes along with my hypothetical blood transfusion point. If the blood is AB+, then Christ's blood would be rejected by an O- recipient. Does this negate Christ's divinity? No. For He was fully God and fully Man. Does it ever say His body was flawless? Without blemish? Did His feet ever get dirty? Did He have to shower? If so, even one of these is the product of being fully Man.


I went ahead and viewed those links...interesting to know the current pope was part of this as many within the catholic fold view him as an antipope heretic... I have my own theory on that subject. It is a long tangent, complete with evidence. But, long and probably boring to a Protestant.


You ask how these breads began to bleed...even the magicians of pharaoh were able to make their staff become snakes...and complete snakes not just the blood, heart or ventricle of a snake... So the magicians had the same power as Moses?

Is a part of Christ's body not part of the whole? Is your finger a part of your body? Your left ventricle?


I thought the Church's teaching was the bread became the whole living body of Christ not just the blood heart or ventricle. So this is yet another incomplete miracle.It is never declared the "whole body," but "fully body." Maybe you meant "wholly." I will give you the benefit of the doubt there.


Ironically now if truly this miraculous bread was completely made into the flesh of a human heart with AB+ blood then one suffering ciliac disease could eat it without allergenic reaction.No. Because it still appears, tastes, and has the same ingredients of bread. As Christ had the same appearance and ingredients of being Man.


I need to know why the whole body of Christ is causing allergic reaction with those whose biological response to glutten is negative.

The allergen is not in the appearance of bread but the substance which is claimed to have been changed into flesh.I think I addressed this. If not, let me know, and I will try to be more clear and concise in areas that require more explanation and expounding.

I do wish to thank you for even taking the time to review those links. That shows true dedication to the discussion.

I also want to highlight the depth of "Words." If Christ speaks, it is more real than reality. God created the universe by simply speaking it into existence. So, a declaration made by Christ is more real than anything else we can imagine. If Christ says, "My Body is real food," then it is so. Furthermore, ff Christ is "The Word," then consuming the "Word" of Christ could still be a literal consumption. Just spiritual food for thought.

clefty
August 30th, 2017, 08:16 PM
We are not in disagreement about verse 63 referring to words/teachings of Christ. There is no dispute there. sure there is...I dispute He is being literal when He uses words in this teaching regarding bread and His body...


My position is that verse 63 is not a direct reference, call back, or explanation for verses 48-58. Verses 60-71 are a different passage. Granted, I would label this as the disciples reaction. reaction to the teaching of 48-58...and they were troubled even offended and He noticed so continued the teaching with clarification on the previous teaching...


But, allow us to examine this passage. Many of the disciples said, "this is a hard saying." because it went against the Torah they understood and He wouldnt alter....


Then, Christ gives the words found in verse 63, "it is the spirit that gives life....the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (Emphasis my own) In consecration, the Spirit descends upon the host, thus consecrating it, giving it life. flesh profits nothing means the bread receives NOT an eternal life giving Spirit...His teaching includes the manna come down from heaven which their fathers ate and are dead as are those who ate the last supper bread...though the bread came down from heaven they still died...despite His saying they would live forever...it is a symbol...you dont actually live forever because you are eating Him yes?


Notice the passage continues. Christ knew that there there those who did not believe what He had said. Further, Christ said to the twelve, "Will you also leave?" Peter said, "to whom shall we go?" He expounds saying that Christ is God. So even in this moment, Peter is still having issues understanding what Christ is saying. Why? Because just like all the others, he has heard Christ speak of consuming His very flesh and blood. But, Peter remains, because the Holy Spirit has revealed that Christ is God. Therefore, there is nothing to do but obey and believe. After all, "This is a hard saying." But to obey simply out of faith, knowing that Christ is God, was all the twelve were left with. But again that video claimed He cleared eating human flesh and consuming blood...why is this so difficult got Peter to accept when He cleared eating flesh and drinking blood? Maybe Peter did NOT think that He cleared it? Besides cannibalism assumes the carcass is dead and Peter struggled with the idea His Savior dying...or living while being eaten upon.

Hearing His clarification that it is the Spirit not the flesh eaten has Peter saying "You have the words of eternal life". All this mind you is well before the body and blood was actually and iconically offered making it difficult to comprehend how it would play out.

Peter never the less says "You have the words of eternal life" does not say "You have the flesh that gives eternal life" nor "you have the bread which is Spirit filled and changes into your flesh"




An excellent point. This exclusion of the Last Supper by John makes sense when you examine the Gospels historically. Each Gospel was written with a specific audience in mind. Matthew wrote for the Jews, who needed proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah; which explains the numerous references to OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Mark wrote for the Christians of Rome who were suffering under Nero's persecutions. Luke wrote for the Gentiles; explaining the meaning behind numerous Hebrew-isms. John, being an Apostle, knew the content of the other Gospel accounts, thus, he wrote specifically about Christ and His Teachings. thanks for that but again John the spiritual gospel the one specifically about Christ and His teaching (as if the others dont) omits the climax for the church of Christ and His teaching...no offering of His body and blood at the last supper...its like John spends so much time on the word becoming flesh...and His teaching on eating Him (says yours) and then just forgets...such an important church dogma and John omits it...imagine if we just had the gospel of John we wouldnt even be privy to "take eat this is My body...My blood"...

Your skipping past with a distracting paragraph of which gospel is for what does not address the reality that John omits it entirely...


This is slightly a false approach. First, from a historical point. The Jews followed Christ for two reasons post miraculous feeding. The first is to see more miracles. The second is they were hungry. I mean, we are talking about poor desert people. Here is a guy who can feed multitudes with scraps. Yeah, I would follow Him, too. So, to apply the feverish followings of the Jews to modern Catholics is slightly dishonest, as there are clear societal differences of the times. I alluded to other gospel having the people wish to make Him king their agenda and desire clearly not in line with what His divine mission was...I am not comparing these jews with catholics here...His was spiritual...not of the flesh, things earthly like bread...it profit nothing...except to jews and catholics...is why you thought I was comparing perhaps?


That is not why they left. Remember, they left after saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They interpreted this as cannibalism; using their limited earthly knowledge, rather than believing and trusting in Christ. earthly knowledge? The prohibition against blood and cannibalism was not earthly but clear from Yah's Torah...but you would have Him counter His Father?



As I said before, no disagreement. The Spirit is what truly consecrates a host. Thus, giving the bread life. the bread life or into flesh...which profits nothing...said He Who knows



Were the people who left "dead?" I would say, yes. well now you continue to switch categories...I was speaking as He was of physical literal life...
They were dead to the teachings of Christ, simply because they did not believe. Are people "dead in sin?" This is a metaphor, no? dead in sin sure but dead hearing this teaching no...they heard it and were not even offered the flesh you notice? Not even handed out bread with so much as a "here is my body"...they were looking at a living man say you must eat me...you look back and insert iconic handing out of bread but that didn't happen here...


So, here you are utilizing a Equivocation fallacy. You are changing the meaning of certain words, "dead," halfway through your point. not at all...you did trying to make men hearing this teaching men who are literally dead...they hadn't literally eaten Him yet...they were not literally dead...


At first, you claim it is a metaphor, then say, if it is literal are these people not alive? But you maintain the use of "life" throughout the point, for both sides. Either it is entirely a metaphor, or it is not. Interchanging meanings dependent on which position is a fallacy. (This is not an attack on you, just pointing out the error within your argument) slow down..."most assuredly he who believes me has eternal life..." its entirely a metaphor...they are not dead listening to Him you say they are spiritually dead




You keep insisting on calling the consummation of Christ, in Communion, "cannibalization." This is a false label. When God commands the Hebrews to destroy every living thing (man, woman, child, livestock, etc) is that murder? After all, God commanded it, yet we know that God can do, nor command, evil. sure He can and more to your point as here you claim He is encouraging to eat Him and while He is still living...
Murder is evil. Of course, we would consider this obeying of God above morality, as everything God wills is Good. So, if Christ said "Eat my body," it cannot be cannibalism. Christ, being God, can not, nor ever will, call for evil. sure He does...has Abram sacrifice his son...says make no images...they has them make some...says dont kill than has them kill...says dont commit adultery then has Hosea marry a prostitute...you need to argue that He does command what at first seems evil...but He clears eating and drinking blood...

I however dont see Him as saying to eat Him literally...as flesh doesnt profit to life eternal...so its your issue not mine...


Christ/God exists above morality, because He is the Source of Good and morality. (I know that went really existential, but I believe it was necessary to point out) its ok its trick when He claims He causes evil...and so it goes...consume blood and cannnibalize as you are instructed to...



Not if "all sin has been paid for," as many protestant doctrines declare. yes must add purgatory and indulgences...ok less of the latter yours learned after some rebellious blowback


Examination of many Protestant doctrine which is in disagreement with Catholic doctrine is exactly this, adding to Scripture and its meanings. But that is another topic all together. Catholics claim the bread turns to the whole Christ...and then get excited when bread bleeds "its a miracle"


Refer to the aforementioned point about Christ's commands being absolute and absent of evil. I do...and dont see it as Him condoning cannibalism...you have an unessary abhorance to the word as apparently He covers it...calls for it...so just say YES WE CANNIBALIZE HIM...its odd at first but I am sure you will get used to it...



Are reenactments done in remembrance? yes hence called reenactments and not continuations
For example, are Civil War reenactments actually the Civil War, or just remembrance activities? wow really? Seriously? Yours claim they are present at a bloody/bloodless scene so which is it?


No disagreement there. As I said, it is the Spirit which truly consecrates the hosts, through the actions of the priest. If you argue on whom the actions belong, I would point back to Moses. Did Moses separate the waters, or did God? Moses is the one who actively thrust his staff in the water. He also said He is the light...of the world...you have christ yes? So no need for electricity at night?


Christ did not eat, nor drink at the last supper. As evidenced by Him saying He shall not partake of the fruit of the vine until paradise... "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me" (Mark 14:17-18) notice its "eating with me" not "eating me" your claims of His not eating seem far fetched...at least one "why arent you eating master" would allow an amazing teaching moment again...





Peter did not have to declare belief in eating the Flesh of Christ, solely because he already confessed belief in Christ. did Peter dip his cup into Him to pull out living waters? No. Perhaps what Peter understood and believed of his Master is different than what you do...


If Christ said it, it must be so, despite what makes natural sense (Such as the dead rising). plenty of witnesses testified of one dead then alive...not one testimony of bread into flesh...the unproven miracle...all others were testable and verified


Peter never says "it was only symbolic, your talk of eating you." So, to say that Peter is in agreement with your doctrine is a false conclusion. There is no clarification of symbolism on Peter's part. He solely confessed in believing Christ and that which Christ teaches and declares. and ate within an hour of receiving the host...arent you supposed to wait?



As my first response in this thread pointed out, this is placing human inefficiencies and biological inabilities above the abilities of Christ. ummm no...this is making the Law of Yah null and void to the traditions of man...if the miracle is indeed the human deficiency would not matter...celiac disease is a response to gluten not flesh...and ability of Christ should be complete enough that His flesh would not trigger an allergic reaction...that it does trigger does not speak of His inability but false worship


wIt goes along with my hypothetical blood transfusion point. If the blood is AB+, then Christ's blood would be rejected by an O- recipient. Does this negate Christ's divinity? No. For He was fully God and fully Man. Does it ever say His body was flawless? Without blemish? Did His feet ever get dirty? Did He have to shower? If so, even one of these is the product of being fully Man. not questioning Him...questioning you...the claim that His flawed body either AB+ or O- blood type dirty feet becomes literal changed from the bread...and completely...totally...wholly


I have my own theory on that subject. It is a long tangent, complete with evidence. But, long and probably boring to a Protestant. catholics are anything but boring to one protesting


So the magicians had the same power as Moses? not exactly the same but from a different source which can counterfeit truth...beware results are hard to discern...idolatry most seductive...most subtle


Is a part of Christ's body not part of the whole? Is your finger a part of your body? Your left ventricle?

It is never declared the "whole body," but "fully body." Maybe you meant "wholly." I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. you just dont eat a finger or leg or heart ventricle...


No. Because it still appears, tastes, and has the same ingredients of bread. the allergen is not in the accidents but in the substance...which is changed



I think I addressed this. If not, let me know, and I will try to be more clear and concise in areas that require more explanation and expounding. barely...address why a miracle would not be complete and still alienate one who wished to partake...

Stick to the accidents and substances...why does our biology read it still as bread...it our mouth throat and stomach cant see the bread its accidents...and its substance is now flesh without gluten




I do wish to thank you for even taking the time to review those links. That shows true dedication to the discussion. that does? Above study and use of scripture?


I also want to highlight the depth of "Words." If Christ speaks, it is more real than reality. God created the universe by simply speaking it into existence. So, a declaration made by Christ is more real than anything else we can imagine. If Christ says, "My Body is real food," then it is so. Furthermore, ff Christ is "The Word," then consuming the "Word" of Christ could still be a literal consumption. Just spiritual food for thought.

It is real food...just like it is real light...the true vine...a door...living water pouring...the way

jsanford108
September 2nd, 2017, 12:04 PM
sure there is...I dispute He is being literal when He uses words in this teaching regarding bread and His body... How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe?


reaction to the teaching of 48-58...and they were troubled even offended and He noticed so continued the teaching with clarification on the previous teaching... There is no proof of this analysis in Scripture. You say that is the cause, but there is no evidence or clarifications that make this declaration.


flesh profits nothing means the bread receives NOT an eternal life giving Spirit...His teaching includes the manna come down from heaven which their fathers ate and are dead as are those who ate the last supper bread...though the bread came down from heaven they still died...despite His saying they would live forever...it is a symbol...you dont actually live forever because you are eating Him yes? This is what I am describing when I mention the fallacy of Equivocation. You know that eternal life does not mean immortal life. Yet here, you are altering the definitions in order to posit your claim. I have never said that people who partake of the Eucharist are immortal; but here, you assert that is my position.

However, by this Equivocation, I admit I finally am clear on your position. You believe that, since the phrase "eternal life" is not a literal immortality, then likewise "My Flesh" must not be a literal flesh. Yet that is the issue within your claim: "Eternal life" is not synonymous with "immortal life." Thus, the false equivalency.


But again that video claimed He cleared eating human flesh and consuming blood...why is this so difficult got Peter to accept when He cleared eating flesh and drinking blood? Maybe Peter did NOT think that He cleared it? Besides cannibalism assumes the carcass is dead and Peter struggled with the idea His Savior dying...or living while being eaten upon. Why do you keep using this video as a proof? I have said that the video is inaccurate, as the claims made therein are not true, and bear no evidence to support the claims. This goes back to my first point in this response. How can we progress in discussion when I say "this is false," demonstrating why, yet you say, "this is the truth of your beliefs." Not to be rude, but it is akin to the 3rd grader who says "No, you're wrong, that is a lion" despite being shown a picture of an elephant. At some point, simply defending a video because it supports a point, despite evidence to the contrary, becomes a preference to ignorance.

So, stop using that video as a point. It is a false claim, made by a Catholic who is ignorant on the matter.


Hearing His clarification that it is the Spirit not the flesh eaten has Peter saying "You have the words of eternal life". All this mind you is well before the body and blood was actually and iconically offered making it difficult to comprehend how it would play out. Kind of like how Christ said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."


Peter never the less says "You have the words of eternal life" does not say "You have the flesh that gives eternal life" nor "you have the bread which is Spirit filled and changes into your flesh" That goes to my point on clarification. If we posit your position into Scripture, Christ saying the flesh is useless, it would be like saying "He who eats my flesh, which is useless, has eternal life. He who does not eat my flesh, which is useless, has no life with me." Your position renders the whole passage null, because it makes the declaration have no weight or significance.

Let us consider my quote from 1 Corinthians 11:29. How can improper eating and drinking of a symbol, be worthy of damnation? If we examine the verses preceding verse 29, we are given examples of circumstances which should be addressed before taking Communion. If it is merely a symbol, why do such trivial, and fixable, matters affect the eternal security of a person? How do such matters merit damnation, if one is merely taking part in a symbolic event? Paul here is giving extreme weight to communion, don't you think, if it is "understood" to be a mere symbol.



Your skipping past with a distracting paragraph of which gospel is for what does not address the reality that John omits it entirely... That is most likely because John knew that the synoptic gospels already had three accounts of the Last Supper. But the others did not have the depth of teachings and clarifications that his had.


I alluded to other gospel having the people wish to make Him king their agenda and desire clearly not in line with what His divine mission was...I am not comparing these jews with catholics here...His was spiritual...not of the flesh, things earthly like bread...it profit nothing...except to jews and catholics...is why you thought I was comparing perhaps? Pretty much.


earthly knowledge? The prohibition against blood and cannibalism was not earthly but clear from Yah's Torah...but you would have Him counter His Father? This goes back to my point that Christ exists above and outside of morality. If Christ says to do something, or that something is good, then it must be so. Same as God. So, the killing of every man, woman, and child is good, because God deemed it so. Likewise, Christ saying it is good to eat His Flesh, is good because He deemed it so. It isn't a contradiction; it is an exception.


well now you continue to switch categories...I was speaking as He was of physical literal life... So, you think that Christ when He says "eternal life" means physical immortality?


not at all...you did trying to make men hearing this teaching men who are literally dead...they hadn't literally eaten Him yet...they were not literally dead... Could you clarify what you meant on this?



sure He can and more to your point as here you claim He is encouraging to eat Him and while He is still living... sure He does...has Abram sacrifice his son...says make no images...they has them make some...says dont kill than has them kill...says dont commit adultery then has Hosea marry a prostitute...you need to argue that He does command what at first seems evil...but He clears eating and drinking blood... If your claim is that God commands evil, then we are failing to agree on the attributes of God. This would mean that any discussion we have will lack productivity, for we do not agree on God, Himself. If God is contradictory, then He cannot be God. So, if you propose that God can command us to commit evil acts, despite a "change of mind," then we do not agree on God.

My position is that whatever God/Christ declares, no matter if it is before, during or post, present, then it is wholly Good and True. So, Christ can say, "Eat My Body," before the Resurrection, because He is not limited by the natural law. Because everything He declares and commands is eternally True.



yes must add purgatory and indulgences...ok less of the latter yours learned after some rebellious blowback There are still indulgences. The rebellion was against the corrupt act of having people pay for indulgences and sacraments. An issue which needed to be addressed. So, that point goes to you.


Catholics claim the bread turns to the whole Christ...and then get excited when bread bleeds "its a miracle" False. It is "wholly" Christ, but not "whole" Christ. A piece of flesh is "wholly," but not "whole." This is basic biology, terminology, and vocabulary.


I do...and dont see it as Him condoning cannibalism...you have an unessary abhorance to the word as apparently He covers it...calls for it...so just say YES WE CANNIBALIZE HIM...its odd at first but I am sure you will get used to it... I do have an abhorance to calling it "cannibalism," as it is a false application. Just as you wouldn't say that God "murdered" Christ. This goes back to my point about the attributes of Christ/God, and existing above morality.



yes hence called reenactments and not continuations wow really? Seriously? Yours claim they are present at a bloody/bloodless scene so which is it? It is the "continuous remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice." That does not mean, as many twist it, or declare it implies, "still happening."

Also, did you know that "Remembrance" includes "active participation," by definition?


and ate within an hour of receiving the host...arent you supposed to wait? No. You can eat the moment you leave Mass.


He also said He is the light...of the world...you have christ yes? So no need for electricity at night? This is Equivocation again. "Light of the world" does not mean physical light. If you insist that this must be metaphorical, then is there electricity in heaven?



did Peter dip his cup into Him to pull out living waters? No. Perhaps what Peter understood and believed of his Master is different than what you do... I addressed this when I said that Christ can exists outside and above natural law. Can Christ not make something change in substance? After all, He changed water into wine. Can He not change wine into His Blood, yet allow it to still retain the appearance, taste, and biological properties of wine? If not, then He is not God.


plenty of witnesses testified of one dead then alive...not one testimony of bread into flesh...the unproven miracle...all others were testable and verified I have provided proof of the Eucharist being transformed. It was testable. Verified. And witnessed. It went against the natural law.

You are taking the position of the Pharisees. Despite knowing and seeing all the prophecies being fulfilled in one person, they refused to believe He was the Christ. Despite the miracles. Despite raising Himself from death. They still refused to believe, despite the physical evidence, witness testimonies, etc.




ummm no...this is making the Law of Yah null and void to the traditions of man...if the miracle is indeed the human deficiency would not matter...celiac disease is a response to gluten not flesh...and ability of Christ should be complete enough that His flesh would not trigger an allergic reaction...that it does trigger does not speak of His inability but false worship This is not making the Law of God void to man-made traditions. This is a straw man argument. Once again, you are placing the existence of natural limits as proofs against miracles. If your position is correct, then Christ could not have risen from the dead. Because what is dead cannot come back to life. It is biologically impossible.




not exactly the same but from a different source which can counterfeit truth...beware results are hard to discern...idolatry most seductive...most subtle I agree. There are numerous instances of this being true. Examples actually abound of this. That is why instances of the Eucharist bleeding are taken so seriously. That is why instances of apparitions are taken skeptically. It takes years and substantial proof to ever declare one "Divine."


you just dont eat a finger or leg or heart ventricle... Is this you arguing again on what Catholics believe, despite the opposite being conveyed?


the allergen is not in the accidents but in the substance...which is changed The allergen is not the fault of the host, but of the recipient. Mutagens are what cause such inefficiencies. This can get really biological. But, if you wish to go on this tangent, you picked a good source. (I have a Masters in Biology, Minor in Chemistry, Concentration in medical and biochemistry, and am one class away from a minor concentration on Theology)



that does? Above study and use of scripture? Study of Scripture is most important. But, a person truly trying to grow in knowledge will also search and study materials outside of Scripture, as means of deepening faith. Such materials, in my experience, also solidify faith, while providing excellent proofs for when challenged. Hence, my praise of your actual reading of suggested links.
(I always check out links provided by opponents in discussions, as it gives insight to their views, methods of deduction, etc. Learning is learning; and educating oneself on opposition's views/methods/etc gives extra knowledge on the discussion)


barely...address why a miracle would not be complete and still alienate one who wished to partake...

Stick to the accidents and substances...why does our biology read it still as bread...it our mouth throat and stomach cant see the bread its accidents...and its substance is now flesh without gluten

How can a miracle be complete, yet a person being unable to partake fully? Biological inefficiencies, present in individuals, inhibit particular aspects. That is why there are alternate methods, known as exceptions, made for such individuals. If one cannot receive the host, due to gluten allergies, then wine is available, containing the same divinity of the same Christ.
No person has ever been drunk from receiving the wine. One receives a "sip"; not a "gulp" or "swallow." Such small amounts are impossible to make anyone intoxicated. The wine itself contains minimal alcohol. If a person is so addicted that such a small amount is hazardous to their addictions, and they have gluten allergies, then they are clearly not in a state of care, for most liquors contains gluten.

Our biological systems reads the host as bread due to the natural composition being bread. Our natural systems can only detect natural elements. Thus, the species in question remain natural in detection and composition. The bread is still bread in nature, but is divinely the Body, Blood, and Divinity of Christ. It is the Divine Presence within that is the cause of the miracle. At times, as evidenced by the "Eucharistic Miracles," the natural composition can also change, defying natural law. Such occurrences are rare. Even more rare is the occurrence of a person being dead three days, coming to life, then ascending whole and wholly to heaven. Such occurrences defy natural law. Hence, the application of the term, supernatural. Supernatural, by definition, meaning "beyond the natural."

This is how the Eucharist appears, tastes, and is digested, as bread. Due to the physical nature being a bread composition. It is the Divine Nature which is beneficial to the soul.

clefty
September 3rd, 2017, 02:19 PM
This is how the Eucharist appears, tastes, and is digested, as bread. Due to the physical nature being a bread composition. It is the Divine Nature which is beneficial to the soul.

This does not sound like transubstantiation but more like "It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present"

clefty
September 4th, 2017, 07:18 PM
How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe? because verse 63 is our dispute...you claim flesh means seeing things from a eyes of the flesh unable to see the actual miracle...I claim flesh means by actually eating Him especially at this point in the narrative where He did not offer His body even as bread but just claimed it was food and they were oblivious to the understanding He was actually going to die and on Passover as our substitute...all this at this context at this time in John 6 was not Him advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh...that would profit nothing...it is NOT even about not seeing things spiritual of the flesh


There is no proof of this analysis in Scripture. You say that is the cause, but there is no evidence or clarifications that make this declaration. verse 60-61 is clear His asking "Does this offend you?" refers to the teaching from before


This is what I am describing when I mention the fallacy of Equivocation. You know that eternal life does not mean immortal life. Yet here, you are altering the definitions in order to posit your claim. I have never said that people who partake of the Eucharist are immortal; but here, you assert that is my position.

However, by this Equivocation, I admit I finally am clear on your position. You believe that, since the phrase "eternal life" is not a literal immortality, then likewise "My Flesh" must not be a literal flesh. Yet that is the issue within your claim: "Eternal life" is not synonymous with "immortal life." Thus, the false equivalency. You didnt say it HE did...He said whoever eats this bread that comes down will live forever...but if its true they ate His flesh and still died...obviously He wasn't literal about eating literal bread and living forever...or eating His flesh called bread and living forever...it was all symbolic they died eating His flesh because He was being symbolic...they died just as those eating the other bread from heaven that is manna did...


Why do you keep using this video as a proof? I have said that the video is inaccurate, as the claims made therein are not true, and bear no evidence to support the claims. This goes back to my first point in this response. How can we progress in discussion when I say "this is false," demonstrating why, yet you say, "this is the truth of your beliefs." Not to be rude, but it is akin to the 3rd grader who says "No, you're wrong, that is a lion" despite being shown a picture of an elephant. At some point, simply defending a video because it supports a point, despite evidence to the contrary, becomes a preference to ignorance.

So, stop using that video as a point. It is a false claim, made by a Catholic who is ignorant on the matter. is it an elephant? That is the discussed here...eating flesh and drinking blood was forbidden by Yah's Law implying His son somehow cleared it to have them eat Him and drink His blood is the elephant...but it is not an elephant because...1) His Son would never counter the will of the Father 2) never taught eat literally my flesh but consume spiritually the bread which the manna was a foreshadowed...

That video is unique as the belief the prohibition to ingest human flesh and drink blood was lifted...it is usually avoided.

Again put it back into the context those that followed Him did not see Him as a passover lamb or that He was going to be killed on passover...so they were having to consider eating Him while living flesh...or somehow kill Him first...He was not offering they eat Him then and there...


Kind of like how Christ said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." yes kinda...its not flesh of the temple that profits...its temporal stones but the Spirit


That goes to my point on clarification. If we posit your position into Scripture, Christ saying the flesh is useless, it would be like saying "He who eats my flesh, which is useless, has eternal life. He who does not eat my flesh, which is useless, has no life with me." Your position renders the whole passage null, because it makes the declaration have no weight or significance. again eating human flesh though prohibited is not however useless...it is filling and has nutritional value...I am saying He is clarifying that the act of eating His flesh is useless to salvation/eternal life as He must be sacrificed as a type of the passover lamb not just randomly eaten...they idea those that left Him with was that eating Him would bring eternal life...that means in that context flesh is useless...it is the Spirit the words He speaks which Peter affirms...NOT saying "you have the flesh" as it was "you have the Words"


Let us consider my quote from 1 Corinthians 11:29. How can improper eating and drinking of a symbol, be worthy of damnation? If we examine the verses preceding verse 29, we are given examples of circumstances which should be addressed before taking Communion. If it is merely a symbol, why do such trivial, and fixable, matters affect the eternal security of a person? How do such matters merit damnation, if one is merely taking part in a symbolic event? Paul here is giving extreme weight to communion, don't you think, if it is "understood" to be a mere symbol. it is not bringing judgement on the groom if he shows up late, or not dressed, or drunk or with another woman? Paul includes the iconic "this do as often as you drink it" so of course the church had to limit it to one sip per day...that is to say as often as you drink could be everyday or any time you drink the fruit of the cup we are to remember...not just on Sunday mornings

Paul writes no list of necessary method or tools/items or prayers or priests...just simply "as often as you drink it"...

(I have come to believe the frequency of THIS REMEMBRANCE was once a year as it was the night before Passover when this bread and wine where symbolically used to remember Him His sacrifice not to ingest Him as comfort food)



That is most likely because John knew that the synoptic gospels already had three accounts of the Last Supper. But the others did not have the depth of teachings and clarifications that his had. Likely? Hardly... John is the spiritual gospel and thus this mystery of the change of substance from literal bread to actual flesh should be front and center...just as the word became flesh...

This is up there with His death and resurrection which is covered by all four...and that being just only accounts of what happened to Him not His mission, teaching, or what He gave to us...and for us to do. This alleged miracle of bread into flesh is teaching without application...for yours it is the very foundation of your mysterious initiations...and to think John the spiritual gospel omitted it.


Pretty much. well sadly jews and catholics are similar as they do rely on icons relics and other idolatries falsifying true worship making of it something it is not...bronze snakes no longer heal the Spirit does...and bread remains bread but the Spirit gives life


This goes back to my point that Christ exists above and outside of morality. If Christ says to do something, or that something is good, then it must be so. Same as God. So, the killing of every man, woman, and child is good, because God deemed it so. Likewise, Christ saying it is good to eat His Flesh, is good because He deemed it so. It isn't a contradiction; it is an exception. right...so don't be so quick to dismiss the brave video crusader who claims human flesh and blood are cleared to consume...you believe He said it so its good


So, you think that Christ when He says "eternal life" means physical immortality? ummm yes of course...the Spirit provides eternal life indeed...not bread or eating His body...

He said "He who comes to me will never hunger" that is understood as to hunger for spiritual food yes or do you think now He is literal as well...


Could you clarify what you meant on this? you said you thought the men who left at the saying were dead...clarifying sprititually...but they were not literally dead despite not having literally pounced on Him and feeding on His flesh



If your claim is that God commands evil, then we are failing to agree on the attributes of God. This would mean that any discussion we have will lack productivity, for we do not agree on God, Himself. If God is contradictory, then He cannot be God. So, if you propose that God can command us to commit evil acts, despite a "change of mind," then we do not agree on God. He said Himself He does and that is not the point. The point is you insist He wishes we eat human flesh and drink His human blood. And since He wills it it then becomes good.


My position is that whatever God/Christ declares, no matter if it is before, during or post, present, then it is wholly Good and True. So, Christ can say, "Eat My Body," before the Resurrection, because He is not limited by the natural law. Because everything He declares and commands is eternally True. so don't balk at hearing you are cannibals or come up with weak excuses like He made human flesh clean meat food.



There are still indulgences. is why I still protest man made traditions...in eating bread and drinking the fruit of the wine I remember His sacrifice His literal blood shedding was enough...in Him I am entirely spared the curse of the law...no need of indulgences reprieve from yet another man made construct...hell...yet another misapplication of what is symbol and literal...not ironic






The rebellion was against the corrupt act of having people pay for indulgences and sacraments. An issue which needed to be addressed. So, that point goes to you. this is bigger than for points


False. It is "wholly" Christ, but not "whole" Christ. A piece of flesh is "wholly," but not "whole." This is basic biology, terminology, and vocabulary. church teaching is clear each piece is the whole body of christ everything that makes christ christ is now substance which appears as bread.


I do have an abhorance to calling it "cannibalism," as it is a false application. Just as you wouldn't say that God "murdered" Christ. This goes back to my point about the attributes of Christ/God, and existing above morality. He didnt murder, He let His Son be murdered is most appropriate and considered a sacrifice.



It is the "continuous remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice." That does not mean, as many twist it, or declare it implies, "still happening." this is not a normal remembrance... it is an act of participation by the fact that it continues...


Also, did you know that "Remembrance" includes "active participation," by definition? I don know and know that the act is over done complete...we have moved on...hence I remember and do not assist in the MASSacre


No. You can eat the moment you leave Mass. I have read you are not to eat from sat night midnight until receiving the host and not to eat for at least an hour...to derive the full benefit of having Him in your belly and intestines and beyond I imagine...


This is Equivocation again. "Light of the world" does not mean physical light. If you insist that this must be metaphorical, then is there electricity in heaven? no probably no neon lights up there...as He is the Light...literally...but down here with us it was symbolic and they still needed torches to locate Him in the garden





I addressed this when I said that Christ can exists outside and above natural law. Can Christ not make something change in substance? After all, He changed water into wine. Can He not change wine into His Blood, yet allow it to still retain the appearance, taste, and biological properties of wine? If not, then He is not God. sure He can but I am claiming He does not...relying on the Spirit to be present not Him actually in the flesh...what I aim to say is if He indeed was miraculously present its odd that the miracle cannot be complete enough that celiac sufferers can eat Him to as there is absolutely now gluten remaining...


I have provided proof of the Eucharist being transformed. It was testable. Verified. And witnessed. It went against the natural law. and if completely flesh I imagine it would then finally be edible to one allergic to gluten...your miracles BTW are incomplete as they only transformed into peices of flesh not the whole body and divinity of Christ...so it is indeed more like pharoah's magicians able to change sticks to snakes


You are taking the position of the Pharisees. Despite knowing and seeing all the prophecies being fulfilled in one person, they refused to believe He was the Christ. Despite the miracles. Despite raising Himself from death. They still refused to believe, despite the physical evidence, witness testimonies, etc. no I am taking the position of Peter who stated it was the words teachings and Spirit of Him...Peter did not say it was the eating His flesh...




This is not making the Law of God void to man-made traditions. This is a straw man argument. Once again, you are placing the existence of natural limits as proofs against miracles. If your position is correct, then Christ could not have risen from the dead. Because what is dead cannot come back to life. It is biologically impossible. Of course He can raise from the dead...just like He could change bread into flesh...that is not the issue...the issue is that you claim the dead is raised and well the carcass just continues to lie there..."no no you only see it as laying there...it really is alive" or as in this case yours claim the bread is flesh and it still causes allergic reaction because it is not flesh but remains bread...maybe He didnt make the miracle complete enough...or at all



I agree. There are numerous instances of this being true. Examples actually abound of this. That is why instances of the Eucharist bleeding are taken so seriously. That is why instances of apparitions are taken skeptically. It takes years and substantial proof to ever declare one "Divine." the bread bleeding so the flesh retains the blood...not kosher...lol...again the flesh is peicemeal and is not the complete body...incomplete miracle indeed..


Is this you arguing again on what Catholics believe, despite the opposite being conveyed? I have read it myself...you eat the whole body not the foot or finger...


The allergen is not the fault of the host, but of the recipient. Mutagens are what cause such inefficiencies. This can get really biological. But, if you wish to go on this tangent, you picked a good source. (I have a Masters in Biology, Minor in Chemistry, Concentration in medical and biochemistry, and am one class away from a minor concentration on Theology) still waiting...biology and chemistry don't care about appearances or that it looks like bread...



Study of Scripture is most important. But, a person truly trying to grow in knowledge will also search and study materials outside of Scripture, as means of deepening faith. Such materials, in my experience, also solidify faith, while providing excellent proofs for when challenged. Hence, my praise of your actual reading of suggested links.
(I always check out links provided by opponents in discussions, as it gives insight to their views, methods of deduction, etc. Learning is learning; and educating oneself on opposition's views/methods/etc gives extra knowledge on the discussion) come let us reason...I still dont think this pomp and ceremony of mystery by the duly initiated is what it pertains to be...




How can a miracle be complete, yet a person being unable to partake fully? Biological inefficiencies, present in individuals, inhibit particular aspects. That is why there are alternate methods, known as exceptions, made for such individuals. If one cannot receive the host, due to gluten allergies, then wine is available, containing the same divinity of the same Christ.
No person has ever been drunk from receiving the wine. One receives a "sip"; not a "gulp" or "swallow." Such small amounts are impossible to make anyone intoxicated. The wine itself contains minimal alcohol. If a person is so addicted that such a small amount is hazardous to their addictions, and they have gluten allergies, then they are clearly not in a state of care, for most liquors contains gluten. drunk from blood even less likely...


Our biological systems reads the host as bread due to the natural composition being bread. Our natural systems can only detect natural elements. Thus, the species in question remain natural in detection and composition. The bread is still bread in nature, but is divinely the Body, Blood, and Divinity of Christ. no its substance has been completely changed into the body


It is the Divine Presence within that is the cause of the miracle. At times, as evidenced by the "Eucharistic Miracles," the natural composition can also change, defying natural law. demonstrating the original intent that the bread actually turns into flesh...a miracle because it is so rare...but supposedly this occurs millions of times every Sunday or whenever else the church sanctions its performance...can't celebrate without the proper procedure yes? Must be valid yada yada yada...


Such occurrences are rare. Even more rare is the occurrence of a person being dead three days, coming to life, then ascending whole and wholly to heaven. Such occurrences defy natural law. Hence, the application of the term, supernatural. Supernatural, by definition, meaning "beyond the natural." indeed...and at anytime time it is not complete it is well not a miracle...imagine being raised in accidents only...


This is how the Eucharist appears, tastes, and is digested, as bread. Due to the physical nature being a bread composition. substance has been transformed into flesh...


It is the Divine Nature which is beneficial to the soul. sadly not available to one suffering cileac disease...

Patrick Cronin
September 7th, 2017, 04:38 PM
If you understood the meaning of 'transubstantiation' you would know that the physical effects of eating bread, whether it is consecrated or not, are exactly the same. The fact that that some of the human race have the disability of coeliac disease does not call into question the fact that God created wheat. In any case Catholics do not have to "do without" the real presence because He is fully present in the consecrated wine.
It is not the dead Jesus that is received in Catholic Holy Communion, it is the living Jesus. "I am the LIVING bread that has come down from heaven"....".He that eats ME the same also will live by me"(John 6:51)and (John 6:57).

clefty
September 8th, 2017, 08:41 PM
If you understood the meaning of 'transubstantiation' you would know that the physical effects of eating bread, whether it is consecrated or not, are exactly the same.exactly the same more because nothing actually happens, less its just the accidents remain.

The substance is actually not transed or changed and thus our biology, not the senses, responds to it being bread and not flesh or blood. Were it actually flesh which merely looked like bread our biology would ingest it as flesh and not care what are senses perceived it as...


The fact that that some of the human race have the disability of coeliac disease does not call into question the fact that God created wheat. so true...and the fact that some people are born with a club foot does not call into question the fact that God created the ground. The fact that the church added her own laws to a remembrance ceremony has initiates doing something that is actually bad for them...as if He would want us to do that


In any case Catholics do not have to "do without" the real presence because He is fully present in the consecrated wine. ah yes the wine...fruit of the vine or cup...was it really alcholic? Or fresh grape juice...for years the wine wasn't even dispensed but the bread alone...also odd

Odd too He has us do something He Himself will not do til later...will that drink turn to blood as well?


It is not the dead Jesus that is received in Catholic Holy Communion, it is the living Jesus. even more creepy...cannibals at least wait for the body to die...understandable some turned as they could not pounce on Him and begin eating


"I am the LIVING bread that has come down from heaven"....".He that eats ME the same also will live by me"(John 6:51) and (John 6:57) so by "live" which life is He speaking of? one must be alive in order to eat yes? So perhaps maybe just maybe He meant spiritually...hint He does say "live forever"

He is actually not a literal loaf of bread come down from heaven and people have to already be alive in order to eat it yes? Maybe just maybe He is making some metaphor about physical and spiritual bread and life...I mean those that "eat Him" still die yes? So maybe just maybe He was speaking of a spiritual life not the physical life eating daily bread given...

He did give of His flesh...not to be eaten...but to die for the life of the world...

He lives because of His Father...interesting...(trinitarians take note)...so it is by the Spirit yes? Or does He have to eat bread or some other symbol of His Father in order to live as well?

jsanford108
September 12th, 2017, 10:57 AM
Before we can be productive in any capacity, we must agree on basic principles. In a theological discussion such as ours, the first thing that we must agree on is God.

Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108: "How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe?"

because verse 63 is our dispute...you claim flesh means seeing things from a eyes of the flesh unable to see the actual miracle...I claim flesh means by actually eating Him especially at this point in the narrative where He did not offer His body even as bread but just claimed it was food and they were oblivious to the understanding He was actually going to die and on Passover as our substitute...all this at this context at this time in John 6 was not Him advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh...that would profit nothing...it is NOT even about not seeing things spiritual of the flesh

You have missed my point. I know that we are going to disagree on interpretation. Obviously. But if I say say "I believe X," and you say "You believe Y," you are simply wrong. I would definitely know more about what I believe than you. So, if I say "I believe X," it must be accepted as fact, since I am the only source of knowledge on my personal beliefs.
Furthermore, if I present information, such as "Catholics believe X," it is illogical for you, a protestant, to refute it, as it is a simple fact. Anything taught or believed by Catholics, unlike any other denomination, is easily found in a single book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). If there is any one who says, "well that is not really what they believe," they are preferring ignorance to truth. Now, I am no authority on the Catholic Church, but my knowledge, as a Catholic, of what is actually taught and believed is most likely more concise than that of a protestant. And my knowledge of my personal beliefs are superior to that of anyone else. So, you can't refute my belief by saying "that is not what you believe."

Now, for the passage from John 6. You are being intellectually dishonest when you imply that a literal interpretation of flesh would lead to Christ "advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh." The reason I classify this as "intellectually dishonest," is because you do not apply the same scenarios to figurative examples, nor to examples of passages that you do take literally. For example, when Christ tells the rich man to go and sell all that he has, surely you don't think Christ means go sell everything, even your clothing, rendering the man nude. That would be "everything." You don't believe when Christ says "tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it" means that at that very moment Christ was calling them to kill Him on the spot. But that is the implication you add into John 6:48-58, if Christ meant a literal consumption. Hence, the applied term of intellectual dishonesty. You are only using immediate literal actions to apply to situational interpretations that you oppose, in order to "expose" the error of such interpretation.


You didnt say it HE did...He said whoever eats this bread that comes down will live forever...but if its true they ate His flesh and still died...obviously He wasn't literal about eating literal bread and living forever...or eating His flesh called bread and living forever...it was all symbolic they died eating His flesh because He was being symbolic...they died just as those eating the other bread from heaven that is manna did... Once again, you are using the fallacy of Equivocation. You know, as do I, that when Christ says "live forever" in the passage of John 6, He means "eternal life in heaven." We are not in dispute on that. But you insist that I must utilize meanings and implications of immortality. Yet, you do not use this in other passages when Christ speaks of "living forever." You are falsely applying ideas to my position.

Also, if Christ was being solely symbolic, then, using your own logic that you utilize against me, then no one will ever live forever, even eternally. Because, "He was being symbolic." You could argue, but using your logic, I just retort, "no, He was being symbolic."


That video is unique as the belief the prohibition to ingest human flesh and drink blood was lifted...it is usually avoided. Yet time and again, I have said that the "Catholic" in the video is wrong. Yet you insist that he is correct. This goes back to my first point in this post; you cannot argue against fact. The fact is, that the "Catholic" in that video was wrong. I am declaring, "He is wrong. That is not what Catholics believe; there is no evidence to support his arguments." These are all facts. Yet you keep insisting that he is accurate to the beliefs of Catholicism. This is preferring ignorance to truth.


Again put it back into the context those that followed Him did not see Him as a passover lamb or that He was going to be killed on passover...so they were having to consider eating Him while living flesh...or somehow kill Him first...He was not offering they eat Him then and there... So, the Apostles didn't consider Christ to be the Lamb of God? (Christ is specifically called "Lamb of God" in the John's Gospel)


I am saying He is clarifying that the act of eating His flesh is useless to salvation/eternal life as He must be sacrificed as a type of the passover lamb not just randomly eaten...they idea those that left Him with was that eating Him would bring eternal life...that means in that context flesh is useless...it is the Spirit the words He speaks which Peter affirms...NOT saying "you have the flesh" as it was "you have the Words" So, was Christ "The Word made flesh?" If so, my position stands.


it is not bringing judgement on the groom if he shows up late, or not dressed, or drunk or with another woman? Paul includes the iconic "this do as often as you drink it" so of course the church had to limit it to one sip per day...that is to say as often as you drink could be everyday or any time you drink the fruit of the cup we are to remember...not just on Sunday mornings You are shying away from the question. Why does Paul give such gravity to eating and drinking unworthily? Mere Symbolism does not bear grave consequences.



(I have come to believe the frequency of THIS REMEMBRANCE was once a year as it was the night before Passover when this bread and wine where symbolically used to remember Him His sacrifice not to ingest Him as comfort food) I have no argument against this that is of any substance. When I was a protestant, I thought the same way; so I understand your logic there.



Likely? Hardly... John is the spiritual gospel and thus this mystery of the change of substance from literal bread to actual flesh should be front and center...just as the word became flesh... So, "word" can be "flesh." Interesting.



well sadly jews and catholics are similar as they do rely on icons relics and other idolatries falsifying true worship making of it something it is not... This is a whole different topic. But a common misapplication is the idolatry claims against Catholics.


right...so don't be so quick to dismiss the brave video crusader who claims human flesh and blood are cleared to consume...you believe He said it so its good Is my claim Christ commanded us to "Eat His Flesh," or "eat all flesh?" See the false equivalence you are implying?


ummm yes of course...the Spirit provides eternal life indeed...not bread or eating His body... Where are we provided the limits of the Holy Spirit? I never saw a list or set of circumstances in Scripture.


He said "He who comes to me will never hunger" that is understood as to hunger for spiritual food yes or do you think now He is literal as well... You are using Equivocation again.


you said you thought the men who left at the saying were dead...clarifying sprititually...but they were not literally dead despite not having literally pounced on Him and feeding on His flesh Right. We are in agreement here.



He said Himself He does and that is not the point. The point is you insist He wishes we eat human flesh and drink His human blood. And since He wills it it then becomes good. Nope. I insist that He wants us to eat "His Flesh." And yes, if Christ wills it, it is good.


so don't balk at hearing you are cannibals or come up with weak excuses like He made human flesh clean meat food. So I shouldn't balk at falsehoods? This is becoming more liberal by the second.



is why I still protest man made traditions...in eating bread and drinking the fruit of the wine I remember His sacrifice His literal blood shedding was enough...in Him I am entirely spared the curse of the law...no need of indulgences reprieve from yet another man made construct...hell...yet another misapplication of what is symbol and literal...not ironic Where are your proofs for "entirely spared the curse of the law," "man made constructs," etc.?


church teaching is clear each piece is the whole body of christ everything that makes christ christ is now substance which appears as bread. Can you provide these teachings? The CCC says "wholly Christ," not "whole Christ," in terms of physical manifestation.


He didnt murder, He let His Son be murdered is most appropriate and considered a sacrifice. If God did not murder (being the term applied to sin), then Christ did not command us to cannibalize (being the term applied to sin). You are not distributing connotations evenly.



this is not a normal remembrance... it is an act of participation by the fact that it continues... It was not a "normal" event.


I don know and know that the act is over done complete...we have moved on...hence I remember and do not assist in the MASSacre Using your logic, then the redemptive aspects are ened, which would mean than no one today is redeemed.


I have read you are not to eat from sat night midnight until receiving the host and not to eat for at least an hour... Those readings are false. The appropriate time is fasting for an hour before Communion. That is all. You can eat afterwards. Every Sunday is a day of feasting, post Mass.


no probably no neon lights up there...as He is the Light...literally...but down here with us it was symbolic and they still needed torches to locate Him in the garden But, how can Christ interchange symbolism with literal? By your logic with John 6, Christ never did that. So, by your logic, Christ is literal light, or figurative light, solely. No interchanging.





sure He can but I am claiming He does not...relying on the Spirit to be present not Him actually in the flesh... So, Christ and the Spirit are not One? If you do not believe in the Trinity, then that is another principle that hinders productive discussion.


...your miracles BTW are incomplete as they only transformed into peices of flesh not the whole body and divinity of Christ... You are preferring ignorance again. I have stated that it is "wholly" in substance, not physical manifestation.


no I am taking the position of Peter who stated it was the words teachings and Spirit of Him...Peter did not say it was the eating His flesh... Why then do disciples of Peter and other Apostles say the opposite? Why would they let such idolatry and falsehoods go viral? Seems counter intuitive. Especially when these disciples state that Peter and the Apostles taught this, as well. (These are historical facts, evidenced in annals of history)




Of course He can raise from the dead...just like He could change bread into flesh...that is not the issue...the issue is that you claim the dead is raised and well the carcass just continues to lie there..."no no you only see it as laying there...it really is alive" or as in this case yours claim the bread is flesh and it still causes allergic reaction because it is not flesh but remains bread...maybe He didnt make the miracle complete enough...or at all So you don't think the dead were raised? Because, I believe that if it is stated, then it must be true. The dead were raised after the Resurrection. It says that in Scripture, by the way. Nowhere have I claimed the dead just lie there. You must be referring to when I applied your "consistency logic" from John 6, to raising the dead.



the bread bleeding so the flesh retains the blood...still waiting...biology and chemistry don't care about appearances or that it looks like bread... At this point, you are ignoring the biological evidence that I put forth. You are not simply denying; preferring the ignorance to evidence provided. You are refusing to concede on logic, so that your position and doctrine "hold true," despite being proven otherwise.



come let us reason...I still dont think this pomp and ceremony of mystery by the duly initiated is what it pertains to be... You are refusing to accept reason.




sadly not available to one suffering cileac disease... You have been given information that disproves this point/claim. Yet, you insist on clinging to this claim, contrary to evidence provided. Refusing to accept logical analysis, biological evidence, Scriptural evidence, etc. is, as stated before, preferring ignorance. You are refusing to accept even proven evidence of circumstances (Eucharistic Miracles). You refuse to see what is observable; turning away from truth with feverish dedication.

clefty
September 17th, 2017, 03:40 AM
Before we can be productive in any capacity, we must agree on basic principles. In a theological discussion such as ours, the first thing that we must agree on is God.

Ok...good

you say He had a Son Who taught eating His human flesh and drinking blood was good and that He taught people to do so...and at that time john 6 without the teaching aids of the elements bread and wine...He was just out in the street talking "about eat My flesh"

to those who had a hard time even seeing Him killed much less a sacrifice

much less overturning His Father's law against eating human flesh and drinking blood...

I maintain God had a Son Who taught the words He spoke/the Spirit in Him were life indeed as He was the antitype of manna. He clarified His teaching that it was not eaten His flesh that profited...but His teaching...the Spirit...it was always "mercy rather than sacrifice"...sacrifices were merely symbolic...


Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108: "How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe?"


You have missed my point. I know that we are going to disagree on interpretation. Obviously. But if I say say "I believe X," and you say "You believe Y," you are simply wrong. I would definitely know more about what I believe than you. So, if I say "I believe X," it must be accepted as fact, since I am the only source of knowledge on my personal beliefs.
Furthermore, if I present information, such as "Catholics believe X," it is illogical for you, a protestant, to refute it, as it is a simple fact. Anything taught or believed by Catholics, unlike any other denomination, is easily found in a single book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). If there is any one who says, "well that is not really what they believe," they are preferring ignorance to truth. Now, I am no authority on the Catholic Church, but my knowledge, as a Catholic, of what is actually taught and believed is most likely more concise than that of a protestant. And my knowledge of my personal beliefs are superior to that of anyone else. So, you can't refute my belief by saying "that is not what you believe." feel better?


Now, for the passage from John 6. You are being intellectually dishonest when you imply that a literal interpretation of flesh would lead to Christ "advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh." The reason I classify this as "intellectually dishonest," is because you do not apply the same scenarios to figurative examples, nor to examples of passages that you do take literally. ummm wut? When He says "I am the door" you are right...I dont look for a door bell or knocker because it is understood it is not literal.

He did not specify when they were to eat His body so if you take it literally that would be a key element or else "gnaw on Him" immediately.

He didnt even clarify He had to die first. So if He was not being symbolic but literal His death (when why how) was a factor. Or were they to eat Him while He was yet living...


For example, when Christ tells the rich man to go and sell all that he has, surely you don't think Christ means go sell everything, even your clothing, rendering the man nude. That would be "everything" is exactly why the rich man walked away...and thus a teaching of how hard it was for a rich man to enter


You don't believe when Christ says "tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it" means that at that very moment Christ was calling them to kill Him on the spot. right...nobody did...they thought He was talking about the actual temple...in fact John clarifies it that after His death the disciples got it that He was talking about His Body...some teachings take awhile to understand...but not as long as transubstantiation with its Aristotelian accidents and substances rites and procedures and et al...(it's still developing)



But that is the implication you add into John 6:48-58, if Christ meant a literal consumption. Hence, the applied term of intellectual dishonesty. You are only using immediate literal actions to apply to situational interpretations that you oppose, in order to "expose" the error of such interpretation. oh boy...again...

the people thought He spoke of the Temple...He did not clarify it was His body...so being literal was not corrected...later it was understood

but when the people thought it was His literal body He spoke of, as in "gnaw My flesh", He gave no specifications such as "through the elements of substance changing bread and wine as I die at Passover"...so it is remains a hard saying...and/but yes later He actually does clarify that eating His flesh would profit nothing...


Once again, you are using the fallacy of Equivocation. You know, as do I, that when Christ says "live forever" in the passage of John 6, He means "eternal life in heaven." We are not in dispute on that. But you insist that I must utilize meanings and implications of immortality. Yet, you do not use this in other passages when Christ speaks of "living forever." You are falsely applying ideas to my position. no because the disciples ate His body according to you and yet still died...thus He lied in His teaching that eat this bread you will live forever...

He did not lie if it is understood as a spiritual lesson...a symbol of belief in Him...not eating Him


Also, if Christ was being solely symbolic, then, using your own logic that you utilize against me, then no one will ever live forever, even eternally. Because, "He was being symbolic." You could argue, but using your logic, I just retort, "no, He was being symbolic." wut? It remains believe in Him...not actually eating Him as that in this spiritual context profits nothing.


Yet time and again, I have said that the "Catholic" in the video is wrong. Yet you insist that he is correct. This goes back to my first point in this post; you cannot argue against fact. The fact is, that the "Catholic" in that video was wrong. I am declaring, "He is wrong. That is not what Catholics believe; there is no evidence to support his arguments." These are all facts. Yet you keep insisting that he is accurate to the beliefs of Catholicism. This is preferring ignorance to truth. Then it has NOT been cleared to eat human flesh and drink blood...


So, the Apostles didn't consider Christ to be the Lamb of God? (Christ is specifically called "Lamb of God" in the John's Gospel) good grief...of course they did...but they dont expect to have to sheer His wool...and be mindful the Passover lamb was not a sin offering...critical issue at this point


So, was Christ "The Word made flesh?" If so, my position stands. indeed the word became flesh...human flesh and blood...thus your position stands but is not cleared as consumption of human flesh and blood remains prohibited


You are shying away from the question. Why does Paul give such gravity to eating and drinking unworthily? Mere Symbolism does not bear grave consequences. sure it does...statues are still being knocked down...(imagine if they were the idols of white virgin Marys)...

you dont burn money do you?



I have no argument against this that is of any substance. When I was a protestant, I thought the same way; so I understand your logic there. but as a catholic logic fails as it is turned to flesh only on Sundays (or prescribed times) and not whenever you eat or drink of it...and only through a certain sequence with proper tools and valid prayers and good standing priest...and so it goes...and still toxic to one with celiac disease as the body does not digest it as Him but bread



So, "word" can be "flesh." Interesting. sure...and to be sacrificed once not in continuity...and certainly not to be eaten



This is a whole different topic. But a common misapplication is the idolatry claims against Catholics. false worship is idolatry...is all


Is my claim Christ commanded us to "Eat His Flesh," or "eat all flesh?" See the false equivalence you are implying? His flesh was human as was His blood...He said it was good food...didnt give a time frame when it was to be served...

Paul warned the Galatians not to be destroyed by each other with all the biting and devouring...perhaps he too didnt mean it symbolically...


Where are we provided the limits of the Holy Spirit? I never saw a list or set of circumstances in Scripture. Holy Spirit would not do something outside of the Father's will...entering bread to turn into human flesh to be eaten as flesh and blood is not in line with that...now your church does have a very prescribed list of when how who performs etc...


You are using Equivocation again. not at all...the people followed Him because He made food they could eat...He even knew that

But His saying that by "eating the bread He gives one will never hunger again" is a spiritual lesson not literal...or else the baker's would have crucified Him...


Right. We are in agreement here. because you clarified the spiritual aspect



Nope. I insist that He wants us to eat "His Flesh." And yes, if Christ wills it, it is good. His flesh was human as was His blood...so Paul was literal with his caution to the Galatians to not actually destroy each other as they bit and devoured?


So I shouldn't balk at falsehoods? This is becoming more liberal by the second. hey consuming human flesh and devouring blood is Saturnalian not just liberal...sadly just one aspect of Sun god worship



Where are your proofs for "entirely spared the curse of the law," "man made constructs," etc.?

Gal. 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"

Eccl. 9:5 "...dead know nothing..."


Can you provide these teachings? The CCC says "wholly Christ," not "whole Christ," in terms of physical manifestation.

"Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; like the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof." Council of Trent, session XIII, chapter III

So apparently if you get both species you get two Christs...double down I guess...unless your host crumbles then every crumb contains yet another whole Christ...and so it goes...


If God did not murder (being the term applied to sin), then Christ did not command us to cannibalize (being the term applied to sin). You are not distributing connotations evenly. He allowed the murder of His Son...a sin...His Son forgave even them...no record on forgiveness for eating His human flesh...



It was not a "normal" event. as far as remembrances go it is normal...eat bread drink fruit of the cup the night before passover is a normal remembrance...remember John actually leaves out the institution of the Eucharist its magically bread to flesh...ironic as he supposedly records its teaching




Using your logic, then the redemptive aspects are ened, which would mean than no one today is redeemed. wut? So because the Red Sea was crossed any believing they are a jew must recross that sea...and on dry land? What was done redeems those that believe it was done finished completely...thus we believe in things not seen...that is faith...there is no need to be present...to cross the sea again


Those readings are false. read it myself...lots of complaints about the loosening up of the traditions


The appropriate time is fasting for an hour before Communion. That is all. again I have read otherwise from those in authority...


You can eat afterwards. not immediately...would be a disrespect "the Christ within" the stomach to follow up with a cheeseburger at the pew...and not because its not kosher


Sunday is a day of feasting, post Mass. on Ham no less...not ironic


But, how can Christ interchange symbolism with literal? By your logic with John 6, Christ never did that. So, by your logic, Christ is literal light, or figurative light, solely. No interchanging. wow...because He did not teach to pounce "gnaw" on His flesh then and there in John 6 or ever...does not mean He could not have interchanged figurative with literal...or never provided His actual flesh...He could have but would not as again that is against His Father's will...and unprofitable







So, Christ and the Spirit are not One? If you do not believe in the Trinity, then that is another principle that hinders productive discussion. The Spirit is present as we believe in the teachings of the Son the Father sent. It is this Spirit that is life the consuming of flesh profits nothing.


You are preferring ignorance again. I have stated that it is "wholly" in substance, not physical manifestation. the teaching is the whole body...not just heart tissue...or finger


Why then do disciples of Peter and other Apostles say the opposite? Why would they let such idolatry and falsehoods go viral? Seems counter intuitive. Especially when these disciples state that Peter and the Apostles taught this, as well. (These are historical facts, evidenced in annals of history)

Peter doesnt say the opposite...Peter says it is the words He has which are eternal life not the flesh...Peter remains kosher...not eating of the unclean...human flesh is certainly not food...yes?

As for going viral...Satan has found many useful tools to create false worship...the peer pressure you call Sacred Tradition is exactly what Peter and Paul warned the flock of...false teachers wolves in sheep clothes




So you don't think the dead were raised? Because, I believe that if it is stated, then it must be true. The dead were raised after the Resurrection. It says that in Scripture, by the way. Nowhere have I claimed the dead just lie there. You must be referring to when I applied your "consistency logic" from John 6, to raising the dead. of course they were raised...not just their accidents but substance too...in other words miracles are complete...not appearing as bread but really flesh to by digested yet still allergic to one with celiac disease...

Why still hide flesh as bread...be complete...

The dead raised were completely raised not just their accidents...

Yet this miracle bread into flesh is digested as bread not flesh...our systems can digest both but the celiac sufferer is only allergic to one...bread...but which you claim is flesh



At this point, you are ignoring the biological evidence that I put forth. You are not simply denying; preferring the ignorance to evidence provided. You are refusing to concede on logic, so that your position and doctrine "hold true," despite being proven otherwise.

Be a good teacher then and repeat your lesson...dumb it down for me...

You provided examples of bread which bleeds...miracle...ok then if it were complete that bleeding bread would not cause allergic reaction as it is now no longer bread...but flesh...no gluten...

However those who receive of the host suffering celiac disease still have allergic responses which now means they are to forgo the very thing which was to provide comfort...



You are refusing to accept reason. it is more reasonable to me that He was symbolic not advocating canabalism which would be against His Father's will...

He is also the Light of the world but for now we still need electricity...




You have been given information that disproves this point/claim. Yet, you insist on clinging to this claim, contrary to evidence provided. Refusing to accept logical analysis, biological evidence, Scriptural evidence, etc. is, as stated before, preferring ignorance. You are refusing to accept even proven evidence of circumstances (Eucharistic Miracles). You refuse to see what is observable; turning away from truth with feverish dedication.

I dont need to see what is observable obviously I need to understand why the bread now allegedly flesh is still creating allergic responses to those with celiac disease...I care not what it appears like...could appear as bread fruit a book or city bus but the biology of digestion still maintains it has gluten...and to one suffering celiac disease that is not a good thing...hence not a good miracle...as it was not to be bread fruit a book or city bus but the flesh...gluten is from bread

Patrick Cronin
October 1st, 2017, 05:02 PM
How can you say that the eternal life promised by Christ to those who eat His flesh, does not mean the same thing as being immortal? 'Eternal' necessarily means that it will not end. It follows then that a person receiving the living Christ in the Eucharist will actually live for ever. Like Christ Himself "death will have no more power over him".

clefty
October 7th, 2017, 05:06 PM
How can you say that the eternal life promised by Christ to those who eat His flesh, does not mean the same thing as being immortal? 'Eternal' necessarily means that it will not end. It follows then that a person receiving the living Christ in the Eucharist will actually live for ever. Like Christ Himself "death will have no more power over him".

All who ate of the bread died...obviously He was speaking of spiritual matters symbolized by the bread

clefty
October 7th, 2017, 05:13 PM
Before we can be productive in any capacity, we must agree on basic principles. In a theological discussion such as ours, the first thing that we must agree on is God. well your God has a Son that counters His Law not to eat human flesh or blood...my God had a Son who did not counter His Father's will or prohibitions, nor did He offer up His body to be eaten literally in John 6 as was mistakenly thought by some who left Him...He clarified it was the Spirit that brought life...

Even later John leaves out the actual offering of the bread and fruit of the cup...apparently not significant enough for him to retell...its mysterious miracle

But footwashing yes...John included that

Patrick Cronin
October 24th, 2017, 10:31 PM
Of course everyone dies in this earthly life, the point is that Jesus is promising escape from death for those who in faith receive the new bread of Life (Himself), They will rise again at the last day just as He escaped from death by His resurrection. "I will raise him up on the last day".

patrick jane
October 24th, 2017, 10:41 PM
Of course everyone dies in this earthly life, the point is that Jesus is promising escape from death for those who in faith receive the new bread of Life (Himself), They will rise again at the last day just as He escaped from death by His resurrection. "I will raise him up on the last day".EE?

clefty
October 26th, 2017, 08:47 AM
Of course everyone dies in this earthly life, exactly...He was discussing things of the spiritual realm not eat this bread literally which is My Body actually but using it all as a type/symbol of how to reach eternal life literally through spiritual means actually...


the point is that Jesus is promising escape from death yes again...not the physical temporal realm...but the second death the eternal hell of separation from Yah


for those who in faith receive the new bread of Life (Himself), yes and by receive He meant believe in Him and obey not gnaw on His flesh


They will rise again at the last day just as He escaped from death by His resurrection. "I will raise him up on the last day". it remains the power of Spirit not the flesh temporal magic bread

Patrick Cronin
October 29th, 2017, 09:52 PM
No one has ever thought that Jesus promised that His followers would not suffer physical death. In the same chapter about the eucharist, Jesus says repeatedly "I will raise him up ON THE LAST DAY".(John 6:40)(meaning that we would all die first.)
Many people refused to believe Jesus when He said "I am the living bread that has come down from heaven.....This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world"(John 6:51) They complained "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"(John6:52). The answer Jesus gave is crystal clear, in fact he repeats the same thing FIVE times, each time in a slightly different way to prove there is no mistake:": I tell you the truth, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you"(John 6:53). You can read the subsequent verses (John 6:54-58)to confirm this. That is the crucial test of faith! It is very significant that in John 6:66 we are told "many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him". How did Jesus respond to that? Did He call them back and say 'Don't go away, you have misunderstood was I said". On the contrary, Jesus then asked the Twelve "You do not want to leave too, do you?". This is because for Jesus it was essential that His followers believe that He intended to give us His flesh to eat! The tragedy is, that if those who left Jesus had known that the flesh and blood of Jesus would be given to them under the form of simple bread and wine it would have at once dispelled their fears that Jesus was talking about some form of cannibalism. Cannibals eat dead flesh- Christians receive the living risen Jesus: "I am the LIVING bread who has come down from heaven.."(John6:51) Can God do that?- God can do anything!

clefty
October 31st, 2017, 10:25 AM
No one has ever thought that Jesus promised that His followers would not suffer physical death. In the same chapter about the eucharist, Jesus says repeatedly "I will raise him up ON THE LAST DAY".(John 6:40)(meaning that we would all die first.) right not confusing things spiritual with those physical...His stating none will die eating Him was meant spiritually as a metaphor but some took it literally...(unbelievers still do BTW)...


Many people refused to believe Jesus when He said "I am the living bread that has come down from heaven.....This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world"(John 6:51) They complained "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"(John6:52). The answer Jesus gave is crystal clear, in fact he repeats the same thing FIVE times, each time in a slightly different way to prove there is no mistake:": I tell you the truth, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you"(John 6:53). You can read the subsequent verses (John 6:54-58)to confirm this. That is the crucial test of faith! It is very significant that in John 6:66 we are told "many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him". How did Jesus respond to that? Did He call them back and say 'Don't go away, you have misunderstood was I said". On the contrary, Jesus then asked the Twelve "You do not want to leave too, do you?". right He did clarify it by saying it is the Spirit not flesh that matters...at any point He could have mentioned His flesh would be in bread form He would offer later...but He didn't...

and when asking if the rest of the disciples were going to leave after clarifying His teaching is the Spirit is the life not the flesh...Peter affirmed and confirmed he understood this teaching with his answer "you have the words of life"..."eternal life" notice he didn't say you have the flesh of life or even you are the bread of life...but you have the words which are the Spirit...His teachings...



This is because for Jesus it was essential that His followers believe that He intended to give us His flesh to eat! The tragedy is, that if those who left Jesus had known that the flesh and blood of Jesus would be given to them under the form of simple bread and wine it would have at once dispelled their fears that Jesus was talking about some form of cannibalism. Cannibals eat dead flesh- Christians receive the living risen Jesus: "I am the LIVING bread who has come down from heaven.."(John6:51) Can God do that?- God can do anything!

Yes He can do anything...but that He does not is evident as those suffering celiac disease respond negatively to gluten when ingesting the host which should now be flesh...or does His flesh have gluten?

Why is it necessary to be under the form of bread when He could do anything? Even make cannibalism ok?

Right Divider
October 31st, 2017, 10:50 AM
No one has ever thought that Jesus promised that His followers would not suffer physical death. In the same chapter about the eucharist, Jesus says repeatedly "I will raise him up ON THE LAST DAY".(John 6:40)(meaning that we would all die first.)
I believe that this raising up refers to the resurrection of believing Israel into their kingdom per Ezekiel 37

When Jesus originally sent the twelve out to preach the kingdom to Israel, they were told to raise the dead (Matt 10:8). Of course later, in Acts 12, when James is murdered... they did not raise him from the dead. Something had changed.

Sleekbacksmile
November 1st, 2017, 11:17 PM
.
The Catholic Church simply failed to take into account the hundreds upon hundreds of Hebrew symbolic verses relating Eating as symbolic