Arguing with a Protestant?

[m3rc3d3s190]

Look at your history man, Protestants think that all of sudden when their Pastor started their congregation Christianity picked up again. Overthrowing what their early Chuch Fathers were doing, before we were given the new Testament.Go to google man, put the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, and guess who made it, St. Luke. This is one of the reasons why he is the Patron Saints of Artists
Referring to our Mother, be careful in the way you speak of her, remember that’s God Mother, he told us to Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, he said that in both Old and New Testament, so have respect for her. In reference to were she appears, I’m going to give you several verses, that happened after Jesus Crucifixation
The Most common one is Revelation 12:! (read that several times carefully man) look at Acts 1:12, read how their picking a succesor for Judas were Peter is leading the meeting, read the names of who was there, the Apostles and Mary the Mother of God. Isn’t that ironic man? Open up your heart to Virgin Mary man, Jesus gave he to all of us when he was at the cross, Jesus said I’m leaving her to you. She is not at the same level as God, but man guess what, Jesus will never turn down his mom.

Hello man, I could not help but smile constantly while reading your response! You are funny, man! I wish I could keep this up pre-teen style of writing, man, but I can’t.

You referenced Acts 1:12 but the last place where Mary was mentioned was in fact Acts 1:14. Here is the verse, for your reference: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” If Mary is the mother of God, according to you, why was she praying? And if, according to the Roman church, Mary is co-mediatrix, then why does 1 Timothy 2:5 say “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”? Luke didn’t make anything, please do not pass off traditions as facts. That’s “letting go of the commands of God and holding on to the traditions of men,” and it’s not my insight: Look at Mark 7:8 for the context of this sentence. And once again, read Exodus 20:4. And you would also find 1 Corinthians 12:2 interesting.

 

[chero23]

Hello man, I could not help but smile constantly while reading your response! You are funny, man! I wish I could keep this up pre-teen style of writing, man, but I can’t.

You referenced Acts 1:12 but the last place where Mary was mentioned was in fact Acts 1:14. Here is the verse, for your reference: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” If Mary is the mother of God, according to you, why was she praying? And if, according to the Roman church, Mary is co-mediatrix, then why does 1 Timothy 2:5 say “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”? Luke didn’t make anything, please do not pass off traditions as facts. That’s “letting go of the commands of God and holding on to the traditions of men,” and it’s not my insight: Look at Mark 7:8 for the context of this sentence. And once again, read Exodus 20:4. And you would also find 1 Corinthians 12:2 interesting.

Let me ask you something are you what we hispanics called Machistas? Do you use women as rags, use and leave them not worry about their feelings? You keep quoting exodus, but why don’t you look at where The Archangel Gabriel presents himself to Mary. How does he present himself to Mary, doesn’t he say Hail, full of grace. Back then (since your calling my writting pre-teen, I guess your not educated yourself) but when a person used the word Hail, they were referring to royalty. God had to let the Archangel Gabrielknow that, hey this is a very special person treat her with the highest of esteem, that is the reason why he said Hail, Full of Grace.
Why couldn’t you answer the question about your church? B/c you well know that your Church was man-made, they try to throw away Centuries and Centuries of how Chritianity really was?
Going back to Mary, Remember how jesus was approached by the young man, and he tells him what do I have to do to go to heaven. One of the responses that Jesus Says is Honor thy father and thy Mother. So goig back to the question if your a Machista or not, do you think God used Mary as a rag, or do you think as we Catholics do, that she is someone really important? You can’t have it both ways, either they just used her, contradicting, the Commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, or she is someone special.
BTW did you look that up about the statue? Look it up man, you’ll be surprised

 

[rfournier103]

For mercedes190:

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

(Courtesy of ScriptureCatholic.com)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hello man, I could not help but smile constantly while reading your response! You are funny, man! I wish I could keep this up pre-teen style of writing, man, but I can’t.

You referenced Acts 1:12 but the last place where Mary was mentioned was in fact Acts 1:14. Here is the verse, for your reference: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” If Mary is the mother of God, according to you, why was she praying? And if, according to the Roman church, Mary is co-mediatrix, then why does 1 Timothy 2:5 say “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”? Luke didn’t make anything, please do not pass off traditions as facts. That’s “letting go of the commands of God and holding on to the traditions of men,” and it’s not my insight: Look at Mark 7:8 for the context of this sentence. And once again, read Exodus 20:4. And you would also find 1 Corinthians 12:2 interesting.

Why did Jesus pray to His Father?

 

[rfournier103]

Also for mercedes190:

The WORD “Pope” is not in the Bible. Neither is “Bible” nor “Trinity”. Christ built His Church on the rock of Peter, did He not? Matt 16:18. Peter and his successors are the “Vicars of Christ” on Earth.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

These few citations point out that Christ established the Catholic Church (under GOD’S AUTHORITY) to shepherd us until His return. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ 2,000 years ago. Whatever ecclesiastical community you belong to is not nearly that old, and was NOT founded by Christ.

 

[rfournier103]

PS: I’m starting to think there’s a vacancy under a bridge someplace…

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Let me ask you something are you what we hispanics called Machistas? Do you use women as rags, use and leave them not worry about their feelings? You keep quoting exodus, but why don’t you look at where The Archangel Gabriel presents himself to Mary. How does he present himself to Mary, doesn’t he say Hail, full of grace. Back then (since your calling my writting pre-teen, I guess your not educated yourself) but when a person used the word Hail, they were referring to royalty. God had to let the Archangel Gabrielknow that, hey this is a very special person treat her with the highest of esteem, that is the reason why he said Hail, Full of Grace.
Why couldn’t you answer the question about your church? B/c you well know that your Church was man-made, they try to throw away Centuries and Centuries of how Chritianity really was?
Going back to Mary, Remember how jesus was approached by the young man, and he tells him what do I have to do to go to heaven. One of the responses that Jesus Says is Honor thy father and thy Mother. So goig back to the question if your a Machista or not, do you think God used Mary as a rag, or do you think as we Catholics do, that she is someone really important? You can’t have it both ways, either they just used her, contradicting, the Commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, or she is someone special.
BTW did you look that up about the statue? Look it up man, you’ll be surprised

You don’t merit any responses from me so this will be my last one to you: I know everything about the painting/statue, and I am not surprised that you believe fiction can become fact. What is the provenance of the painting/statue? Do you know? [Apparently not] Please read Luke 1:38 in which Mary refers to herself as “handmaiden.” I prefer to use enthymemes when discussing with someone so as not to insult their intelligence. Therefore, I will leave you to come to your own conclusions about why I referenced the verse I did. Have a great evening!

 

[chero23]

You don’t merit any responses from me so this will be my last one to you: I know everything about the painting/statue, and I am not surprised that you believe fiction can become fact. What is the provenance of the painting/statue? Do you know? [Apparently not] Please read Luke 1:38 in which Mary refers to herself as “handmaiden.” I prefer to use enthymemes when discussing with someone so as not to insult their intelligence. Therefore, I will leave you to come to your own conclusions about why I referenced the verse I did. Have a great evening!

Nice talking to you, glad you left more than half the questions unanswered

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Also for mercedes190:

The WORD “Pope” is not in the Bible. Neither is “Bible” nor “Trinity”. Christ built His Church on the rock of Peter, did He not? Matt 16:18. Peter and his successors are the “Vicars of Christ” on Earth.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

These few citations point out that Christ established the Catholic Church (under GOD’S AUTHORITY) to shepherd us until His return. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ 2,000 years ago. Whatever ecclesiastical community you belong to is not nearly that old, and was NOT founded by Christ.

All of your references are correct, but the arguments that you have built on them are false and misleading. I will not address all of them because I don’t think it’s worth my time and yours, but for your interest, please look at Acts 1:20 again. You have referenced it in order to support the Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession. Peter was not referring to apostolic succession but to Psalm 109:8 which was a prophecy specifically related to Judas. However, the meaning has been creatively distorted to included every single Roman Catholic priest. If you stop at verse 20, it’s possible to actually be convinced of this amazing concept of apostolic succession. But read verse 21 and understand that the successor to Judas had to be someone who was involved with Jesus’ ministry when He was on earth. Do you think that applies to the Roman Catholic priests of today? Do they heal the sick and raise the dead? If they cannot, it’s rather odd because that’s what Jesus’ disciples did. (See Acts 3:7-8 and Acts 20:9-10).

 

[Cranch]

When was the last time you saw a young child valued more than the reputation of your church? Where did the tradition of turning a blind eye come from?

Really? We’re going to go there now?

In an authoritative work* by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.

*Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 50 and 81.

What about Saint Guinefort? How did this saint become a saint in the first place? When praying to a saint who is later invalidated, what happens to the so-called “faithful”? Any thoughts about Jose Rizal, or have you not heard about him? When people worship Jose Rizal as God, are they in communion with your flavor of Catholicism?

A dog “saint” and Filipino peasant superstitions. You really are an authority on Catholicism aren’t you? What a joke.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

A dog “saint” and Filipino peasant superstitions. You really are an authority on Catholicism aren’t you? What a joke.

Isn’t it easy to dismiss something that paints your personal beliefs and perceptions in a poor light? Don’t dismiss the “dog saint,” please. Nor should you dismiss the cadaver synod, look it up and enjoy the read.

 

[rfournier103]

All of your references are correct, but the arguments that you have built on them are false and misleading. I will not address all of them because I don’t think it’s worth my time and yours, but for your interest, please look at Acts 1:20 again. You have referenced it in order to support the Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession. Peter was not referring to apostolic succession but to Psalm 109:8 which was a prophecy specifically related to Judas. However, the meaning has been creatively distorted to included every single Roman Catholic priest. If you stop at verse 20, it’s possible to actually be convinced of this amazing concept of apostolic succession. But read verse 21 and understand that the successor to Judas had to be someone who was involved with Jesus’ ministry when He was on earth. Do you think that applies to the Roman Catholic priests of today? Do they heal the sick and raise the dead? If they cannot, it’s rather odd because that’s what Jesus’ disciples did. (See Acts 3:7-8 and Acts 20:9-10).

Peter DID refer to Psalm 109:8, and did refer to Judas. But as with the laws and courts of today, there was a PRECEDENT set. That is what we Catholics call APOSTOLIC TRADITION. And I am okay with that (having studied law, it makes sense to me). The successor of the pope is always elected from the College of Cardinals, who are ALSO part of Christ’s ministry here on earth.

Also, I know of MANY who have recovered from illness (sometimes VERY GRAVE) after recieving the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (James 5:14-15). As for priests not raising the dead, and performing miricles… They perform miracles EVERY Sunday, when bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

I truly appreciate your not wanting us Catholics to be led astray, but I assure you… the teachings of the Catholic Church are not false, and we Catholics will be just fine. Jesus left us with His message, and His Church, and we are better off for it. As I said; thank you for your concern, but it is unwarranted. Good night, and God bless you, sir or m’am.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

They perform miracles EVERY Sunday, when bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

When Jesus turned the water into wine it was the master of the banquet who validated the exceptional quality of the wine (John 2:9-8). It was water that had been changed into wine, not water that looked like water, and tasted like water, but was intended to be wine. You have a good night too!

 

[Aschecte]

When Jesus turned the water into wine it was the master of the banquet who validated the exceptional quality of the wine (John 2:9-8). It was water that had been changed into wine, not water that looked like water, and tasted like water, but was intended to be wine. You have a good night too!

You are referring to the wedding feast at Cana not at transubstansiation of the Eucharist which is what occurred at the last supper which is what happens every sunday at the hands of a priest turning the bread and wine ini the body and blood of Christ I wish I was home or I would give you verses.

 

[fbl9]

You are referring to the wedding feast at Cana not at transubstansiation of the Eucharist which is what occurred at the last supper which is what happens every sunday at the hands of a priest turning the bread and wine ini the body and blood of Christ I wish I was home or I would give you verses.

Why?
you know that you have interperted them wrong any way.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

You are referring to the wedding feast at Cana not at transubstansiation of the Eucharist which is what occurred at the last supper which is what happens every sunday at the hands of a priest turning the bread and wine ini the body and blood of Christ I wish I was home or I would give you verses.

You want verses? I can give them to you from memory. You are looking for John 6:55, where Jesus said “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Of course, in trying to prove the doctrine/concept of transubstantiation, nobody bothers to read ahead to verse 63 where Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

 

[Aschecte]

You want verses? I can give them to you from memory. You are looking for John 6:55, where Jesus said “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Of course, in trying to prove the doctrine/concept of transubstantiation, nobody bothers to read ahead to verse 63 where Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

And John 6:56 says Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
So based on your argument Christ contridicts himself ??? I would like to understand the reasoning behind picking and choosing scripture ? I’m happy you can quote scripture from memory I truly wish I had the memory to do so but regardless of being able to pull scripture out of memory does not mean you actually understand them.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

And John 6:56 says Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
So based on your argument Christ contridicts himself ??? I would like to understand the reasoning behind picking and choosing scripture ? I’m happy you can quote scripture from memory I truly wish I had the memory to do so but regardless of being able to pull scripture out of memory does not mean you actually understand them.

Do you think you understand scripture? I would like to know if you are authorized to interpret scripture and argue with me. What if you are wrong in your interpretation, if even a little? Doesn’t your Roman magisterium prohibit you from interpreting scripture on your own for this very reason? And that’s exactly what you are doing. But since you have been doing something which is prohibited by your Roman church and won’t stop any time soon, you may as well continue. So you asked me if Jesus contradicted Himself, and the answer is, “He didn’t.” Quite simply, the Roman church created something to look mystical and unique. Coming back to miracles, did Jesus ever perform a miracle and ask the people to believe that what wasn’t there was in fact there? That’s what the Roman mass is all about. Nothing changes, please don’t kid yourself. Read Mark 14:25, where Jesus said “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” Why did He call it “fruit of the vine” if it was His blood?

 

[Chocolate_Sally]

I reverted back to Catholicism because I stopped believing in sola scriptura but I still have several friends in Evangelical Churches and I love them dearly. I know they are worried for my soul, but I’ve never been so happy. I keep praying for the Holy Spirit.

Believe it or not, I can refute their arguments to me on a number of ideas without using too much of the Bible.

1. Man Made Traditions – So what? Where’s Sunday School in the Bible?
2. Mary – (a) Her assumption into Heaven is taught in Russian, Greek and other Orthodox churches, that it’s not in the Bible but it is readily accepted, even in churches that have no communion with Rome. It’s not just a Catholic idea! (b) There’s no requirement to pray the rosary.
3. Fasting & Fish Fridays – I explain that the idea is to eat cheaply and save what would have been spent on food for the day and give it to the poor. It’s NOT suppose to be an excuse to go to Red Lobster and gorge yourself until your pants split.
4. Feet Washing – I was most impressed when I saw this done on Holy Thursday. I had read it in the Bible many times but never seen it done, even in some of the more fundamentalist churches I’ve gone too.
5. Confession – I say it’s all over the Bible, originally a sin offering.
6. Communion – Not a symbol, the Jews’ reaction to John 6 tells me so. They were disgusted with what Jesus was saying.

Anyway, those are some of the points I bring up.

Please remember to read and respond in Christian love. What unites us is so much greater than what divides us.

 

[Aschecte]

Do you think you understand scripture? I would like to know if you are authorized to interpret scripture and argue with me. What if you are wrong in your interpretation, if even a little? Doesn’t your Roman magisterium prohibit you from interpreting scripture on your own for this very reason? And that’s exactly what you are doing. But since you have been doing something which is prohibited by your Roman church and won’t stop any time soon, you may as well continue. So you asked me if Jesus contradicted Himself, and the answer is, “He didn’t.” Quite simply, the Roman church created something to look mystical and unique. Coming back to miracles, did Jesus ever perform a miracle and ask the people to believe that what wasn’t there was in fact there? That’s what the Roman mass is all about. Nothing changes, please don’t kid yourself. Read Mark 14:25, where Jesus said “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” Why did He call it “fruit of the vine” if it was His blood?

First off I was not interpreting scripture but correctly quoting it. As to me thinking I understand it yes but I don’t need to interpret as that would be a dangerous path as then we run into the phenomenon you see on most street corners with the “first” whatever churches that each has a different oppinion and view of scripture. I trust my Catholic church to lead us and I do read the Bible every day and night. So you answered me quite heretically here is your quote “He didn’t.” Quite simply, the Roman church created something to look mystical and unique." So what you are saying is scripture is not diviney inspired ? Not even protestant churches digress this far. If you actually believe the Roman church created something mystical and unique I reccomend you learn your faith and stop criticizing ours. To hep you out and this is not me interpreting scripture is divinely influenced and never contridictory written by the hands of men breathed from the mouth of God. your last quote “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” Why did He call it “fruit of the vine” if it was His blood? " Ok now I didn;t think this needed a answer and am quite suprised you retort with this but … Jesus is saying HE will not drink of the vine … this holds no bearing on transubstansiation at all he is speaking of what he is doing not what we should do by Taking of his body and blood at mass. Realy argue if you want but please show respect for the word of God and don’t say it’s the Roman churches fault you don’t like certain verses or can’t refute them if you don’t agree with them you know who to pray to.