Was not 2Corinthians 5:16 Paul's ideal opportunity to teach transubstantiation?

[Bernard_Lyons]

Yea; I can acept that as one of the meanings,

God Bless you,
Patrick

Hi Patrick

(Luke22:1) “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is called the Passover”
The Lord says in verse 15&16:

“With eagerness I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:For I say unto you,I will not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”

Would you then agree that in the above verses Jesus is talking in reference to that of which the Passover is symbolising :his suffering,his death;and the shedding of his blood ?

As he would "not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled " ( by his death) “in the kingdom of God”
Further more since in Luke 24:41&42,Jesus asks the same disciples for meat:“Have ye any meat” “And they gave him a piece of broiled fish,and of honeycomb”
(Verse 43)

“And he took it,and did eat before them”

Would you also accept when Jesus here is talking of eating again,after his sufferings,it could possibly mean eating symbolically the fruit or results of his death ( and resurrection) ;when that is: “when the kingdom of God is come”?

Then for me ,as he says the same of the wine(verse18)

“For I say unto you,I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,until the Kingdom of God shall come”

This is what Jesus was actually eager and hoping to eat with his disciples ,after it was " fulfilled" because he is so soon after his resurrection seen eating "meat " with them.

That is that “fruit” produced by he he who is elsewhere called “the vine”.

For me it seems to be why Jesus refers to the wine in this manner .
And if Jesus speaks of the wine symbolically here ,what then can we make of the (unleavened) bread?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Patrick

(Luke22:1) “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is called the Passover”
The Lord says in verse 15&16:

“With eagerness I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:For I say unto you,I will not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”

Would you then agree that in the above verses Jesus is talking in reference to that of which the Passover is symbolising :his suffering,his death;and the shedding of his blood ?

As he would "not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled " ( by his death) “in the kingdom of God”
Further more since in Luke 24:41&42,Jesus asks the same disciples for meat:“Have ye any meat” “And they gave him a piece of broiled fish,and of honeycomb”
(Verse 43)

“And he took it,and did eat before them”

Would you also accept when Jesus here is talking of eating again,after his sufferings,it could possibly mean eating symbolically the fruit or results of his death ( and resurrection) ;when that is: “when the kingdom of God is come”?

Then for me ,as he says the same of the wine(verse18)

“For I say unto you,I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,until the Kingdom of God shall come”

This is what Jesus was actually eager and hoping to eat with his disciples ,after it was " fulfilled" because he is so soon after his resurrection seen eating "meat " with them.

That is that “fruit” produced by he he who is elsewhere called “the vine”.

For me it seems to be why Jesus refers to the wine in this manner .
And if Jesus speaks of the wine symbolically here ,what then can we make of the (unleavened) bread?

And yet Jesus never blesses and breaks any vine or door and tells folks to consume it. Very obvious what was symbolic and literal. It is amazing at the gymnastics non-Catholics go to prove a novel belief.

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11887056]Hi Patrick

(Luke22:1) “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is called the Passover”
The Lord says in verse 15&16:

“With eagerness I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:For I say unto you,I will not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”

Would you then agree that in the above verses Jesus is talking in reference to that of which the Passover is symbolising :his suffering,his death;and the shedding of his blood ?

Yes, that is the meaning implied by Christ. But even more than that is the teaching that He was Instituting the Most Holy Eucharist; wherein He [Christ is present; “really, Truly and Substanually”; hving replaced the bread with Himself. Lk. 22:19-21

As he would "not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled " ( by his death) “in the kingdom of God” Further more since in Luke 24:41&42,Jesus asks the same disciples for meat:“Have ye any meat” “And they gave him a piece of broiled fish,and of honeycomb”
(Verse 43)

“And he took it,and did eat before them”

Would you also accept when Jesus here is talking of eating again,after his sufferings,it could possibly mean eating symbolically the fruit or results of his death ( and resurrection) ;when that is: “when the kingdom of God is come”?

Not so much.

Here’s Haydocks Commentary on v 43 & 45
"Ver. 43. Christ eat, not because he stood in need of food to sustain himself after his resurrection, as we sustain our bodies and lives by corporal refreshment; but he did it, to shew his disciples that his body was really risen from the dead. (Ven. Bede)

Ver. 45. If, after all the extraordinary opportunities of instruction, which the apostles had had from the mouth of our divine Saviour, it was still necessary that he should instil into them a new light, by opening their minds to understand the Scriptures; what are we to think of the presumptuous attempts of the numerous tribe of modern self-inspired interpreters, who are always ready to descant on the word of the Lord; though so perfectly ignorant that their authority, so far from being admitted, would be laughed to scorn, were they to attempt to explain the slightest difficulty, on the most indifferent subject of profane literature? To such a degree has the spirit of seduction spread itself at the present day! (Haydock)

Then for me ,as he says the same of the wine(verse18)

“For I say unto you,I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,until the Kingdom of God shall come”

This is what Jesus was actually eager and hoping to eat with his disciples ,after it was " fulfilled" because he is so soon after his resurrection seen eating "meat " with them.

That is that “fruit” produced by he he who is elsewhere called “the vine”.

For me it seems to be why Jesus refers to the wine in this manner .
And if Jesus speaks of the wine symbolically here ,what then can we make of the (unleavened) bread?

Nope, sorry. I don’t see a problem with this understanding beyound it being only YOUR OWN.

Look at Mark 16: 14-15 and you’ll find Christ rebuking the Apostles for their unbeleif. What Chirst is doing here in the verses you ask about is more than anything else PROVING that He HAS Risen from the dead; a ghost can’t eat. This account in Mark and your verse are not seperated by alot of time. There is a connection there.

John 6: 40-63 is a precise, clear, unambigious account of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ. If your seeking evidence of Transubstanuation; that is where you should go.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hi Patrick

(Luke22:1) “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is called the Passover”
The Lord says in verse 15&16:

“With eagerness I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:For I say unto you,I will not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”

Would you then agree that in the above verses Jesus is talking in reference to that of which the Passover is symbolising :his suffering,his death;and the shedding of his blood ?

As he would "not any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled " ( by his death) “in the kingdom of God”
Further more since in Luke 24:41&42,Jesus asks the same disciples for meat:“Have ye any meat” “And they gave him a piece of broiled fish,and of honeycomb”
(Verse 43)

“And he took it,and did eat before them”

Would you also accept when Jesus here is talking of eating again,after his sufferings,it could possibly mean eating symbolically the fruit or results of his death ( and resurrection) ;when that is: “when the kingdom of God is come”?

Then for me ,as he says the same of the wine(verse18)

“For I say unto you,I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,until the Kingdom of God shall come”

This is what Jesus was actually eager and hoping to eat with his disciples ,after it was " fulfilled" because he is so soon after his resurrection seen eating "meat " with them.

That is that “fruit” produced by he he who is elsewhere called “the vine”.

For me it seems to be why Jesus refers to the wine in this manner .
And if Jesus speaks of the wine symbolically here ,what then can we make of the (unleavened) bread?

Hi Patrick,
Regarding my point about Jesus eating “meat” and honeycomb,after the resurrection,from which you base all of your answer : I was not claiming that by eating fish and honeycomb after his resurrection that this was a fulfilment of the words of Jesus at the “last” supper :

“I will not eat any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God”.

My reason for quoting this verse was only to show how that it could not have been physical food ,(as you rightly point to ) to satisfy earthly appetite,that Jesus was then talking of.

But rather about;his eating “thereof”, after those things typified,of him in the Passover (supper) had their fulfilment; that is after the resurrection (after it had been fulfilled")
Only then was this feasting ( or eating “thereof”) in reality ,I believe ,truly in spirit ,seen to commence.

Consider (As I have stated previously) that at the supper ,the disciples did not understand fully that Jesus ’ own sufferings ,death; and his blood being shed,where there being demonstrated thereby.That even though Jesus had previously informed them ,they where still there ,sharing this “meal” ,without understanding.

Only afterwards ( when he was risen from the dead ) was the truth revealed unto them.

Then is this not then to "eat thereof " in the “kingdom of God” ? When those things shown of him ,at the supper had been "fulfilled "?

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11889966]Hi Patrick,
Regarding my point about Jesus eating “meat” and honeycomb,after the resurrection,from which you base all of your answer : I was not claiming that by eating fish and honeycomb after his resurrection that this was a fulfilment of the words of Jesus at the “last” supper :

“I will not eat any more eat thereof,until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God”.

My reason for quoting this verse was only to show how that it could not have been physical food ,(as you rightly point to ) to satisfy earthly appetite,that Jesus was then talking of.

But rather about;his eating “thereof”, after those things typified,of him in the Passover (supper) had their fulfilment; that is after the resurrection (after it had been fulfilled")
Only then was this feasting ( or eating “thereof”) in reality ,I believe ,truly in spirit ,seen to commence.

Consider (As I have stated previously) that at the supper ,the disciples did not understand fully that Jesus ’ own sufferings ,death; and his blood being shed,where there being demonstrated thereby.That even though Jesus had previously informed them ,they where still there ,sharing this “meal” ,without understanding.

Only afterwards ( when he was risen from the dead ) was the truth revealed unto them.

Then is this not then to "eat thereof " in the “kingdom of God” ? When those things shown of him ,at the supper had been "fulfilled "?

Nicely done Thank you!
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

And yet Jesus never blesses and breaks any vine or door and tells folks to consume it. Very obvious what was symbolic and literal. It is amazing at the gymnastics non-Catholics go to prove a novel belief.

Luke 22:19 “And he took bread ,and gave thanks"eucharist(eo)
20"Likewise also the cup”

John 20:6-9
"Then cometh Simon Peter following him ,and went into the sepulchre,and seeth the linen clothes lie,
, And the napkin,that was about his head,not lying with the linen clothes,but wrapped together in place by itself.
Then went in also that other disciple,which was first to the sepulchre,and he saw ,and believed.

         "   For as yet they knew not the scripture,that he must rise again from the dead"

Nicea325,

As we can see from the above(Luke:22:19&20) ,as well as the bread ,Jesus gives thanks(eucharist-eo-) for the cup.

Now as you know, a cup is in every way ,a like inanimate object as a door is.
But you say ,It is “Very obvious what was symbolic and what was literal”.

For Peter ,and for those others sat around The Lord ,at the table,I believe it was not so obvious.
As well as not comprehending the meaning behind the sacrificed Lamb ,at the Passover meal; did they have any discernment at all : in regards to that " cup"?

If I where around the table that night,and looking around at the disciples,I believe they only were only seeing Jesus giving thanks ( eucharist-eo) for bread and for wine : that’s all.

As to eating his body( which was yet to be broken) what do you think ? ( they knew of it)

As I have stated previously the Greek word eucharist(eo) is the same word for thanks that the hypocrite uses in his prayer in the temple " I thank thee that I am not like…"

In any case ,(as a former Roman Catholic myself) where here is all the associated words ; positional movements ,ringing of bells,etc,etc, that as a Catholic I believed ,the "Mass " originated from?

 

[Nicea325]

Luke 22:19 “And he took bread ,and gave thanks"eucharist(eo)
20"Likewise also the cup”

John 20:6-9
"Then cometh Simon Peter following him ,and went into the sepulchre,and seeth the linen clothes lie,
, And the napkin,that was about his head,not lying with the linen clothes,but wrapped together in place by itself.
Then went in also that other disciple,which was first to the sepulchre,and he saw ,and believed.

         "   For as yet they knew not the scripture,that he must rise again from the dead"

Nicea325,

As we can see from the above(Luke:22:19&20) ,as well as the bread ,Jesus gives thanks(eucharist-eo-) for the cup.

Now as you know, a cup is in every way ,a like inanimate object as a door is.
But you say ,It is “Very obvious what was symbolic and what was literal”.

For Peter ,and for those others sat around The Lord ,at the table,I believe it was not so obvious.
As well as not comprehending the meaning behind the sacrificed Lamb ,at the Passover meal; did they have any discernment at all : in regards to that " cup"?

If I where around the table that night,and looking around at the disciples,I believe they only were only seeing Jesus giving thanks ( eucharist-eo) for bread and for wine : that’s all.

As to eating his body( which was yet to be broken) what do you think ? ( they knew of it)

As I have stated previously the Greek word eucharist(eo) is the same word for thanks that the hypocrite uses in his prayer in the temple " I thank thee that I am not like…"

In any case ,(as a former Roman Catholic myself) where here is all the associated words ; positional movements ,ringing of bells,etc,etc, that as a Catholic I believed ,the "Mass " originated from?

And yet the cup was not consumed or was it? The cup contained a liquid-right? Jesus said: DRINK. Jesus never says: DRINK THIS ACTUAL CUP! So yes, it is obvious what was symbolic and literal.Try again.

Do you honestly believe you have the correct understanding and interpretation and not ONE CATHOLIC SOUL prior to you ever understood the words of Christ? Seriously? Really? What arrogance…not surprising from a former Catholic.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

And yet the cup was not consumed or was it? The cup contained a liquid-right? Jesus said: DRINK. Jesus never says: DRINK THIS ACTUAL CUP! So yes, it is obvious what was symbolic and literal.Try again.

Do you honestly believe you have the correct understanding and interpretation and not ONE CATHOLIC SOUL prior to you ever understood the words of Christ? Seriously? Really? What arrogance…not surprising from a former Catholic.

Revelation chapter 14:12.

                                 "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation"

YES ,Nicea325,
That is the whole point : they were only drinking wine( and eating of bread)
What in fact ,did they know regarding that " cup", which he was firstly to drink there of ?Before that is :he passed it on to them?

John 18:11
“the cup which my Father giveth me,shall I not drink it?”

Even that “wrath of God” which he was to so very soon,consume ,to the bitter dregs;in his person ,and on behalf of all those who would soon afterwards ,with understanding ,“believe”:that this same “wrath of God” ,was indeed " poured out without mixture " into his “cup” ; and not theirs.

Would you Nicea325, ,in like manner,benefit from the “mass” ,without understanding ? Even that knowledge ,essential to salvation?

And could you not point to ,and rightly so,your priest and declare that what he was doing was no more than passing around a placebo medicine; and hoping for a desired effect?

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;11887981]And yet Jesus never blesses and breaks any vine or door and tells folks to consume it. Very obvious what was symbolic and literal. It is amazing at the gymnastics non-Catholics go to prove a novel belief.

Dear [nearly blind freind in Christ]

CHRIST IS THE BLESSING, He need not duplicate HIS WORDS by His actions

One finds this teaching of Christ by FIVE DIFFERENT Bible authors + PLUS God Himself; then finds immediate acceptace and PRACTICED and Fulfillment of this Commad in the eary Church.

The Early Church termed catholic holy Communion “Breaking of the Bread”
parts of acts ; 41-46 " They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. [46] And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of hea

And if your seeking PRECISE affirmation LOOK carefully at these:
Mt. 26:26-28
Mk. 14: 22:22-24
Lk. 22: 19-21
John 6: 41-45 “The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.** No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day”**

vs. 51-55 "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 argued 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 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.***

Vrs. 56-58 “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [GOD TELLING THIS!] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [WHICH IS EACTLY WHAT HAPPENS IN CATHOLIC HC] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me”.

Then a group of Jews shake their heads in disbelief and ABANDON GOD!

Jesus then turnes to the Apostles and ask: "do you wish to leave me too?"

And Peter, speaking for the Apostles replies:
Vrs. 69-71 " And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

And St Paul: 1 Cor, 11 20-29 "
“When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’ s supper”.

Vrs. 23-25 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And 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."

26-29 " For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew 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

[29]"*** For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." *
**

Friend, one cannot condem oneself to hell for consuming ORDINARY bread and wine!

Romans 3:3 “For what if some of them have not believed? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid”

Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief."

Hebrews 3:19 “And we see that they could not enter in, because of unbelief.”

John 5:47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 8:45 “But if I say the truth, you believe me not.”

John 20:31 “But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name”

I will pray for you to receive GODS Understanding

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Dear [nearly blind freind in Christ]

Dear Patrick,

You appear to be one who is in full possession of his sight.

Perhaps then,for my benefit and everybody else’s ,you would care to show unto us ,that which hitherto ,has gone unanswered ( or unseen) ; even to this very day:

Why is it ,that in the original ( or first) “Mass” as you would see it,those disciples who were eating the bread and drinking of the “cup” ,had no understanding of the cross or its significance nor of the sufferings involved ,for him ,who had given it to them, in" the way " of salvation?
If they did not see his coming death,( and resurrection) then in what respect do you think they understood or saw his body and blood ,actually; and literally present in the wine or in the bread ,that they where ,there and then ,eating of?

Did they believe for instance,that In the same way he re-produced ,from a few loafs and small fishes; he was now multiplying from his own person ,(flesh) and they were eating this?

As this "last " supper is( your ) the first “Mass” upon which all the others which were to follow, are built upon :I would be greatly interested in any answer to my darkness here on in this matter.As a former Roman Catholic and in regards to these questions:

For me this is a foundation that has been set in sand ;if I ever saw one!

 

[Nicea325]

Revelation chapter 14:12.

                                 "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation"

YES ,Nicea325,
That is the whole point : they were only drinking wine( and eating of bread)
What in fact ,did they know regarding that " cup", which he was firstly to drink there of ?Before that is :he passed it on to them?

John 18:11
“the cup which my Father giveth me,shall I not drink it?”

Even that “wrath of God” which he was to so very soon,consume ,to the bitter dregs;in his person ,and on behalf of all those who would soon afterwards ,with understanding ,“believe”:that this same “wrath of God” ,was indeed " poured out without mixture " into his “cup” ; and not theirs.

Would you Nicea325, ,in like manner,benefit from the “mass” ,without understanding ? Even that knowledge ,essential to salvation?

And could you not point to ,and rightly so,your priest and declare that what he was doing was no more than passing around a placebo medicine; and hoping for a desired effect?

Time is ticking. Do you ever plan to present what I have asked you? All you have done is dodge my challenge to you.

Again…please provide one writing by an early church father who taught the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic and the Real Presence as false.

The more you dodge my challenge the more it proves you have nothing to stand on but your fallible interpretations which I do not accept.

 

[PJM]

Dear Patrick

.

Perhaps then, for my benefit and everybody else’s ,you would care to show unto us ,that which hitherto ,has gone unanswered ( or unseen) ; even to this very day:

Why is it ,that in the original “Mass” as you would see it, those disciples who were eating the bread and drinking of the “cup” ,had no understanding of the cross or its significance nor of the sufferings involved ,for him ,who had given it to them, in" the way " of salvation?

My dear friend in CHRIST,

I’m not sure of source for this position; it certainly can’t be the bible. GOOGLE
Eucharistic Miracles. MANY have doubted and have SEEN the proof you seek.

In Mt. 10:1-8 we find Christ granting His Godly Powers to the Apostles. Peter is rightly named as the “FIRST,” because He was Christ choice to carry on the OT tradition of appointing A Man to lead His One Chosen people [now His One Chosen Church]. From Abraham, Moses, the Judges, David and Solomon, and the Prophet’ s like Isaiah, God always choose a single male leader. The last prophet; John the Baptist leads to Christ Himself, who freely choose Peter for this Role. He gives to Peter 1. Infused-knowledge 2. All the Keys to heavens access 3. Unlimited Powers of Governance. Mt. 16:15-19

In John 17:13-22 we find Christ again confirming that he HAS given to the Apostles His own Powers and Authority; Vs.18, and then gives HIMSELF as the warranty of ALL His Church would teach on “faith beliefs and Morals” Vs. 19.

Mt. 10: 1-8 we find a mandate to Cf. “go only to the Jews” Vs. 5-6. BUT then at the last moment after His Resurrection, Christ CHANGES the mandate “to the ENTIRE world.” Vs.19-20 & then repeats again that He WILL remain with them until the end of time.

If they did not see his coming death, then in what respect do you think they understood or saw his body and blood ,actually; and literally present in the wine or in the bread ,that they where ,there and then ,eating of?

Mt. 28: 19-20 Explained how it happened: Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded [and TAUGHT TO YOU] you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”

Did they believe for instance, that In the same way he re-produced ,from a few loafs and small fishes; he was now multiplying from his own person ,(flesh) and they were eating this?

As this "last " supper is the first “Mass” upon which all the others which were to follow, are built upon :I would be greatly interested in any answer to my darkness here on in this matter.

The Last supper was NOT the first Mass; BUT it led to the primary cause and effect of the soon to be Mass. [see this site # 1345, just enter the number and click on it when it comes up **scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1345.htm The early celebrations; “Breaking the Bread” were an in a emerging and rapidly growing church was seeded with the blood of countless martyrs, who did have the Faith and understanding God GRANTED to them to believe what they were TAUGHT. The bible was non-existent, in formation at that time.

For me this is a foundation that has been set in sand; if I ever saw one!

Well friend THE ROCK still stands to give YOU a surer footing:thumbsup:

That this teaching WAS taught, believed and accepted VERY early in the new church is indisputable. Paul in or about 56 AD [Christ died 33-35 AD] 1 Cor. 11: 23-30 [who was called AFTER Christ rose from the dead]
“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 shew 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: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.** For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.** Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” [Sleep here means damnation for unbelief]

Not only is the Eucharisitic Celebration Christ Commands followed and adhered to;** Acts 2: 46,** they would not have even known of the COMMAND were it not taught to them, BELIVED and Lived. It is this early Catholic Church, of great Faith which led to the VERY believe that led multitudes to be willing martyrs for the Catholic faith they held. Don’t overlook the God-infused knowledge given to Peter in Mt. 16: 16-17. God can certainly do this.

.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm ** The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)**
ck. out the site for many testimonies

The Very- Early Church did not have “the Mass” which evolved over the next 50-75 years following Christ Death and resurrection. BUT that does NOT mean that sacramental Holy Communion was not itself celebrated, understood and believed. Space is limited so if you would like further information send me a PM. [PJM]

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

I will pray for you to receive GODS Understanding

God Bless you,
Patrick

1CHRONICLES 11:17-19.
“And David longed,and said,Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth-lehem,that is at the gate!”

                                         "And the three brake through the host of the Philistines,and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem,that was by the gate,and took it,and brought it to David:but David would not drink of it,but poured it out to the LORD,"

                                          "And said,My God forbid it me,that I should do this thing:shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy?for with jeopardy of their lives they brought it.Therefore he would not drink it."

Dear Patrick ,

                   With all due respect, and with like consideration,I also do urge you ,to pray or cry out ,for your self: even to the "son of David "; that is (1Timothy2:5) to the "one" -and only-" mediator between  God and men,the man Christ Jesus;"

                     As you know, we can't both be right;either it is you ,who  are correct ;and your belief that the wine you drink of , and that bread (literal flesh ) you eat of  ,will satisfy your hunger and thirst (or  your need for righteousness ),throughout eternity ; or it is by me spiritually coming to Jesus with a believing heart that is the substance of ones feasting upon his broken body and shed blood: and this satisfies all need for righteousness ( or hunger and thirst).

John 6:35.
“And Jesus said unto them,I am the bread of life:he that cometh to me shall never hunger;and he that believeth on me shall never thirst”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Time is ticking. Do you ever plan to present what I have asked you? All you have done is dodge my challenge to you.

Again…please provide one writing by an early church father who taught the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic and the Real Presence as false.

The more you dodge my challenge the more it proves you have nothing to stand on but your fallible interpretations which I do not accept.

It’s a technique known as “bible verse slinging”.

Reminds me of an Uncle Grandpa commercial… Where Uncle GrandPa and another guy just keep saying good morning to one another… They never go antywhere…

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11897470]1CHRONICLES 11:17-19.
“And David longed,and said,Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth-lehem,that is at the gate!”

                                         "And the three brake through the host of the Philistines,and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem,that was by the gate,and took it,and brought it to David:but David would not drink of it,but poured it out to the LORD,"

                                          "And said,My God forbid it me,that I should do this thing:shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy?for with jeopardy of their lives they brought it.Therefore he would not drink it."

Dear Patrick ,

                   With all due respect, and with like consideration,I also do urge you ,to pray or cry out ,for your self: even to the "son of David "; that is (1Timothy2:5) to the "one" -and only-" mediator between  God and men,the man Christ Jesus;"

                     As you know, we can't both be right;either it is you ,who  are correct ;and your belief that the wine you drink of , and that bread (literal flesh ) you eat of  ,will satisfy your hunger and thirst (or  your need for righteousness ),throughout eternity ; or it is by me spiritually coming to Jesus with a believing heart that is the substance of ones feasting upon his broken body and shed blood: and this satisfies all need for righteousness ( or hunger and thirst).

John 6:35.
“And Jesus said unto them,I am the bread of life:he that cometh to me shall never hunger;and he that believeth on me shall never thirst”

Thank you.

As promised I will pray for you.

ALL OF THESE WERE WRITTEN NEARLY 1,500 YEARS BEFORE THE KJ BIBLE WAS FIRST PRINTED. AND FOR ABOUT 1,000 YEARS THE ONLY “CHRISTIN” CHURCH WAS TODAYS CATHOLIC CHURCH…HISTORICAL FACT MY FRIEND.’

John 10:16 “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”

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

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Mt. 7: 21-23 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers”

2 Tim. 4: 1-4 ”I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

2 Peter 2: 1-3 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Nicea325]

It’s a technique known as “bible verse slinging”.

Reminds me of an Uncle Grandpa commercial… Where Uncle GrandPa and another guy just keep saying good morning to one another… They never go antywhere…

Yup! The fact this ex-Catholic has not presented one valuable source outside the Bible,does not really help his cause.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

It’s a technique known as “bible verse slinging”.

Reminds me of an Uncle Grandpa commercial… Where Uncle GrandPa and another guy just keep saying good morning to one another… They never go antywhere…

Hi Isaiah 59:9,

Seems to me that if your mind was focused, more upon the Word of God ;and not upon television programming ( unless you only watch TV ,for the commercials that is ) you possibly might have the answer to the question in hand ;and not merely ,with your own “skill”,attempt to distract everyone’s attention from it.

PSALM 1:1&2

                    "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,nor stand etch in the way of sinners,nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.


                     "But his delight is in the law of The Lord;and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

But then again ,with the question of the disciples having no faith in ;or understand of ,Christ’s suffering and cross in “the way” of salvation; and still you maintain that they must still ,have been eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” ( at the supper) :

There is no rational answer!

Hence ,the silence .

So you might as well continue with your other associated interest:

Fictional ,TV ,programming.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Isaiah 59:9,

Seems to me that if your mind was focused, more upon the Word of God ;and not upon television programming ( unless you only watch TV ,for the commercials that is ) you possibly might have the answer to the question in hand ;and not merely ,with your own “skill”,attempt to distract everyone’s attention from it.

PSALM 1:1&2

                    "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,nor stand etch in the way of sinners,nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.


                     "But his delight is in the law of The Lord;and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

But then again ,with the question of the disciples having no faith in ;or understand of ,Christ’s suffering and cross in “the way” of salvation; and still you maintain that they must still ,have been eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” ( at the supper) :

There is no rational answer!

Hence ,the silence .

So you might as well continue with your other associated interest:

Fictional ,TV ,programming.

And if you focused on history more you would have been capable of presenting me what I have been asking you for how long now?

Still waiting…

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

And if you focused on history more you would have been capable of presenting me what I have been asking you for how long now?

Still waiting…

Nicea325,

As you also would accept the OT and the NT ,as historically accurate:

It escapes me how you can claim my position isn’t rooted in history.

John 6:47-51
“Verily,verily,I say unto you,He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

                 "I am that bread of life."



                 " Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,and are dead.
                   This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,that a man may eat 
                    thereof,and never die."

                   "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"

                  Did Jesus then, give his "flesh" up for us :on the sufferings of his cross ?
                    
                     What did Peter know of the sufferings of ; or the cross itself  ,here ,when he,
                      with the others, heard  the  above words?(Does anyone claim that in John 6
                      Peter thought ,he meant literal flesh( in the bread) by the cross of Christ?)




                       (Verse 68)


                         "Then Simon Peter answered him,Lord to whom shall we go?thou hast the 
                      words of eternal life."


                        None whatsoever ,I would claim ( just like at the "supper").

                        As Peter says of Jesus ( verse 68) that" thou hast the words" that is "of 
                         eternal life"
                        For me ,this is in accordance with Jesus' own explanation :

                         (Verse 63) " It is the spirit that quickeneth;the flesh profiteth nothing:the
                          Words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life"

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11907426]Nicea325,

As you also would accept the OT and the NT ,as historically accurate:

It escapes me how you can claim my position isn’t rooted in history.

John 6:47-51
“Verily,verily,I say unto you,He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

                 "I am that bread of life."

                 " Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,and are dead.
                   This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,that a man may eat 
                    thereof,and never die."

                   "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"

                  Did Jesus then, give his "flesh" up for us :on the sufferings of his cross ?
                    
        What did Peter know of the sufferings of ; or the cross itself  ,here ,when he,
                      with the others, heard  the  above words?(Does anyone claim that in John 6
                      Peter thought ,he meant literal flesh(  in the bread) by the cross of Christ?)
                       (Verse 68)
                         "Then Simon Peter answered him,Lord to whom shall we go?thou hast the words of eternal life."

                        None whatsoever ,I would claim ( just like at the "supper").

                        As Peter says of Jesus ( verse 68) that" thou hast the words" that is "of 
                         eternal life"
                        For me ,this is in accordance with Jesus' own explanation :

                         (Verse 63) " It is the spirit that quickeneth;the flesh profiteth nothing:the
                          Words that I speak unto you,they are spirit and they are life"

If Peter thought that Christ was speaking of literal flesh; he would not have made the proclaimination that Jesus WAS [IS] the Christ.

Here is Haydocks commentary on the verse:

"Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. — The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing."