Bible Verses for the Real Presence

[wiggbuggie]

one good scripture proof I see for the real presence and if my understanding is right Jesus is the passover lamb and the jews in book of exodus I believe are required to eat the passover lamb to celebrate passover. Not only did they slaughtered the lamb they also ate it enjoyed a meal together as a family. Therefore Jesus being the passover lamb of God we also eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Another part i think its in the talmud but there is a quote I read that Jews believe that all sacrifices will stop except the sacrifice of bread and wine which brings us to Malachi 1:11

“My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty."

who else than the catholic church offers incense offerings of bread and wine daily at mass?

 

[Pan_Dulce]

Phyllo,

Thank you for your efforts. I would suggest that if the Real Presence has been a stumbling block this whole time that there may be something suspect about it.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that many of His followers fell away because they knew exactly what He meant. If Jesus was telling them that they should take bread for Him to be present with them after His death, it seems to me they would have jumped at the chance. In fact, John 6:33-34 basically says just that, “For the Bread of God is the One coming down out of heaven and giving life to the world. Then they said to Him, Lord always give us this bread.” They left when they understood that He wasn’t talking about real bread but of Himself, spiritually. He says, “I am the Bread of Life.” He can nourish us spiritually. Bread can only nourish us physically.

To say it was as you say or that He is Lying is a poor argument. Obviously He doesn’t lie. But that doesn’t mean that something that is irrational is the only other option.

I do not believe that there are any mysteries in the Bible. There are answers that have not been revealed and there are answers that have been revealed for those that are willing to take the effort to look for them. There are things that do require faith and those things are told to us but God did not give us the scriptures to stump us or for us to accept irrational explanations.

 

[po18guy]

I do not believe that there are any mysteries in the Bible.

This may be part of the problem, for the bible itself says that it contains mysteries: "I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee. Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge. Job 42:2-3

“as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16

There are answers that have not been revealed and there are answers that have been revealed for those that are willing to take the effort to look for them. There are things that do require faith and those things are told to us but God did not give us the scriptures to stump us or for us to accept irrational explanations.

Jesus did not leave us orphans. He left us a Church to decide all matters (Matthew 18:15-18). A Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). When we turn the understanding of God’s Word into a do-it-yourself project, error and confusion are king.

Your current position assumes two things: 1) that you can properly understand and interpret the scriptures by your own authority and 2) that 2,000 years of Christians (including us at CAF) are all wrong and that you and your private interpretation are correct. Forget the theological differences, can you not see the statistical and mathematical problem here?

Simply put, your position cannot be that held by the Apostles or early Christians, as it relies on the bible alone. Thus, it could not have existed until and unless the bible (NT) actually existed. Along with many competing writings, it was competed in the late first century. It was not compiled until the fourth century, and had only begun too be distributed in the fifteenth century - in Germany alone. Are you implying that Christians up to that time were without guidance?

This is the danger of private interpretation, which the bible warns each of us about. I believe the bible, so I do not privately interpret the scriptures.

 

[Pan_Dulce]

wiggbuggie,

I may be the only one in the world that thinks this but it makes sense to me and I will take cogent arguments against this idea. After all, my only ax to grind is the truth. The entire backdrop to the Last Supper is the Passover. It is mentioned over two dozen times in the Gospels when we read the story of the Passion. Everything that transpires in that context needs to be looked at through that lens.

What if the Last Supper was not the institution of the Eucharist but simply a new understanding of the Passover. What if he was telling His disciples that at next year’s Passover you will not sacrifice a Lamb and eat it, sprinkling its blood on your door post. You will eat bread, like this, and drink wine like this. Jesus saying this knowing that He would be the Passover Lamb. Jesus was a Jew and I don’t believe there was an intent to start a new religion but rather to reorient the Jewish religion. But that was not to be so there was a second religion born but not yet. The Passover is a remembrance of the Israelites being freed from slavery in Egypt. That would continue to be true but what about Jesus suggesting that next year’s Passover would be a remembrance of Him through the bread and wine. This was a hard thing for the disciples to understand because Jesus was trying to explain it before the fact.

P.S. The Jews offered incense.

 

[Phyllo]

Phyllo,

Thank you for your efforts. I would suggest that if the Real Presence has been a stumbling block this whole time that there may be something suspect about it.

Not if you have faith.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that many of His followers fell away because they knew exactly what He meant. If Jesus was telling them that they should take bread for Him to be present with them after His death, it seems to me they would have jumped at the chance.

I agree. They would have jumped at the chance but they didn’t. They knew that Jesus was telling them that his body and blood were real food. They thought that Jesus wanted them to actually eat his mortal flesh so they turned away . They didn’t know how Jesus was going to give them his flesh to eat so they didn’t trust him to find a way. So when at the last supper he said this is my body etc.he meant it. This was his way of providing his body and blood as real food for the believers. Read John 6:52-66. Why would you not take Jesus at his word? His body is real food and blood real drink.

To say it was as you say or that He is Lying is a poor argument. Obviously He doesn’t lie

No it is not. Again see above. You are right he does not lie. At the risk of constantly repeating myself, he said that his body was real food and at the last supper he provided a way for that to happen.

.

But that doesn’t mean that something that is irrational is the only other option.

But that is what his listeners thought. That what he was saying was irrational. But it is not. Jesus provided the way and means for his believers to actually eat his body and drink his blood to attain eternal life. Jesus is sacramentally present in the Real Presence. It looks like bread, tastes like bread but through the power of the HS it is the real body and blood of Jesus.

I do not believe that there are any mysteries in the Bible. There are answers that have not been revealed and there are answers that have been revealed for those that are willing to take the effort to look for them.

Such as the Trinity and the Real Presence.

There are things that do require faith

Absolutely.

God did not give us the scriptures to stump us or for us to accept irrational explanations.

No he didn’t. But he expects us to study the Scriptures with on open mind and heart and most of all with faith. There is nothing irrational in the Scriptures. Just things that are misunderstood and misinterpreted.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you believe in the Trinity and if so can you prove it from scriptures to your satisfaction? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Does that not seem irrational?

God Bless

 

[Phyllo]

wiggbuggie,

I may be the only one in the world that thinks this but it makes sense to me and I will take cogent arguments against this idea. After all, my only ax to grind is the truth. The entire backdrop to the Last Supper is the Passover. It is mentioned over two dozen times in the Gospels when we read the story of the Passion. Everything that transpires in that context needs to be looked at through that lens.

What if the Last Supper was not the institution of the Eucharist but simply a new understanding of the Passover. What if he was telling His disciples that at next year’s Passover you will not sacrifice a Lamb and eat it, sprinkling its blood on your door post. You will eat bread, like this, and drink wine like this. Jesus saying this knowing that He would be the Passover Lamb. Jesus was a Jew and I don’t believe there was an intent to start a new religion but rather to reorient the Jewish religion. But that was not to be so there was a second religion born but not yet. The Passover is a remembrance of the Israelites being freed from slavery in Egypt. That would continue to be true but what about Jesus suggesting that next year’s Passover would be a remembrance of Him through the bread and wine. This was a hard thing for the disciples to understand because Jesus was trying to explain it before the fact.

P.S. The Jews offered incense.

I have a simple thought. The Israelites had to eat the lamb to escape Egypt. We have to eat the lamb to cross over into eternal life. The Israelites didn’t eat a make believe lamb but a real lamb. Jesus is the real lamb that we need to eat to passover into eternal life.
There fore at the Last Supper Jesus gave us a way to eat the real lamb, his body and blood.
I was always told that a Christian was a completed Jew. Jesus came to the Jews and many turned their backs on him so I guess the ones who remained did start a new religion. Jesus wanted us all to be of one mind but so far that hasn’t worked .

Just my thoughts

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

I don’t believe we need to actually eat that which is given us from Heaven. The bread from Heaven Jesus was talking about was spiritual bread, “the words I speak to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63).

But, the bible is more than just a single verse. It is far more than what you or I might privately interpret that verse to mean. God’s Word is living, not dead. The Apostles set up a practice, based upon all that they knew and had experienced. They celebrated the Eucharist. You cannot ignore history here, as what the Apostles did is every bit as authoritative as what the bible says. And, this is why you are confused regarding the Eucharist. The bible tells us that it is incomplete. We cannot take an incomplete record and reverse engineer historical truth from it.

The reason Jesus had to be sacrificed is the same reason that animals were sacrificed - to cover sin. God does not change, therefore He had to follow His established rules. Luckily, Jesus was the final sacrifice. Nonetheless, it really was a blood sacrifice. The animals were temporary and Jesus permanent. It can be called washing away but it is the same thing.

Again, “covering” sin will exclude you from heaven. It must be washed away, not covered. “Covering” is an Old Testament concept. It does not and cannot apply to Christians. Revelation 21:27 again. Baptism now washes away our sins.

I don’t think you can separate the doing or the remembering. It is, do this in remembrance. Both aspects are required.

And, thus, both have eternal meaning. Since it is the spirit that gives life, why would simple, dead bread give life? It cannot, unless it also is living.

Also, Jesus doesn’t say that the bread and wine had become his flesh and blood (Actually, He does say this). The metaphor (where does scripture say anything about a metaphor?)referred to His body would be broken like he had broken the bread and then He says the wine is (but, not a bone would be broken!) the blood of the New Covenant poured out for the remission of sins. The bread represents (Jesus did not say ‘represents’, He said “this IS”) his death and the wine His blood that gets rid of our sin.

This is the eessence of the error of private interpretation. You are twisting and adding meaning to scrtiupture - meaning that is not there; meaning that disregards other portions of the bible and the actions of the early Church.

You have to read into the texts to take away that He was being that literal especially when He tells his disciples that He was speaking in a spiritual sense. If he was literal and we take the Eucharist, then we should not die as did those who ate the manna. The fact is, that Catholics die every day that have taken the Eucharist - the same fate as those that ate the manna.

Well, I have a different bible then! Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35 tell me that someone with actual authority must interpret so that the words are understood. I do not have that authority. Neither do you.

 

[Pan_Dulce]

po18guy,

I don’t mean that all of the Bible can be understood today. You can call it a mystery if you like. I think God opens our eyes more and more as time goes by as collective. Individually, perhaps even more. There are many things that were not understood long ago that are clear now. I think we are in the midst of more and more people’s eyes being open to things that they had not understood before. I think there is a quickening in the understanding of the scripture that had been hidden from us. Eventually I think all of the scripture will be discerned. Calling things mysteries implies that these things are never to be understood.

I don’t think I need a committee to tell me what is true. I can discern with the help of the Holy Spirit. Unlike you, I don’t have to defend a doctrine, I can change my position on a dime if my only aspiration is the truth.

Obviously they did not have the Bible as we know it today. That does not mean that there were not primary sources that were reliable whether printed or not. Many people were witness to the NT events or knew those that were. News got around. Things were written. Paul and the others helped keep the church going. If the Bible is to believed today it had to also be believed contemporaneously. The difference is in the delivery but the information was the same. After all, many of the actors were still alive in the church at the time. I rely on the Bible because that is the record that I have. They relied on other means just as reliable in the first centuries.

I do see the statistical and mathematical problems. But did John the Baptist have a statistical problem? Did Jesus have one? Did anyone listen to Jeremiah? That is not a good argument.

Why would someone like you have more authority than I in discerning Biblical truth. You have to adhere to doctrine - I don’t. I think it is rather arrogant to say that the Holy Spirit would work through you better more than through me. God does what He wants through me or you.

Maybe 2000 years of Catholics are wrong. That is a lot of people and a lot of time but not compared to all the Muslims who are wrong, or the Hindus, or Buddhists, or any non Catholic for that matter. Every group thinks they are better than the other. That is the problem with this world. Everything is a group or a faction. We should see people as individuals rather than members of a group. When I belonged to a church denomination, I considered myself an individual. They didn’t like that either. Individuals can raise questions while groups must go with the flow. Nowhere have I seen in the Bible that it is not possible for me to understand it. I know more about it than most of my Catholic brethren.

 

[PJM]

Acts 22:16

). We cannot enter heaven with any impurity in our souls (Revelation 21:27), so the sins cannot be covered (there is nothing hidden that will not be brought to light - Mark 4:22, Luke 8:17), but must be absolutely gone.?QUOTE]

Not according to jesus Christ it doesn’t

From the time of Moses on [maybe even before?] God has consistantly used priest in the forgiveness of sins. Despite moral mans innovations and shrot cuts; it REMAINS the ONLY way god has authorized frogiveness of sin. AND YES IT REMAOINS GOD DOING THE FORGIVING.

John.20 Verses 20 to 23]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

What He said was “DO THIS” in remembrance. In recent centuries, emphasis has wrongly been placed on the end of His command,

These words also instituted Officailly the catholic Priesthood.

You are on the right track as far as eating and drinking, but to make the Eucharist merely symbolic is to give profit to a material thing rather than the spirit. The bread and wine, to profit us spiritually, must contain Spirit within them. To that end, the Catholic Church (and several others) teaches that the Eucharist fully contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Nothing less will satisfy Jesus’ commands.

This is also why it is vitally important to have an authoritative Church, the pillar and ground of the truth - to ascertain and proclaim the truth of such matters to all believers.

YEA! we agree:thumbsup: BUT only the CC and those affilaited with Her have the Sacraments in their fullness and fullness of grace.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Pan Dulce;8731109]wiggbuggie,

I may be the only one in the world that thinks this but it makes sense to me and I will take cogent arguments against this idea. After all, my only ax to grind is the truth. The entire backdrop to the Last Supper is the Passover. It is mentioned over two dozen times in the Gospels when we read the story of the Passion. Everything that transpires in that context needs to be looked at through that lens.

What if the Last Supper was not the institution of the Eucharist but simply a new understanding of the Passover. What if he was telling His disciples that at next year’s Passover you will not sacrifice a Lamb and eat it, sprinkling its blood on your door post. You will eat bread, like this, and drink wine like this. Jesus saying this knowing that He would be the Passover Lamb. Jesus was a Jew and I don’t believe there was an intent to start a new religion but rather to reorient the Jewish religion. But that was not to be so there was a second religion born but not yet. The Passover is a remembrance of the Israelites being freed from slavery in Egypt. That would continue to be true but what about Jesus suggesting that next year’s Passover would be a remembrance of Him through the bread and wine. This was a hard thing for the disciples to understand because Jesus was trying to explain it before the fact.

P.S. The Jews offered incense.

My friend inorder to prove your point; God,and FIVE authors of the Bible would have to be lying. READ 1st. Cor. 11: This can only be true because it REALLY is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of jesus Christ. Who by the way is HIMSELF the Pascal lamb being offered. [Speaking of John the Baptist here: John.1: [29, 36 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”

God can neither deceive or be deceived; LOOK carfefully and prayerfully at these words of Christ:
John from Chapter 6: 47-57
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.* For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[po18guy]

po18guy,

I don’t mean that all of the Bible can be understood today. You can call it a mystery if you like. I think God opens our eyes more and more as time goes by as collective. Individually, perhaps even more. There are many things that were not understood long ago that are clear now. I think we are in the midst of more and more people’s eyes being open to things that they had not understood before. I think there is a quickening in the understanding of the scripture that had been hidden from us. Eventually I think all of the scripture will be discerned. Calling things mysteries implies that these things are never to be understood.

I don’t think I need a committee to tell me what is true. I can discern with the help of the Holy Spirit. Unlike you, I don’t have to defend a doctrine, I can change my position on a dime if my only aspiration is the truth.

Obviously they did not have the Bible as we know it today. That does not mean that there were not primary sources that were reliable whether printed or not. Many people were witness to the NT events or knew those that were. News got around. Things were written. Paul and the others helped keep the church going. If the Bible is to believed today it had to also be believed contemporaneously. The difference is in the delivery but the information was the same. After all, many of the actors were still alive in the church at the time. I rely on the Bible because that is the record that I have. They relied on other means just as reliable in the first centuries.

I do see the statistical and mathematical problems. But did John the Baptist have a statistical problem? Did Jesus have one? Did anyone listen to Jeremiah? That is not a good argument.

Why would someone like you have more authority than I in discerning Biblical truth. You have to adhere to doctrine - I don’t. I think it is rather arrogant to say that the Holy Spirit would work through you better more than through me. God does what He wants through me or you.

Maybe 2000 years of Catholics are wrong. That is a lot of people and a lot of time but not compared to all the Muslims who are wrong, or the Hindus, or Buddhists, or any non Catholic for that matter. Every group thinks they are better than the other. That is the problem with this world. Everything is a group or a faction. We should see people as individuals rather than members of a group. When I belonged to a church denomination, I considered myself an individual. They didn’t like that either. Individuals can raise questions while groups must go with the flow. Nowhere have I seen in the Bible that it is not possible for me to understand it. I know more about it than most of my Catholic brethren.

Doctrine, as you so dismissively put it, is God’s revealed truth. I choose to humble myself and obey it. Read Luke 9:23 and Matthew 16:24. How is extracting beliefs that are comfortable an example of denying yourself?

A horrible error to make is to believe that only the Holy Spirit guides you once you crack that bible open. If you are not being lead to humble submission and to Christian unity, then I guarantee you it is not the Holy Spirit. Christians can know that from 1 John. Test the spirits. If they lead to appeasement of the ego, and to division, they are not of God. If they lead to the hard path, to denial of the self, and to humble submission, they are truly from God.

The spirits attack the Church. They seek to deny even the sovereign Lord (2 Peter 2:1). For almost 2,000 years, the Eucharist has been firmly held to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Paul believed it. Yet, you claim that the Holy Spirit leads you to deny that. Please reflect on this, as it appears that your interpretation of scripture is being lead by a passing spirit.

 

[Pan_Dulce]

po18guy,

For those that had to eat the manna, that bread came from God to nourish their bodies. The Eucharist does not nourish. You say it has the Real Presence. I thought that we wouldn’t have the actual presence of Jesus until the Second Coming. That aside, I have the presence of God through the Holy Spirit. Is that less than what I need as a citizen of Heaven? What then is the purpose of the Eucharist except as a sacrificial ritual that is not Biblical since Jesus is the once and for all sacrifice. po18guy, you are not better than me. Thanks Phyllo for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I need to say good night.

 

[po18guy]

po18guy,

For those that had to eat the manna, that bread came from God to nourish their bodies. The Eucharist does not nourish. You say it has the Real Presence. I thought that we wouldn’t have the actual presence of Jesus until the Second Coming. That aside, I have the presence of God through the Holy Spirit. Is that less than what I need as a citizen of Heaven? What then is the purpose of the Eucharist except as a sacrificial ritual that is not Biblical since Jesus is the once and for all sacrifice. po18guy, you are not better than me. Thanks Phyllo for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I need to say good night.

Slow down! Not saying I am better. I consider myself to be far worse. “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my Blood, you have no life in you” What does that mean? Especially when He followed that up with “This is My Body” and “This is the covenant in My Blood”. As well, arguing against the Eucharist after nearly 2,000 years seems rather odd to me. Test the spirit that leads you to division.

It is clear that you do not understand the Eucharist as Paul did, and as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Episcopalians do. It is not a re-sacrifice! It is the one and only eternal sacrifice - the sacrifice for all ages. We contribute our sacrifice, the bread and wine, so that we keep Jesus’ command to “do this”. The Sacrifice of the mass is heaven come down to earth. It is Calvary made present to us.

You greatly misunderstand.

 

[po18guy]

For those that had to eat the manna, that bread came from God to nourish their bodies. The Eucharist does not nourish.

By what authority do you declare this? In saying this, you allege that Martin Luther was completely wrong. I don’t think you really mean to do that.

You say it has the Real Presence.

Actually, the Church has always declared this. Paul said so in 1 Corthinains 10:16. I simply believe Paul and the Church - which Paul teaches is the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.

I thought that we wouldn’t have the actual presence of Jesus until the Second Coming. That aside, I have the presence of God through the Holy Spirit.

"Behold, I am with you, even to the end of the age Matthew 28:20. How can this be true? The Eucharist.

Is that less than what I need as a citizen of Heaven?

First, you need to repent, believe in Christ and be baptized. I pray that all three apply to you.

What then is the purpose of the Eucharist except as a sacrificial ritual that is not Biblical since Jesus is the once and for all sacrifice.

The purposes of the Eucharist are many: Christ present to us, as He promised in Matthew 28:20; true food and true drink as He taught in John 6:55-58; the keeping of His commandments, as He taught in Matthew 26:26-27; to eat and drink in remembrance as He taught in Luke 22:19 and through Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25; to consume so that we have life within us as He taught in John 6:53; so that He might remain in us and we remain in Him as He taught in John 15:1-7, and so that we might not be cut off and burned, as Jesus teaches in John15:6 - and as Paul teaches in Romans 11:22, as well as an infinite number of other purposes - as many as are contained in the infinite Christ Himself.

po18guy, you are not better than me.

Never said or even intimated that I was! The Lord knows better and constantly shows me!

But, think about what you are saying in this thread: that the entire Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopalian churches throughout all of their history are wrong - and only you, Pan Dulce, are right. You are judging probably 2.5 billion currently living souls, as well as all that went before them, as being wrong on the Eucharist. They all have your same bible. How come none of them came to your conclusions? They tested the spirits, as John teaches in 1 John 4:1.

We are surrounded by spirits that just wait to lead us astray. The solution: Test the spirits.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[Phyllo]

po18guy,

I don’t mean that all of the Bible can be understood today. You can call it a mystery if you like. I think God opens our eyes more and more as time goes by as collective. Individually, perhaps even more. There are many things that were not understood long ago that are clear now. I think we are in the midst of more and more people’s eyes being open to things that they had not understood before. I think there is a quickening in the understanding of the scripture that had been hidden from us. Eventually I think all of the scripture will be discerned. Calling things mysteries implies that these things are never to be understood.

I don’t think I need a committee to tell me what is true. I can discern with the help of the Holy Spirit. Unlike you, I don’t have to defend a doctrine, I can change my position on a dime if my only aspiration is the truth.

Obviously they did not have the Bible as we know it today. That does not mean that there were not primary sources that were reliable whether printed or not. Many people were witness to the NT events or knew those that were. News got around. Things were written. Paul and the others helped keep the church going. If the Bible is to believed today it had to also be believed contemporaneously. The difference is in the delivery but the information was the same. After all, many of the actors were still alive in the church at the time. I rely on the Bible because that is the record that I have. They relied on other means just as reliable in the first centuries.

I do see the statistical and mathematical problems. But did John the Baptist have a statistical problem? Did Jesus have one? Did anyone listen to Jeremiah? That is not a good argument.

Why would someone like you have more authority than I in discerning Biblical truth. You have to adhere to doctrine - I don’t. I think it is rather arrogant to say that the Holy Spirit would work through you better more than through me. God does what He wants through me or you.

Maybe 2000 years of Catholics are wrong. That is a lot of people and a lot of time but not compared to all the Muslims who are wrong, or the Hindus, or Buddhists, or any non Catholic for that matter. Every group thinks they are better than the other. That is the problem with this world. Everything is a group or a faction. We should see people as individuals rather than members of a group. When I belonged to a church denomination, I considered myself an individual. They didn’t like that either. Individuals can raise questions while groups must go with the flow. Nowhere have I seen in the Bible that it is not possible for me to understand it. I know more about it than most of my Catholic brethren.

Could it be that millions of people have the same thoughts as yourself and can change what they believe about a doctrine on a dime? Maybe that it why there are thousands of Protestant churches and none of them having the complete truth because they are changing their minds on interpretation? Could it be that for 2000 years the CC is the only church that is getting it wright? The Bible is a Catholic document and can only be interpreted correctly by the CC.

 

[PJM]

=Pan Dulce;po18guy,

For those that had to eat the manna, that bread came from God to nourish their bodies. The Eucharist does not nourish. You say it has the Real Presence. I thought that we wouldn’t have the actual presence of Jesus until the Second Coming. .

To deny the REAL PRESENCE one MUST actually DENY CHRIST HIMSELF.

God can neither deceive or be deveived. Jesus Christ Himself PLUS FIVE different Bible Authors give clear, concise and precise belief in what jesus Himself said and did.

IN ADDITION TO MT. 26; MK.14; AND LK.22 WE HAVE THESE WORDS OF GOD HIMSELF:

**John from Chapter 6: 47-57 **
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him"

AND yes THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD TO BE LITTERAL OR PAUL COULD NOT HAVE TAUGHT THIS:

.Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
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. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

FUTHER, I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS 'WE’LL NOT HAVE CHRIST UNTIL THE SECOND COMMING. THE BIBLE TEACHES THE OPPOSITE

**Matt.28: 16 to 20 **"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. and Jesus came and said to them, ***“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” ***

Further the Bible warns about trying to understand it yourself

**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Matt.13:9-12 “He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” *** And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”

*2nd. Peter 3: 14-17 “Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability

**John 5: 37 **“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. **You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life [Speaking of accepting the entire WORD of GOD]. **I do not receive glory from men .[Meaning disobedience is rampant!] But I know that you have not the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me” [Obey Me!]

FINALLY: No where in the Bible or Sacred Tradition did God even ONCE approve of other faith beliefs than what He actually taught. One of the KEYS given to Peter by Jesus was ans is the EXCLUSIVE ability to teach and understand correctly and FULLY what the Bible means. AMEN!

THE REASON FOR THE REAL PRESENCE IS GRACE. BECAUSE IT IS JESUS, IT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST SOURCE OF GRACE NEEDED FOR SALVATION AVAILABLE TO HUMANITY.

Mery Christmans,
Pat**

 

[bogeydogg]

I think we should look at the passover lamb first. The people would roast the lamb for the sacrifice acceptable to God and eat that lamb, not another which symbolized the lamb which was to be offered, but they actually ate the sacrifice made to God. The promise contained in the passover was not just in the sacrifice but in the eating of the sacrifice.

So also in the sacrificial system.

Excepting the sin offering which was consumed utterly on the fire (as Christ was consumed utterly on the Cross) all the other offerings made by individuals (not corporate such as Yom Kippur) the priest would lay one hand on the animal, one on the person offering the sacrifice (for imputing sin) then the animal would be killed and roasted and then the person making the offering would eat a portion of the sacrifice. Not a symbolic animal which represented the sacrifice, but the actual animal sacrificed.

And what was the promise made to the people who did this in the faith? That God would forgive their sins! I mean when God says many times in the Torah, “I will forgive your sins…” I don’t think He was sniggering behind His hand and thinking to Himself, “Just kidding.” I think the liturgy, imperfect and temporary as it was, promised, carried and delivered forgiveness of sins to the faithful.

So in other words…

If the faithful practiced the liturgy as prescribed by God and ate the sacrifice acceptable to God their sins would be forgiven. Does any of this sound familiar?

So when Jesus said “take eat this is my body”, the word I find most interesting is, “is”.

I mean what is your definition of “is”?

ἐστί- esti; 1) “he/she/it is” (third person singular of ‘to be’)

In other words there is no way to read this word and get, “Like my Body”.

I think Jesus is consciously changing the liturgy of the passover in such a way as to tell the Apostles, “The lamb which you once ate now when you eat this bread you will eat my body.” Considering that in John 6; 51-58

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Jesus makes is quite plain that being in Him involves eating Him it seems quite plain that the ties to the OT liturgy of eating the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is very much in mind.

So I would think it is obvious that Jesus is not speaking figuratively and also that His disciples did not take it as such. The clearest evidence of this being how very hard they found it to accept this teaching in the first place, and what a joy the breaking of bread at Table became after the Holy Spirit had come.

God Bless
Merry Christmas

 

[PJM]

=bogeydogg;

So when Jesus said “take eat this is my body”, the word I find most interesting is, “is”.

I mean what is your definition of “is”?

ἐστί- esti; 1) “he/she/it is” (third person singular of ‘to be’)

the Apostles, “The lamb which you once ate now when you eat this bread you will eat my body.” Considering that in John 6; 51-58

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

Jesus makes is quite plain that being in Him involves eating Him it seems quite plain that the ties to the OT liturgy of eating the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is very much in mind.

So I would think it is obvious that Jesus is not speaking figuratively and also that His disciples did not take it as such. The clearest evidence of this being how very hard they found it to accept this teaching in the first place, and what a joy the breaking of bread at Table became after the Holy Spirit had come.

God Bless
Merry Christmas

So dear frind, you KNOW all of this and choose to believe it BUT DENY God Himself and FIVE authors of the NT Bible which HAS to be TRUE. Go figure!

Eucharist verses from the Douay Rheims Bible

John 5:[RSV] 3-36-38 “But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.”

Matthew 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

**John from Chapter 6: 47-57 **
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him."

Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
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. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

CAN ONLY BE TRUE IF IT IS JESUS: IT IS!

to DENY this TRUTH is to DENY Jesus Christ Himself. God can neither deceive or be deceived.

Job.13: 9 “Will it be well with you when he searches you out? Or can you deceive him, as one deceives a man?”

Jer.29: 8 “For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream,”

1Cor.3: 18 “Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise”

2Cor.11: 3 “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ”

God Bless and Merry Christmas,
Pat

 

[bogeydogg]

So dear frind, you KNOW all of this and choose to believe it BUT DENY God Himself and FIVE authors of the NT Bible which HAS to be TRUE. Go figure!

Eucharist verses from the Douay Rheims Bible

John 5:[RSV] 3-36-38 “But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.”

Matthew 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

**John from Chapter 6: 47-57 **
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him."

Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
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. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

CAN ONLY BE TRUE IF IT IS JESUS: IT IS!

to DENY this TRUTH is to DENY Jesus Christ Himself. God can neither deceive or be deceived.

Job.13: 9 “Will it be well with you when he searches you out? Or can you deceive him, as one deceives a man?”

Jer.29: 8 “For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream,”

1Cor.3: 18 “Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise”

2Cor.11: 3 “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ”

God Bless and Merry Christmas,
Pat

Huh?

I believe in the Body and the Blood what are you talking about?

God Bless

Merry Christmas

 

[Bran_Stark]

What are the bible verses for establishing transubstantiation as opposed to a communion that only remembers the Last Supper?

Disproving memorialism does not prove transubstantiation. There are more than two alternatives…