Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t complain when the subject went to faith or faith plus works. I’ve also tried to respond to all your comments or questions.

:tsktsk:You seem to use that complaint when you cannot produce any answers.

I’m starting to feel like a “bully” like I’m beating up on someone weaker than myself.

At this point, I will bow out and let the others try to talk to you.

Continue seeking the truth. I meant no ill will. :hug3:

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Corrected sentence (see bolded above, it did read …“bully” and beating up on…)

 

[brkn1]

Nowhere in Scripture is “Salvation” referred to as a miracle, yet for many of us, it most definitely is. Where is the Trinity referred to as a trinity? It’s not, but just because it is not spelled out specifically in the pages of Scripture; that does not make the statement false.

What is a miracle, anyway? I believe it is something only God can achieve, and defies what our senses tell us is possible. The Eucharist fits that definition to a “tee.”

Biblical miracles always had a sign or revelation that could be detected by at least one physical sense. The Eucharist has no such quality of itself to prove it is a miracle, which is odd if it is a true miracle. It was never described as a miracle by those discussing it in the Bible.

Salvation had many miracles, especially the Resurrection of Jesus. There were so many miracles during the crucifixion, that even the Roman centurion declared that Jesus surely was the Son of God.

There are spiritual miracles, but even those would eventually reveal themselves in a physical way after the miracle happened. Being born again of God would be an example of that sort of miracle.

 

[brkn1]

I didn’t complain when the subject went to faith or faith plus works. I’ve also tried to respond to all your comments or questions.

:tsktsk:You seem to use that complaint when you cannot produce any answers.

I’m starting to feel like a “bully” and beating up on a someone weaker than myself.

At this point, I will bow out and let the others try to talk to you.

Continue seeking the truth. I meant no ill will. :hug3:

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I thank you for being such a kind and gentle “bully” .

And do not worry about any ill feelings you feel might result. I have no such feelings towards you either.

May our Gracious Lord guide us into all Truth.

 

[packermann]

It is said that Jesus is clearly speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But is that all He says? He also says he who eats and drinks has eternal life. No restriction is placed on the “he who”. If we take the clear and plain meaning of the words Jesus is saying anyone who eats and drinks is saved. If a pagan or athiest goes to Mass and illicitly receives the Eucharist, has he eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood. Under the Catholic view he clearly has even if he shouldn’t have. Has he met the requirements of eating and drinking? If so, then on the literal and plain meaning of Jesus words, that person has eternal life even though he has no faith whatsoever. Now it might be said that we cannot take this statement in isolation and that Paul clearly indicates that someone who eats and drinks unworthily suffers. But then we are adding something to Jesus’ plain and clear words here and it appears He his not speaking as plainly and clearly as we thought. “He who” clearly doesn’t mean anyone. If this part isn’t to be taken literally, why should the rest be?

Let’s apply your logic in other parts of scripture. In Matthew 5, Jesus give us the Beatitudes - blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, the peacemaker. They shall enter heaven, inherit the land, be called sons of God. Nowhere in the Beatitiudes did Jesus exclude pagans and atheists. So, using your logic, pagan and atheists who were poor in sprit, meek, peacemaker, etc, would go to heaven because Jesus did not explicitly exclude pagans and atheists.

Paul said in 1 Cor 3:10, 11

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

If Jesus taught us exhaustively, there would have been no need for the writings of the apostles. But Paul wrote that the foundation is Jesus - His Person, Work, and teachings. Everyone lays on top of that foundation.

Jesus, being God Himself, knew that the apostles and His Church (according to what we Catholics believe, which could be argued in another time) would add on to the foundation that He laid. Since Jesus knew this, He had no need to be exhaustive in His own teachings. The full implications of teachings would be fleshed alter by His disciples. So He can cite the Beatitudes and John 6 without explicitly excluding pagans and atheists, because the teachings of His disciples would make that clear.

Also, you ignore the most obvious problem with your position by referring to Paul. If the bread and wine are nothing but mere symbols, why would someone suffer if one takes the mere bread and wine unworhily? Paul never wrote that hearing the word of God unworthily would bring condemnation. Paul never wrote that praying unworthily would bring comemnation on a person. So why would Paul write that taking mere bread and wine unworthily would lead to sickness, death, and even condemnation? The only explanation I can see is that Paul did see the host as mere bread and wine, but the actual body and blood of Jesus.

A problem with not taking this passage literally is that if Jesus did not mean this to be taken literally then Jesus was immoral. In verse 60, many of his disciples left Jesus because they took Him lterally (see verse 52). Now, let’s suppose they were wrong, and they left Jesus because they wrongly interpreted Him, That would make Jesus and immoral person, because if Jesus allowed them to leave Him because of a wrong interpretation, that would defintely be wrong. If they misinterpreted Him, the right thing to do would be for Jesus to yell back that them “Hey guys, you misunderstood me. I did not mean that you literal must eat my flesh and blood. Come on back”. But Jesus did not do this. Why not? If they left Christ because of a misunderstanding, the right thing to do would be for Jesus to correct that misunderstanding.

 

[SIA]

"MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST" Sunday Mass -May 25, 2008-

The Jews at that time had the same beliefs as many Protestants do today for scripture says in:
*** (John 6: 52) At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat.”***

The Quarrel still continues here today in this forum how sad.
Do you Protestants see the same beliefs as do the Jews above?

(John 6: 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU, if you do not eat the FLESH of the Son of Man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.

If you don’t take Our Lords words literally and eat and drink believing that it is his flesh and it is his blood how can you be saved. Don’t be like those Jews above who left him, you still have a chance ask Jesus to give you the Grace to believe. Or do you want to leave like the Jews above.

(John 6: 60-61)After hearing his words, MANY of his disciples remarked, :This sort of talk is HARD TO ENDURE! How can anyone take it SERIOUSLY. Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in PROTEST at what HE HAD SAID. "Does this SHAKE YOUR FAITH? he asked them.

Does it shake your faith.

Ufamtobie

Just simply read it in Scripture. Why does the Bible have to be so many times the elephant in the room? Why do some folks have to argue points that are so clearly given in Scripture? It is so frustrating that the Word of God which is sharper than any two edged sword is second guessed by so many. Jesus plainly said that the bread which comes from Heaven is my flesh. He also said that those who eat his flesh will have everlasting life. Pretty much clear cut I would think.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Every miracle that Jesus performed was verifiable by at least one of our physical senses.
The first miracle was the water being changed into wine. The water actually turned into wine as the governor of the feast verified.
If it really is the miracle that the RCC claims, then why can’t a priest perform other “miracles”?

First of all, a priest cannot do anything of himself, But an ordained Catholic priest operating under the high priesthood of Jesus Christ can do miraculous wonders; for example;, a priest in persona Christi can change the bread and wine into the body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. A priest can take a dead person and raise him back to life through the baptismal waters. A priest in persona Christi can absolve your confessed sins, talk about a miracle happening? A priest can administer holy matrimony between a man and woman, where no man can put asunder by this act of God. A priest can offer up the perfect sacrafice in persona Christi to God almighty, according to the order of Melchezedeck in the form of bread and wine, offering daily offerings and sacrifices for our sins from the rising of the sun to its setting, this is the acceptable perfect sacrifice to God. I can go on and on about how wonderful the never ending priesthood of Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth continues to work miracles.

As far as the Eucharist being truly the body and blood of Jesus, would you believe Jesus if he told you? Catholics believe at the words of Jesus the bread and wine truly and transubstantially become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus. We see Jesus, we believe Jesus, we trust in Jesus, Catholics have faith in this wonderful offering of sacrifice for our sins through the body,blood of Jesus himself.

Here are a few scriptures to help you; pray the holy spirit reveal to us truly what Jesus reveals to those who have the faith to see him, and be healed.

2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. 4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, **so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, **after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

Romans 10:16 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?”
17 **Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. **

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

Catholics approach God in his Eucharist; Hebrew 11:6
5 But without faith it is impossible to please him, **for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists **and that he rewards those who seek him.

Catholics have faith that the bread and wine are truly Jesus present because God said it is, Hebrews 3:3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Jesus promises to reveal himself to those who believe; John 14:21
**Whoever has my commandments and observes them **is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, **]and I will love him and reveal myself to him." **

Catholics will not deny Jesus, for fear of being denied by him; Luke 12:8 I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.

**ST. Paul is a true believer in the Eucharist listen how he describes the bread and wine, the same way we Catholics have been doing these past 2000 years since Paul and the apostles gave us and handed down this teaching and faith from Jesus; **

1Corinthians 10:16 **The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? **17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Their is a lot more so I will conclude with this last comment from St. Paul about the miracle Eucharist is the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; this is a must read;

1Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let’s look at what Jesus says and what the logical consequences of taking it literally and in the way that the Catholic Church does.

It is said that Jesus is clearly speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But is that all He says? He also says he who eats and drinks has eternal life. No restriction is placed on the “he who”. If we take the clear and plain meaning of the words Jesus is saying anyone who eats and drinks is saved.

**Correction that is not what the passage indicates on how to be saved; that is through baptism, in an earlier chapter John 3, we are now in John 6. The eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus is for the believer already baptised to have eternal life.This is not promised for the unbeliever. Remember Jesus is not at the last supper here when he institutes his Eucharist, he is preparing them for what is soon to take place later in his passion, and what they must do.

Now St. Paul as you stated gives a curse to those who do not discern the body and blood of Jesus in the (Eucharist) bread and wine. It’s worth mentioning here:
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

So in your pagan theory does not hold up to scripture because a Pagan is unable to discern the Eucharist, thus bringing judgement upon himself not eternal life; let them be forewarned by St. Paul, it is a fearful thing to come under the wrath or judgement of God. In the Catholic church no one cannot take holy communion unless they are able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the species of bread and wine. This applies even to our young baptised, they must be instructed in the ways of the Lord, before recieving holy communion.**

This is repeated in the present Catechism. So although Jesus clearly says both eat and drink, the Church denies this clear and plain meaning by saying you get everything by eating. Why then does Jesus say eat and drink both here and in the description of the Last Supper in the other 3 Gospels if He doesn’t mean to both eat the bread and drink the cup.

It seems that the Church is very selective in what clear and plain words are to be taken literally. The clear and plain words don’t mean everyone who eats and they don’t really mean both eat and drink as separate actions.

Correction; The Catholic church does not teach what you suppose to interpret she does. The Catholic church clearly states that in the consecrated bread and wine, both contain the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is fully present, body,blood soul and divinity, even in a small crumb of the Eucharist. So when a believer recieves holy communion only in the species of bread, he/she is recieving the full presence of Jesus Christ, at the same time, the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is consumed during the same Mass by the Priest, Deacons and those serving at the altar (table of the Lord). If you are raising an argument why dont everybody eat and drink, We do eat and drink his body and blood fully present. This is a mystery that only Jesus reveals to those who have faith in his words and commands. I have very small faith, yet I can see Jesus, believe in his presence, eat and drink his blood in the Eucharist without ever doubting. I sense you do to, but something keeps you from entering into the mystism of the holy things of God, for his body and blood are sacred to his church and God.

With respect to “This is My body”, the use of the word is doesn’t make it perfectly clear. If I point to a map and say this is the road to Atlanta, does that mean that the line on the map is literally the road. Of course not, but we still use the word “is” to show it.

**Your above comment makes my point, When God himself speaks, his sheep hear his voice, if you are hearing about another road from when God says “This is My body” to the bread and wine, it is the body and blood of Jesus. When God spoke and made you and I out of dirt and water and you live and breathe, why is it so hard to accept God at his word, when Jesus says "This is my body"it is his body. Please dont blame the Catholic church for taking God at his word, she only gives what God has given her to her children, that is Jesus himself and the promise of eternal life.

Father help me in my unbelief, when I am weak, save me from my doubts about you, and help me to accept you at your word always. I pray for the eyes of faith to always see you in all your creation. Peace be with you**

 

[brkn1]

If the bread and wine are nothing but mere symbols, why would someone suffer if one takes the mere bread and wine unworhily? Paul never wrote that hearing the word of God unworthily would bring condemnation. Paul never wrote that praying unworthily would bring comemnation on a person. So why would Paul write that taking mere bread and wine unworthily would lead to sickness, death, and even condemnation? The only explanation I can see is that Paul did see the host as mere bread and wine, but the actual body and blood of Jesus.

In Acts we see Ananias and Sapphira dying because they lied to the Holy Spirit in giving to the early Church. That is the same sort of condemnation as insulting God by taking Communion unworthily.
Does this sickness and death happen the same way today? I think not or we would have certainly heard about it.

A problem with not taking this passage literally is that if Jesus did not mean this to be taken literally then Jesus was immoral. In verse 60, many of his disciples left Jesus because they took Him lterally (see verse 52). Now, let’s suppose they were wrong, and they left Jesus because they wrongly interpreted Him, That would make Jesus and immoral person, because if Jesus allowed them to leave Him because of a wrong interpretation, that would defintely be wrong. If they misinterpreted Him, the right thing to do would be for Jesus to yell back that them “Hey guys, you misunderstood me. I did not mean that you literal must eat my flesh and blood. Come on back”. But Jesus did not do this. Why not? If they left Christ because of a misunderstanding, the right thing to do would be for Jesus to correct that misunderstanding.

Why not?.. Your answer is found in (John 6:64).
“…For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,…”
Jesus was not going to waste time on the carnal seekers of another meal or sign (miracle). They were looking for a Messiah that would satisfy their fleshly desires. They did not want the spiritual food which was Jesus, Who had to give His flesh and blood to save them. Those unbelievers wanted a carnal and physical religion that they could get their hands on the way all good legalist such as the Pharisees did. That was the Judaic way that preceeded Jesus. They wanted the things of the world.
They were not interested in what Jesus described as the time “when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth”.
They wanted physical rituals and works-based salvation that men can get their hands on and later boast how righteous they were as all unbelievers do. They wanted to be proud of their special church and nation. They were just a bunch of hypocrites as the Pharisees were.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

[Jesus was not going to waste time on the carnal seekers of another meal or sign (miracle). They were looking for a Messiah that would satisfy their fleshly desires. They did not want the spiritual food which was Jesus, Who had to give His flesh and blood to save them. Those unbelievers wanted a carnal and physical religion that they could get their hands on the way all good legalist such as the Pharisees did. That was the Judaic way that preceeded Jesus. They wanted the things of the world.
They were not interested in what Jesus described as the time “when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth”.
They wanted physical rituals and works-based salvation that men can get their hands on and later boast how righteous they were as all unbelievers do. They wanted to be proud of their special church and nation. They were just a bunch of hypocrites as the Pharisees were.
[/QUOTE]

**This is a wonderful quote from you, and rings like a Catholic teaching. When you state this, you are describing also those today who will not accept the true Messiah Jesus in his flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Those unbelievers want the bread and wine to be just those according to the flesh. This symbolic belief is different from what Jesus say’s it is “This is my body”. For it is the Spirit that gives life. Sometimes what we say reflect who we are;

Those that are of Jesus Christ are of the Spirit, it is here that the eternal spiritual realities are revealed where the mysteries of the mystical body of Jesus Christ begin. What you described above deals with the flesh, the natural law. Jesus fulfilled the natural law and made it into a new and better everlasting covenant which has both his flesh and spirit, containing the old covenant in his flesh fulfilled in the spirit the new covenant in his blood. This mystery is what Catholics partake of in the Eucharist, it is a stumbling block to the wise, in order to partake of his divinity. Just like the Crucifix is a stumbling block to the first century unbelievers.

To consume the bread from heaven the Eucharist is what sustains the Christian to journey in this world, it is the true bread that God gives his children to passover from life through death into life everlasting. The manna (bread) that rained down from heaven in old (natural) covenant was eaten by God’s children but they all died. This is the true bread that comes down from heaven that gives eternal life.**

 

[packermann]

In Acts we see Ananias and Sapphira dying because they lied to the Holy Spirit in giving to the early Church. That is the same sort of condemnation as insulting God by taking Communion unworthily.
Does this sickness and death happen the same way today? I think not or we would have certainly heard about it

This actually shows that Peter was the vicar of Christ. They lied to Peter, and Peter’s statement that they lied to the Holy Spirit show that lying to Peter is equal to lying to the Holy Spirit.

It is a grave sin to lie to the pope, it is equal to lying to the Holy Spirit. I do not see how pointing this out proves your case.

Why not?.. Your answer is found in (John 6:64).
“…For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,…”
Jesus was not going to waste time on the carnal seekers of another meal or sign (miracle). They were looking for a Messiah that would satisfy their fleshly desires. They did not want the spiritual food which was Jesus, Who had to give His flesh and blood to save them. Those unbelievers wanted a carnal and physical religion that they could get their hands on the way all good legalist such as the Pharisees did. That was the Judaic way that preceeded Jesus. They wanted the things of the world.
They were not interested in what Jesus described as the time “when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth”.
They wanted physical rituals and works-based salvation that men can get their hands on and later boast how righteous they were as all unbelievers do. They wanted to be proud of their special church and nation. They were just a bunch of hypocrites as the Pharisees were.

It is clear in the passage that they did not reject Jesus, they were His disciples up until then, so up to this time they accepted what He said. There no no evidence that these disciples wanted “physical rituals” or “work-based salvation”. If they did, they would not have followed Jesus in the first place, since criticized the Pharisees from the beginning.

They rejected the idea of literally taking His flesh and blood.

If I were to say something with which you misunderstood, and I KNEW that you misundertood me, and I did not try to correct your misunderstanding, I would be guilty of deception. Now, if your misunderstaning would cause your to turn away from Christ, this would be a very serious sin of decption. It would not nbe enough to just say “So what?”

So for Jesus to allow there to be a misunderstanding of what He said, and He did not do anything about it, then He would be guilty of deceving them. It is not enough to say that they were reprobate anyway. A Deception is always a sin. Deception if from the Evil One - the great Deceiver. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that deception is not a sin as long as the ones you deceive are going to Hell anyway. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus would never lie. And He would not allow the truth to be misunderstood without saying something about it.

It is not enough to say that it is OK because they would have left Him for other reasons eventually. That is not the point. If Christ allowed them to leave with THIS misunderstanding, He would be guilty of deception. He would then not be sinless, and therefore He would not be God.

 

[Nickkname]

From “Divine Mercy In My Soul”:

**I desire to unite Myself with human souls; My great delight is to unite Myself with souls. Know, My daughter, that when I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul. But souls do not even pay any attention to Me; they leave Me to Myself and busy themselves with other things. Oh, how sad I am that souls do not recognize Love! They treat Me as a dead object. **(1385)

When I steeped myself in prayer, I was transported in spirit to the Chapel, where I saw the Lord Jesus, exposed in the Monstrance. In place of the Monsrance I saw the glorious face of the Lord, and He said to me, “What you see in reality , these souls see through faith. Oh, how pleasing to Me is their great faith! You see, although there appears to be no trace of life in Me, in reality it is present in its fullness in each and every Host. But for Me to be able to act upon the soul, the soul must have faith. O how pleasing to Me is living faith!” (1420)

My daughter, My favor rests in your heart. When on Holy Thursday I left Myself in the Blessed Sacrament, you were very much on My mind. (1774)

I know it is not Scripture, but these are the words of Jesus himself, just as he spoke the words “This is my Body…this is my Blood.”

 

[brkn1]

This actually shows that Peter was the vicar of Christ. They lied to Peter, and Peter’s statement that they lied to the Holy Spirit show that lying to Peter is equal to lying to the Holy Spirit.

It is a grave sin to lie to the pope, it is equal to lying to the Holy Spirit. I do not see how pointing this out proves your case.

If you read your bible more carefully, you would see that Peter said, “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” to Ananias. Peter said he was only a man when Cornelius tried to worship him. Peter would have allowed such worship if he was like your Pope. Peter is not God, so your argument does not prove your case.

It is clear in the passage that they did not reject Jesus, they were His disciples up until then, so up to this time they accepted what He said. There no no evidence that these disciples wanted “physical rituals” or “work-based salvation”. If they did, they would not have followed Jesus in the first place, since criticized the Pharisees from the beginning.

They rejected the idea of literally taking His flesh and blood.

If I were to say something with which you misunderstood, and I KNEW that you misundertood me, and I did not try to correct your misunderstanding, I would be guilty of deception. Now, if your misunderstaning would cause your to turn away from Christ, this would be a very serious sin of decption. It would not nbe enough to just say “So what?”

So for Jesus to allow there to be a misunderstanding of what He said, and He did not do anything about it, then He would be guilty of deceving them. It is not enough to say that they were reprobate anyway. A Deception is always a sin. Deception if from the Evil One - the great Deceiver. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that deception is not a sin as long as the ones you deceive are going to Hell anyway. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus would never lie. And He would not allow the truth to be misunderstood without saying something about it.

It is not enough to say that it is OK because they would have left Him for other reasons eventually. That is not the point. If Christ allowed them to leave with THIS misunderstanding, He would be guilty of deception. He would then not be sinless, and therefore He would not be God.

Your argument that Jesus would be guilty of deception is absurd.
In the bible, you will find the disciples asking Jesus, “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”.
Jesus answered, “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”. See (Matt. 13:10-11)
By the standard you incorrectly presented, Jesus would be accused by you of being “deceptive” by speaking in parables. You emphasized that “Jesus would not allow the truth to be misunderstood…”, but parables do that very thing to those who are not given to know the mysteries of God, such as the carnal false believers who were looking for carnal signs and wonders. They did not want to believe in Jesus for salvation. They wanted physical bread etc. and they could not get past the physical understanding of what Jesus said.

 

[FdeS2]

brkn1, I’m seeing a lot of letter of the law argument instead of spirit of the law argument.

First of all, Peter would NOT allow any worship of himself, seeing as he knows that he is not God, nor would any other devout person (especially a Pope). Granted, yes, not all Popes were devout, but I can address that at a later time. For now, let us stick to the issue at hand.

The Pope is the representative of Christ on earth, the leader of the people of the Catholic Church. Each church needs a leader to fulfill the necessary tasks, to guide the people. The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church through the Pope, along with the Magisterium. All lies are, effectively, lies to God and all the more so if told directly to the appointed representative of Christ. Hence, Peter’s statement that the other man had lied to God.

As for the deception point that you argued against, why did you not take into account that, in every other case, Jesus would explain the parables to those who needed to know. He would take the Apostles aside after a time and explain what was meant. However, an exception is present in John 6: “Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” (John 6: 67). Jesus was willing to let the Apostles walk away from him, as did many of his other disciples; he was testing their faith. Any assertion that he did not need to tell the Apostles the true meaning of his words makes no sense, seeing as they were his hand-picked followers, whom he was to pass on his ministry to (and to whom he did).

Now that those points are taken care of, consider an Old Testament addition to the discussion. If you read about the Passover, you will see that there were many elements. Of these elements, I would like to point out that there was, as the main course of the meal, a lamb. This lamb’s entire body, innards, included, was to be eaten. Not simply the nice leg… everything. John the Baptist makes a wonderful proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1: 29). Again, "The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (John 1: 35-36). Interesting, that Jesus is labeled the “Lamb of God” so early in his ministry, eh?

Now for the beautiful point. At the Last Supper, Jesus and the Twelve had wine, bitter herbs, unleavened bread, etc… the only ingredient missing, it seems, is the main course. Or is it missing? Taking the Catholic (and linguistically accurate) stance, the main course was present. Jesus consecrated the Eucharist, the unleavened bread, and the wine after the meal. He said “This is my body” and This is my blood," respectively.

The lamb, the main course, was present, and is every day in the Holy Mass.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Now that those points are taken care of, consider an Old Testament addition to the discussion. If you read about the Passover, you will see that there were many elements. Of these elements, I would like to point out that there was, as the main course of the meal, a lamb. This lamb’s entire body, innards, included, was to be eaten. Not simply the nice leg… everything. John the Baptist makes a wonderful proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel of John. "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1: 29). Again, "The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (John 1: 35-36). Interesting, that Jesus is labeled the “Lamb of God” so early in his ministry, eh?

Old Testament prefigures the New Testament, as FdeS2 explains above.

Gen 14:18 But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

Exo 12:5 And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year; according to which rite also you shall take a kid.

Exo 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce.

Exo 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.

Exo 25:23 Thou shalt make a table also of setim wood, of two cubits in length, and a cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height.
Exo 25:24 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold: and thou shalt make to it a golden ledge round about.
Exo 25:25 And to the ledge itself a polished crown, four inches high; and over the same another little golden crown.
Exo 25:26 Thou shalt prepare also four golden rings, and shalt put them in the four corners of the same table, over each foot.
Exo 25:27 Under the crown shall the golden rings be, that the bars may be put through them, and the table may be carried.
Exo 25:28 The bars also themselves thou shalt make of setim wood, and shalt overlay them with gold, to bear up the table.
Exo 25:29 Thou shalt prepare also dishes, and bowls, censers, and cups, wherein the libations are to be offered, of the purest gold.
Exo 25:30 And thou shalt set upon the table loaves of proposition in my sight always.

Psa 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

brkn1,

I know I said I would abstain and let the others take over, but you still haven’t addressed one issue I posted previously that specifically addresses the Eucharist. Please see the verse below and my questions below that.

1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.

In Paul’s instructions to the Church of Corinthians, he tells them to let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. This proves the earliest Church was practicing communion. Wouldn’t you agree? If not, why were they being told to let a man prove himself then let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice?

The verse preceeding and the verse immediately following the above verse basically states the same thing.

Co 11:27 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.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

**This section of scriptures clearly tells someone to let a man prove himself then let him have the bread and drink of the chalice else that man would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily. The only difference I see is the fact that verse 27 and 29 say body and blood of the Lord, but 28 says bread and chalice.

Why would Paul say eating bread and drinking of the chalice would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily or not discerning the body of the Lord?

To me it seems Paul believed the bread and the chalice was the body and blood of the Lord. Does anyone else agree with me on this?**

May the peace of the Lord be with you all,
Prodigal Son1

 

[FdeS2]

I completely agree with you, Prodigal Son1…

Also, in the original language, to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” means to be guilty of having killed Jesus. To be guilty of someone’s body and blood meant that you murdered them! This is why one would eat and drink condemnation on oneself if one received the body and blood of the Lord unworthily. For backup on this point, read Tim Staples’ books, especially, “Nuts and Bolts,” where I first saw this point made.

It is a very valid point.

 

[brkn1]

Old Testament prefigures the New Testament, as FdeS2 explains above.

brkn1,

I know I said I would abstain and let the others take over, but you still haven’t addressed one issue I posted previously that specifically addresses the Eucharist. Please see the verse below and my questions below that.

In Paul’s instructions to the Church of Corinthians, he tells them to let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. This proves the earliest Church was practicing communion. Wouldn’t you agree? If not, why were they being told to let a man prove himself then let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice?

The verse preceeding and the verse immediately following the above verse basically states the same thing.

**This section of scriptures clearly tells someone to let a man prove himself then let him have the bread and drink of the chalice else that man would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily. The only difference I see is the fact that verse 27 and 29 say body and blood of the Lord, but 28 says bread and chalice. **

**Why would Paul say eating bread and drinking of the chalice would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily or not discerning the body of the Lord? **

To me it seems Paul believed the bread and the chalice was the body and blood of the Lord. Does anyone else agree with me on this?

May the peace of the Lord be with you all,
Prodigal Son1

How come you did not include (1 Corinthians 11:26) in your argument?

1. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death TILL HE COME.”

“till He come” has to mean that the bread and wine are NOT the presence of Jesus’ body and blood, or verse 26 is worded very incorrectly.

It would have to be worded in a manner such as this:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s (body and blood).”
It could not properly say “till He come”, if Jesus’ body and blood was already present.

Peter confirms that the “presence of the Lord” will not happen until the Father sends Jesus back from heaven at the “times of restitution of all things”. See (Acts 3:19-21)

1. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”
2. “And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:”
3. “Whom the HEAVEN MUST RECEIVE UNTIL the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.”

It is the Father that sends Jesus back, not a priest calling Jesus down from heaven into a bread wafer and wine.

We presently receive Jesus spiritually in our heart by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have Jesus always with us already as we live in Him. The Lord Jesus is physically present at the right hand of the Father mediating for the Beloved in Christ as our High Priest.
He said that it was expedient that He goes to be with the Father for now. The Holy Spirit is taking Jesus’ place until the second advent.

 

[anthony022071]

Why not?.. Your answer is found in (John 6:64).
“…For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,…”
Jesus was not going to waste time on the carnal seekers of another meal or sign (miracle).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How come you did not include (1 Corinthians 11:26) in your argument?

1. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death TILL HE COME.”

“till He come” has to mean that the bread and wine are NOT the presence of Jesus’ body and blood, or verse 26 is worded very incorrectly.

It would have to be worded in a manner such as this:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s (body and blood).”
It could not properly say “till He come”, if Jesus’ body and blood was already present.

Peter confirms that the “presence of the Lord” will not happen until the Father sends Jesus back from heaven at the “times of restitution of all things”. See (Acts 3:19-21)

1. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”
2. “And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:”
3. “Whom the HEAVEN MUST RECEIVE UNTIL the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.”

It is the Father that sends Jesus back, not a priest calling Jesus down from heaven into a bread wafer and wine.

We presently receive Jesus spiritually in our heart by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have Jesus always with us already as we live in Him. The Lord Jesus is physically present at the right hand of the Father mediating for the Beloved in Christ as our High Priest.
He said that it was expedient that He goes to be with the Father for now. The Holy Spirit is taking Jesus’ place until the second advent.

Hello again brkn1,

I did post verse 26 in my post number 206. Also, I brought up the question concerning who was letting the man prove himself and letting him eat the bread and drink of the chalice. To remind you, that is where I asked how often you receive the body and blood of the Lord as Paul says it should be often.

1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Let me try and put that verse in today’s english for you. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall PROCLAIM the death of the Lord, until he comes again. We say, at every Mass, Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Your references of Peter saying the presence of the Lord would not happen until God the Father sends Jesus back is wrong. That is speaking of Christ’s return.

I am about to provide you with Christ’s words in scriptures that will show you have misinterpreted Acts 3:19-21.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Now, I really don’t want you to think I might be leaving something out for the sake of making my point so please see Matthew 28:20 in context with the other verses.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I really think you are placing limits on Jesus’ power, since His words clearly state, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Catholics believe this fully, hence we believe in the Real Presences in the Eucharist.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Old Testament prefigures the New Testament, as FdeS2 explains above.

brkn1,

I know I said I would abstain and let the others take over, but you still haven’t addressed one issue I posted previously that specifically addresses the Eucharist. Please see the verse below and my questions below that.

In Paul’s instructions to the Church of Corinthians, he tells them to let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. This proves the earliest Church was practicing communion. Wouldn’t you agree? If not, why were they being told to let a man prove himself then let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice?

The verse preceeding and the verse immediately following the above verse basically states the same thing.

**This section of scriptures clearly tells someone to let a man prove himself then let him have the bread and drink of the chalice else that man would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily. The only difference I see is the fact that verse 27 and 29 say body and blood of the Lord, but 28 says bread and chalice. **

**Why would Paul say eating bread and drinking of the chalice would be receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily or not discerning the body of the Lord? **

To me it seems Paul believed the bread and the chalice was the body and blood of the Lord. Does anyone else agree with me on this?

May the peace of the Lord be with you all,
Prodigal Son1

(1 Cor.11:27-30) proves that communion is not what is being talked about by Jesus in (John 6:51).
Jesus said that eating of Him would give eternal life, not damnation.
Paul was talking to believers, as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
(John 6) is talking to many who are unbelievers and the institution of breaking bread had not even been established yet.

 

[brkn1]

I have been thinking about something that Jesus said in (John 6:32,33,51,58)
Jesus calls Himself “the living bread that comes down from heaven”.
The Eucharist has bread that does not come from heaven, so maybe Jesus was not talking about the Eucharist bread as some assume. It could be that maybe Jesus was using an analogy about Himself being “bread”.