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

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hello again brkn1,

It still leaves us to question your interpretation. How do you know your interpretation supercedes all other interpretations? It sounds as if your saying God reveals His truth to you over everyone else. Here is a scripture, I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of, 1 Corinthians 1:10.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The above verse can also apply to your last paragraph.

I know we are dangerously close to debating Sola Scriptura now and will not push the issue, unless no one objects to the debate going that way. It’s hard for Catholics not to bring that up since we not only believe in the authority of the Bible, we believe in the authority of Christ’s Church as well. The Church Christ promised that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Your interpretation of John 16:13 is an example of being read out of context. You say he was talking to his diciples and not just the apostles. Aren’t these the same diciples who have already abandoned Christ because they could not bear his words, to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

In John 16:13 is Jesus telling the apostles what the Holy Spirit will teach them, at Pentacost and not that they will understand scriptures that had not yet been written.

How can this verse be true if everyone is doing their own interpretations and yet dividing themselves among many denominations? Catholics take comfort in our unity in the Holy Spirit guided Church and our same interpretation of the inspired word, inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

We believe the Bible to be God breathed/inspired. Assuming you realize the Bible is not just one book, but rather a compilation of many books put together, you have to admit men used the canon to put those books together. Men who are not written about in the scriptures. This point, you have worded to seem to be an argument is really an agreement. I said we believe those men were guided by the Holy Spirit. You said, God is the One Who did the real preserving of His Scripture, even if he used agents on earth to do so.

Believe me when I say, Catholics study the Bible even if you don’t accept our belief in using the Church for guidance. This is far better than hearing contradictions and going to sort it out for yourself. I could put in an argument that it’s Bible plus tradition (word of mouth) but I don’t want to be accused of changing the subject again.

Being unified uncomplicates things. Individual interpretations complicates things.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[Jesuspaiditall]

"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

Read Hebrews 9 and 10. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE FOR ALL. He doesn’t keep sacrificing himself!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read Hebrews 9 and 10. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE FOR ALL. He doesn’t keep sacrificing himself!

It is that one sacrifice that Catholics share in. Once in for all does not mean, once it’s over now. It means once and for all, always, including all future generations.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Read Hebrews 9 and 10. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE FOR ALL. He doesn’t keep sacrificing himself!

That’s true. When we celebrate the Eucharist at Mass, Jesus is not re-sacrificed but we do re-present His sacrifice, and, because He gave us a pattern to follow, we know that we are doing as He directed.

In setting the pattern for the Mass at the Last Supper, Jesus was very clear and straightforward. He never said He was giving symbols, He said “This is my BODY” and “This is my BLOOD”. He didn’t say “This bread is a symbol” or “This wine is a symbol”.

I trust Jesus to be true to His word.

 

[thirdn6]

Read Hebrews 9 and 10. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE FOR ALL.

VERY TRUE!!! And we Catholics remember that event in calvary every year during Good Fridays and everytime we pray the sorrowful mystery of the holy rosary and everyday in the holy Mass.

He doesn’t keep sacrificing himself!.

This kind of idea doesn’t make sense at all.:coffeeread:

 

[brkn1]

Hello again brkn1,

It still leaves us to question your interpretation. How do you know your interpretation supercedes all other interpretations? It sounds as if your saying God reveals His truth to you over everyone else. Here is a scripture, I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of, 1 Corinthians 1:10.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The above verse can also apply to your last paragraph.

Prodigal Son1

(1 Corinthians 1:10) supports what I have been saying about all the carnal Christians trying to use their own “wisdom” to decide how to approach God. Some were claiming that they followed this or that preacher etc. The same thing happens today with people saying that the “wisdom” of the Pope or the Magisterium or Luther or Calvin is necessary for proper understanding or interpretation of what God demands of us as Christians.

Paul pointed to the “preaching of the cross” (the Gospel of Christ) as the only true matter in religion.
All the other garbage (man’s wisdom) is what can, and usually does, get into the way of the “cross of Christ” and makes the Gospel “of none effect”. verse17
Man tends to want to do the same thing as Eve did at the fall and add something to God’s Word. God never said “neither shall ye touch it” about the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden.
The fact that she had added to God’s Word openned the door to buying into extra garbage from the serpent. Her own “wisdom” that came not from God was being accepted as truth by her. She was an inventer of truth by her own “wisdom” and this set her up for the serpent’s “wisdom”.

The only wisdom that really counts in religion and our salvation is God’s Wisdom.
Paul said it best at the conclusion of (1 Corinthians 1:30-31):
30. “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”
31. “That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

I like the “as it is written” phrase. That means according to God’s Scripture, not man’s.

 

[brkn1]

That’s true. When we celebrate the Eucharist at Mass, Jesus is not re-sacrificed but we do re-present His sacrifice, and, because He gave us a pattern to follow, we know that we are doing as He directed.

In setting the pattern for the Mass at the Last Supper, Jesus was very clear and straightforward. He never said He was giving symbols, He said “This is my BODY” and “This is my BLOOD”. He didn’t say “This bread is a symbol” or “This wine is a symbol”.

I trust Jesus to be true to His word.

You need to do more research on what the RCC believes happens in the Eucharist.
My understanding is that the priest calls Jesus down from Heaven to become the bread and wine, which is then sacrificed in a “bloodless” manner to the Father. Included in that sacrifice are the imperfect participants of the Mass that are also offered in sacrifice to the Father along with Jesus.
“Venial sins” of the participants are remitted by the Mass, even though there is no shedding of blood, which is a requirement for the remission of any sin.
The Mass also differs from the one and only original (shedding of Christ’s Blood) sacrifice of Jesus, in that “mortal sins” are not remmitted, only the “venial sins”, as pointed out.
Perhaps someone could do a better explanation of the Mass and point out where my understanding is not correct. Thanks.

 

[wisdomseeker]

(1 Corinthians 1:10) supports what I have been saying about all the carnal Christians trying to use their own “wisdom” to decide how to approach God. Some were claiming that they followed this or that preacher etc. The same thing happens today with people saying that the “wisdom” of the Pope or the Magisterium or Luther or Calvin is necessary for proper understanding or interpretation of what God demands of us as Christians.

Paul pointed to the “preaching of the cross” (the Gospel of Christ) as the only true matter in religion.
All the other garbage (man’s wisdom) is what can, and usually does, get into the way of the “cross of Christ” and makes the Gospel “of none effect”. verse17
Man tends to want to do the same thing as Eve did at the fall and add something to God’s Word. God never said “neither shall ye touch it” about the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden.
The fact that she had added to God’s Word openned the door to buying into extra garbage from the serpent. Her own “wisdom” that came not from God was being accepted as truth by her. She was an inventer of truth by her own “wisdom” and this set her up for the serpent’s “wisdom”.

The only wisdom that really counts in religion and our salvation is God’s Wisdom.
Paul said it best at the conclusion of (1 Corinthians 1:30-31):
30. “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”
31. “That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

I like the “as it is written” phrase. That means according to God’s Scripture, not man’s.

That is funny. this seems to describe what you are doing. buying the Bible and claiming to be able to interpret it. when the SS itself does not say you can.

if Jesus wanted us to interpret SS for ourselves He did not need to leave a Church.

Jesus could just trust in us to do a good job with His Word.

you need to learn more about the OT and jews history to understand the CC.

*“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… *

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(1 Corinthians 1:10) supports what I have been saying about all the carnal Christians trying to use their own “wisdom” to decide how to approach God. 31. “That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

I like the “as it is written” phrase. That means according to God’s Scripture, not man’s.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

So the speaking of the same thing and the schisms is for indiviual use according to you? So you, with your private interpretation should speak the same thing and have no schisms within yourself? Again, I fail to see the logic. He is clearly addressing more than one as he states, brethren and then in the same sentence says, that you all speak the same thing. With the exceptions of the Gnostics, the same thing was being spoken for about 1500 years, until the big schism or reformation as it’s better known today.

You like the as it is written statement which speaks of the prophesies of the Old Testament, I assume, since the New Testament had not yet been canonized.

You need to do more research on what the RCC believes happens in the Eucharist.
My understanding is that the priest calls Jesus down from Heaven to become the bread and wine, which is then sacrificed in a “bloodless” manner to the Father. Included in that sacrifice are the imperfect participants of the Mass that are also offered in sacrifice to the Father along with Jesus.
“Venial sins” of the participants are remitted by the Mass, even though there is no shedding of blood, which is a requirement for the remission of any sin.
The Mass also differs from the one and only original (shedding of Christ’s Blood) sacrifice of Jesus, in that “mortal sins” are not remmitted, only the “venial sins”, as pointed out.
Perhaps someone could do a better explanation of the Mass and point out where my understanding is not correct. Thanks.

Several of us have explained that Catholics do not re-sacrifice Christ, we share in the one and only sacrifice.

Seems you limit the power of the Holy Spirit. You say the Holy Spirit gives you an interpretation of the Bible (above all other interpretations) but you don’t believe the power of God can fulfill the blessings the priest asks for as Christ taught and was passed down in tradition as well as scripture.

I am using the KJV to give you a scripture below.

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Seems the Lord took any symbolism out of the equation with that statement.

By the way, you didn’t address my statement on your interpretation of John 16:13.

Your interpretation of John 16:13 is an example of being read out of context. You say he was talking to his diciples and not just the apostles. Aren’t these the same diciples who have already abandoned Christ because they could not bear his words, to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

In John 16:13 is Jesus telling the apostles what the Holy Spirit will teach them, at Pentacost and not that they will understand scriptures that had not yet been written.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[MelanieAnne]

You need to do more research on what the RCC believes happens in the Eucharist.
My understanding is that the priest calls Jesus down from Heaven to become the bread and wine, which is then sacrificed in a “bloodless” manner to the Father. Included in that sacrifice are the imperfect participants of the Mass that are also offered in sacrifice to the Father along with Jesus.
“Venial sins” of the participants are remitted by the Mass, even though there is no shedding of blood, which is a requirement for the remission of any sin.
The Mass also differs from the one and only original (shedding of Christ’s Blood) sacrifice of Jesus, in that “mortal sins” are not remmitted, only the “venial sins”, as pointed out.
Perhaps someone could do a better explanation of the Mass and point out where my understanding is not correct. Thanks.

I’m not the one that needs “do more research on what the RCC believes happens in the Eucharist.” It’s ironic that someone with such an erroneous understanding of the Eucharist would make such a suggestion.

While I would not claim to be as learned as many on this forum, I do know that this nonsense of Jesus being re-sacrificed at every Mass is a pernicious bit of slander circulated by anti-Catholic bigots that have the temerity to consider themselves Christian yet have no compunction about telling vicious lies about Catholics, not very “Christian” of them, is it? There is no truth to it whatsoever.

What I wrote before is what occurs, Jesus is NOT re-sacrificed (and no matter how many times that lie is repeated, it will not make it true) rather the Mass re-presents His sacrifice. We believe that Jesus was sacrificed once and only once, for the forgiveness of sins. The Eucharistic elements become the Body and Blood of Jesus at the time of the consecration. The Mass re-presents that sacrifice in the way that Jesus directed at the Last Supper.

As for your itemizing of sins, which are forgiven and which are not, that’s another nit-picky bit of nonsense too, but it’s also off-topic in a thread that is supposed to be about Real Presence.

Apparently you have read or heard things about Catholics from someone or some group that is rather rabidly anti-Catholic. If you really want to know the truth about the Catholic church, you should get your information from a more unbiased source. Otherwise, you end up looking rather foolish spouting typical ant-Catholic nonsense and trotting it out as truth.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Man’s interpretation of Scripture does not interest me nearly as much as simply reading God’s Word. Even if I agree with what someone teaches, it does not hold the authority of truth that only comes out of Scripture. God’s Word is not that difficult to understand. There are parts that are difficult, but that is what makes the Bible such a wonderful and inexhaustible source of study. The simple Gospel is not hard to understand at all, unless we allow someone “wise” to complicate it, which many do. It seems that the more learned and “wise” men are prone to mess up what God’s Wisdom already puts forth clearly.
It always makes me wonder when people say that God’s Word is difficult to understand.

I hate to break it to you, but your interpretation is simply “man’s interpretation.” Therefore, why should I pay attention to you?

 

[brkn1]

Several of us have explained that Catholics do not re-sacrifice Christ, we share in the one and only sacrifice.

Seems you limit the power of the Holy Spirit. You say the Holy Spirit gives you an interpretation of the Bible (above all other interpretations) but you don’t believe the power of God can fulfill the blessings the priest asks for as Christ taught and was passed down in tradition as well as scripture.

I am using the KJV to give you a scripture below.

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Seems the Lord took any symbolism out of the equation with that statement.

By the way, you didn’t address my statement on your interpretation of John 16:13.

Your interpretation of John 16:13 is an example of being read out of context. You say he was talking to his diciples and not just the apostles. Aren’t these the same diciples who have already abandoned Christ because they could not bear his words, to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

In John 16:13 is Jesus telling the apostles what the Holy Spirit will teach them, at Pentacost and not that they will understand scriptures that had not yet been written.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Your claim seems to indicate that only the Apostles and certain later “ordained apostles” can have the Holt Spirit indwell them to understand scriptures is way more limiting of the Holy Spirit than whatever you seem to be claiming I believe about the Holy Spirit’s role in a believer. We all are given that ability, when the Spirit dwells in us a born from above believer. There are those who want us to believe that truth can only come from them, so that they can lord it over God’s church. They even think it is OK to add or subtract from God’s Word. If someone questions their contradiction to scripture, they pronounce “anathema” on such questioners.

Your (John 6:55) quote where Jesus says, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” is not as airtight a proof against the symbolism of Jesus’ words as you would like to claim.
No one ever ate Jesus’ body or drank Jesus’ blood physically. That should give pause to an “absolute claim” that Jesus was definitely speaking in such a carnal manner of cannibalism.
The thirst and hunger that I referred to earlier, was Jesus talking spiritually about those longing for salvation from and closeness to God and our Saviour.
How can a spiritual thirst and hunger be fulfilled by a physical drinking and eating?
Jesus told the woman at the well, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”

Jesus said that His words are spirit and they are life.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Christ’s flesh profitted everything when He died on Calvary to redeem us and the world. It was a one time event though. Jesus died once in His flesh and He rose in a glorified body, never to die again. He sits at the right hand of the Father now, as He waits until His enemies become His footstool.
Jesus can dwell spiritually inside us through the presence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus will not come down again physically as some assume, until the second coming, which Jesus spoke about.
Jesus said it was necessary for Him to go to the Father first, so that He could send Holy Spirit to take His place for now.
If Jesus were physically in the bread and wine, as many believe, that would contradict the necessity of Jesus having to go to the Father before the Holy Spirit could come.

Jesus also said, at the end of the Gospel of Matthew that He would be with us always, even until the end of the world.

You seem to be implying that Jesus cannot be with us and sitting at the right hand of the Father at the same time.

For that matter, how can God be both in Heaven and present every time “two or more people gather in His name?”

 

[brkn1]

I hate to break it to you, but your interpretation is simply “man’s interpretation.” Therefore, why should I pay attention to you?

I could say the same thing about you, even if you choose to go along with some other group of men’s interprtation.
It is better to stick with God’s Word as the Holy Spirit reveals it to any true believer. The other interpretations had better line up with God’s Word or they are false or corrupted.

 

[brkn1]

Jesus also said, at the end of the Gospel of Matthew that He would be with us always, even until the end of the world.

You seem to be implying that Jesus cannot be with us and sitting at the right hand of the Father at the same time.

For that matter, how can God be both in Heaven and present every time “two or more people gather in His name?”

But Jesus is ALREADY inside every believer through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are in Christ as we have Christ inside us.
The idea that it is necessary to eat Christ physically to get Him inside us is contradicted by the fact that He is already there.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe many people wish that Jesus would have built more bookstores to sell Bibles instead of the Church.

The Catholic Church fighting heresies for 2000 years.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I could say the same thing about you, even if you choose to go along with some other group of men’s interprtation.
It is better to stick with God’s Word as the Holy Spirit reveals it to any true believer. The other interpretations had better line up with God’s Word or they are false or corrupted.

Nope! you could not.
God would never give anyone the HS to interpret the Bible contrary to the teachings of His Church.

The Catholic Church fighting heresies for 2000 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

So the speaking of the same thing and the schisms is for indiviual use according to you? So you, with your private interpretation should speak the same thing and have no schisms within yourself? Again, I fail to see the logic. He is clearly addressing more than one as he states, brethren and then in the same sentence says, that you all speak the same thing. With the exceptions of the Gnostics, the same thing was being spoken for about 1500 years, until the big schism or reformation as it’s better known today.

You like the “as it is written” statement which speaks of the prophesies of the Old Testament, I assume, since the New Testament had not yet been canonized.

Since you partially addressed my post, I have placed the the part you did not address above. I find it important since we have such diverse interpretations of this verse.

Your claim seems to indicate that only the Apostles and certain later “ordained apostles” can have the Holt Spirit indwell them to understand scriptures is way more limiting of the Holy Spirit than whatever you seem to be claiming I believe about the Holy Spirit’s role in a believer. We all are given that ability, when the Spirit dwells in us a born from above believer.

I must have made a mistake in thinking I had worded myself clearly as evident by your misinterpretation of it. I give the Holy Spirit power over all things including the transubstantion of bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as he taught the apostles. I believe the Holy Spirit guides all of us, that seeks God through Jesus Christ, through all things including the Church Christ created and promised Holy Spirit protection that even the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

There are those who want us to believe that truth can only come from them, so that they can lord it over God’s church.

Haven’t you done this throughout this thread? I see several of us who have addressed this with you. Your interpretation supercedes all other interpretations.

They even think it is OK to add or subtract from God’s Word.

You mean like the subtraction of books that took place through the reformation?

If someone questions their contradiction to scripture, they pronounce “anathema” on such questioners.

Personally, I would not pronounce anything of the sort. To be honest I feel you worded this as a way to call the Catholic interpretation of the Bible a “contradiction” as an ad hominem.

Your (John 6:55) quote where Jesus says, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” is not as airtight a proof against the symbolism of Jesus’ words as you would like to claim.
No one ever ate Jesus’ body or drank Jesus’ blood physically. That should give pause to an “absolute claim” that Jesus was definitely speaking in such a carnal manner of cannibalism.

I believe you are mistaken in your statement or you don’t believe Jesus could have performed the miracle stated below, in His words.

Mat 26:26 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.
Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

The thirst and hunger that I referred to earlier, was Jesus talking spiritually about those longing for salvation from and closeness to God and our Saviour.
How can a spiritual thirst and hunger be fulfilled by a physical drinking and eating?

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Real food for the spirit equals spiritual food and drink. Of course not everyone believes this now or then as evident of all the disciples who left Him and he let them go rather than explain He was speaking in symbolic words. Jesus always explained when He spoke in parable. Why didn’t He explain Himself this time?

Jesus told the woman at the well, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”

Jesus said that His words are spirit and they are life.

Yes, Catholics believe this. Spirit and the truth, all truths taught by Christ.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

brkn1,

I wanted to provide you some insight into the Catholic faith.

We believe Christ gave His body and blood through bread and wine, even though He stood there before them whole. We believe it because He said it was so. He lost a great deal of disciples because they could not bear it. He didn’t explain himself as He did everytime He spoke in a parable. He let them go and then asked His apostles if they were going to leave as well. Peter answered, where are we to go, You are the Son of the Living God. Did the apostles say they understood how it worked? No. Did He explain Himself to be speaking symbolically then? No. Just as the apostles believed that all things through Jesus were possible, we believe this transubstantiation that takes place is a mystery of God and accept it as part of our faith. Not fully understood by the human mind.

I assume you believe in the Trinity. Catholics believe in the Triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons in one God. There are only two verses in the Bible that mention all three at once.

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.

1Jn 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Another mystery as it is not distinctly explained to us, yet through our faith we believe.

There are several mysteries of God and His works that we accept through faith, yet do we fully understand how they all work? No. In our humaness we cannot presuppose to think like God, nor do we have the knowledge of God.

I hope this gives you a little insight on the Catholic faith. Through our faith, we believe.

Mat 18:3 And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

I must have made a mistake in thinking I had worded myself clearly as evident by your misinterpretation of it. I give the Holy Spirit power over all things including the transubstantion of bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as he taught the apostles. I believe the Holy Spirit guides all of us, that seeks God through Jesus Christ, through all things including the Church Christ created and promised Holy Spirit protection that even the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I believe you are mistaken in your statement or you don’t believe Jesus could have performed the miracle stated below, in His words.

Mat 26:26 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.
Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Real food for the spirit equals spiritual food and drink. Of course not everyone believes this now or then as evident of all the disciples who left Him and he let them go rather than explain He was speaking in symbolic words. Jesus always explained when He spoke in parable. Why didn’t He explain Himself this time?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Transubstantiation of the bread is not scriptural.
Many use the word “blessed” as proof that Jesus did some miracle upon the bread and wine.
“Blessed” can mean to consecrate or set aside something for God, but the verses in the bible point to the natural meaning of “blessed”. When talking about the cup of wine, Jesus “gave thanks” to the Father. That giving thanks and acknowledging the Father indicates what Jesus meant by “blessed”.

(Luke 22:17&19) confirm my interpretation.
17. “And he took the cup, and GAVE THANKS,…”
19. “And He took bread and GAVE THANKS, and brake it, …”

The RCC and others turn “giving thanks” into a miracle.
Anyone can and should give thanks to God for everything, including the breaking bread in “remembrance” of Jesus and what He did to redeem us. It does not make sense how far some have taken scripture and twisted it into a word such as “transubstantiation”. It is unscriptural.

Look at (John 13:18). John does not even describe much about the Last Supper itself. Jesus says in verse 18: “…, He that EATETH BREAD with Me hath lifted up his heel against Me.”
Jesus did not say, “He that eateth ME…”. Jesus called the bread “BREAD”.

I do not care about this “superceding interpretation” nonsense you want to place on me. I have been using scripture to interpret what God’s Word is. You are the one who wants to force meaning out of scripture that really does not make sense. The word “transubstantiation” does not intimidate me in the least. It is just a man-made word to define something that scripture does not confirm. It is an attempt to use man’s wisdom to define God’s Wisdom.