Eucharist idol exposed by Celiac Disease

[jsanford108]

relying on pagan thought to explain Him His way is at best awkward...leave it to a mystery...mysteries are needed see rev 17

I understand transubstantiation, I also believe in miracles...but what you describe is not trans enough...the bread BECOMES flesh is the proper teaching...that it is a complete trans of the substances...

your miracle sounds more like consubstantiation retaining all the physical properties but miraculously remains flesh too...that is NOT Church teaching...it becomes flesh with the appearance/accidents/aesthetics of bread

but our digestive system doesnt have eyes to see it as flesh or touch sensations to feel it as flesh etc and is why the biological and chemical process of digestion has the body respond to it (the Host) now supposedly flesh as what it remains...bread unchanged...and not changed trans-ed into another substance flesh which has no gluten

You can't convince me that the allergen remains in what it looks like.

yes Consubstantiation was "developed" to argue this "duality" this "con" of Christ...and developed in hopes to drag it into yet another catagory...


all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)

He clearly clarifies it to His disciples because despite staying with Him they murmur at this hard saying and He asks why they are offended/troubled with the idea they have to eat Him...oh no wait He clarifies it "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING" wow...duh...The Spirit gives life not flesh (the gnawing of it) but the words He speaks they are life...just as the Spirit causes flesh to ascend where He was before...so its not the FLESH but the WORDS/SPIRIT... THEY are the life...

ummm...John 13 the only bread eaten is bread He handed to Judas...He dipped bread not flesh... wut? And I just showed you where He clarified to the murmuring disciples reluctant to cannibalize Him that it was the Words He spoke which was the Life as flesh profits NOTHING but it is the Spirit...

He let many walk away...few were with Him at the end... the poor disciples even misunderstood Him after He rose from the dead...that glory of Israel thingy

not my fault wolves in sheep clothing came in to the 1st century fold to spread lies and deception...even in Acts false witnesses attempted to slander Paul with false testimony that he taught the Law was changed...

The 2000 year old slander continues and includes recent debates I have seen on youtube where claims by "learned defenders of the Church" emphatically insist He made cannibalism ok by making all meats clean in Mark 7...it is that rediculous

well then that Host could be eaten with no allergic reaction to gluten as it wouldnt exist...it was transubstantiated...from actual bread to actually meat

You utilize very good debate techniques, and present well formed arguments. I thank you for that. I apologize for a delay in responding, I have been quite busy with remodeling a house.

I admit, I have not quite learned how to do the excellent quote breakdown, as you have, so forgive my archaic form of simply quoting (I will underline your quotes, as I believe I did previously).

"all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)": This is a point that I agree with you on. God/Christ will not do some things. Christ would not rise on the second day. Why? Because 1) He did not, and 2) He said the "third day." So we are in complete agreement on this premise.

The issue you are highlighting is the presence of an allergen in a "miraculously transformed food" (my words, not yours). Would you agree on this analysis?

If you agree, I ask, what blood type did Christ have? Sure, it doesn't really matter. But some people's blood types are incompatible with alternate types. So, what if a person with incompatible blood, was given a transfusion, by Christ? Now I know, this is really trivial, and an impossible hypothetical question; But the essence of this question is the exact same as the allergen argument that you have put forth. It is an argument over individual, biological, and physical inefficiencies trumping divine attributes. The fallacy present within your argument is that you are "debunking" Divine aspects using biological restrictions. ( I have avoided using the term "fallacy," but at this point, I may have to use it in order to describe various approaches to this discussion). This style of arguing is slightly false, due to arguing with two different ideas: divine/mystical and biological/physical. By using an individual's physical and biological incompatibilities and inefficiencies in order to "debunk" a "miraculous" and "divine gift," you have skirted around using theological proof, relying on an illusion of the natural affecting the supernatural.

We no doubt agree that the supernatural can and does affect the natural, but the natural is unable to affect the supernatural. Now, you can argue your original point of "how can this 'miracle' of transubstantiation not bypass a person's allergies?" And that goes back to my point on the fact that the substance of the bread is not changed. The Host retains all the physical attributes of bread, as Christ retained all the physical attributes of Man. The difference is that the Divine is also wholly present.

"not my fault wolves in sheep clothing came in to the 1st century fold to spread lies and deception...even in Acts false witnesses attempted to slander Paul with false testimony that he taught the Law was changed...
The 2000 year old slander continues and includes recent debates I have seen on youtube where claims by "learned defenders of the Church" emphatically insist He made cannibalism ok by making all meats clean in Mark 7...it is that rediculous": For this point, I will utilize Catholic vernacular, as thus far, I have used names such as "John," but now I will use "St. John," as it will ease your ability to cross check the various names and information I present, if you so wish.

These people you label as "wolves" were early Christians, Apostles, disciples, etc. For example, here are several of the early Christians who taught Eucharist doctrine, as it is taught and held today:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 AD) *Ignatius was a disciple of John, the Apostle of Christ.
St. Pliny the Younger (32-114 AD)
St. Polycarp (155 AD) *Polycarp was a disciple of John, the Apostle of Christ.
St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
St. Irenaeus (130-200 AD) *Irenaeus listened to many sermons of John and Polycarp.
St. Clement of Alexandria (150-225 AD)
St. Tertullian (160-225 AD)
St. Origen (185-254 AD)
St. Eusebius (260-340 AD)
St. Athanasius (296-373 AD)
St. Basil the Great (330-386 AD)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)
St. Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD)

So, for 300 years, all these early Christians, who knew the Apostles, were listening to the apostolic teachings, and then teaching those things, themselves. Why, in any letter from the early Apostles, do we not have a correction of these men or their teachings, if it was a false doctrine?

"well then that Host could be eaten with no allergic reaction to gluten as it wouldnt exist...it was transubstantiated...from actual bread to actually meat": There is actually a common falsehood spread that the early Church legalized cannibalism, in order to be able to teach the doctrine of the Eucharist. This is simply a falsehood, easily debunked by the slightest of research. But the issue that you put forth, actually relates back to some early questionings of the Eucharist, in terms of actual consuming of flesh. One of the letters by the aforementioned men actually addressed this issue, declaring that it was not cannibalism in any form. The saint also reiterated this point using the very passage I used, from John 6.

Here is where it is best to address your first point, on the "flesh profits nothing." A good charge. However, the verse you refer to, John 6:63, is Christ saying that we, people, cannot accept the mystery if we think of it in too human form, having too much of an earthbound view. AKA: placing human and natural restrictions on the miraculous and supernatural. This is further expounded upon and seen, when observing this whole passage. This idea of consuming Christ, the Eucharist, caused arguments (v. 52) among those listening in Capernaum, scandalized some (v. 61), and led many to give up following Christ. Those to closed themselves to the divine were not ready to accept anything which went beyond their limited physical horizons.

 

[clefty]

You utilize very good debate techniques, and present well formed arguments. I thank you for that. I apologize for a delay in responding, I have been quite busy with remodeling a house.

good luck with the remodeling...

...are you remodeling only the aesthetics/accidents of the house or the substance as well?

"all very interesting but not only cant He do some things (make you believe) He WONT (breaking His Father's Law and especially to keep the gospel of salvation its method and application a mystery)": This is a point that I agree with you on. God/Christ will not do some things. Christ would not rise on the second day. Why? Because 1) He did not, and 2) He said the "third day." So we are in complete agreement on this premise.

no we certainly are not...His Father's law does not allow eating of human flesh nor drinking of blood but you would have His Son counter this law to cannibalize and consume blood.

Yours argue that Yah's law was changed and its ok to drink blood and eat human flesh.

See it for yourself

https://youtu.be/QPL1JKOdWvc

Begin at minute 31

At 31:30 the Papist insists Yahushua abolished His Father's law at the sermon of the mount.

But "Think not" He said

The issue you are highlighting is the presence of an allergen in a "miraculously transformed food" (my words, not yours). Would you agree on this analysis?

yes more specifically why is the miracle NOT COMPLETE enough to allow all to partake and not just those who are not allergic to gluten? Does an allergy have more power than a miracle?

If you agree, I ask, what blood type did Christ have? Sure, it doesn't really matter. But some people's blood types are incompatible with alternate types. So, what if a person with incompatible blood, was given a transfusion, by Christ? Now I know, this is really trivial, and an impossible hypothetical question;

Not really. It reveals He was human and given the means He could transfer His blood but if
His blood was not compatible with the recipient then it would not work...unless by a miracle Divine intervention willed it to take ...but without that...His donation would fail.

But the essence of this question is the exact same as the allergen argument that you have put forth. It is an argument over individual, biological, and physical inefficiencies trumping divine attributes.

nope...His blood was human and in and of itself nothing miraculous...His flesh was human flesh...also nothing miraculous about It...is why He insisted it was the Spirit...the words He spoke they were the life...flesh profits nothing

The fallacy present within your argument is that you are "debunking" Divine aspects using biological restrictions. ( I have avoided using the term "fallacy," but at this point, I may have to use it in order to describe various approaches to this discussion).

not at all...I am not claiming the donkey did not speak as it still looked like a donkey...or could not speak because it was a donkey...the Divine is never restricted by biology Instead I am arguing that the donkey remained a donkey even as it spoke...miraculously by the working power of the Spirit

This style of arguing is slightly false, due to arguing with two different ideas: divine/mystical and biological/physical. By using an individual's physical and biological incompatibilities and inefficiencies in order to "debunk" a "miraculous" and "divine gift," you have skirted around using theological proof, relying on an illusion of the natural affecting the supernatural.

it is NOT an illusion that people actually get sick from the bread and drunk from the wine...indeed if the wine is to become blood why are people getting drunk?...or alcoholics not to be served?

We no doubt agree that the supernatural can and does affect the natural, but the natural is unable to affect the supernatural.

exactly why I argue that no miracle takes place and the bread remains bread does not become flesh and triggers those that are allergic to wheat...no way an allergen can override a supernatural event

Now, you can argue your original point of "how can this 'miracle' of transubstantiation not bypass a person's allergies?" And that goes back to my point on the fact that the substance of the bread is not changed.

that is contrary to Church teachings which are the substance does change the accidents or aesthetics do not...

The substance is essential and is changed

what is essential is also determined by church law and that is that the bread is not merely bread but that it is wheat bread...that it contains wheat

It being wheat is not merely an accident or an accident but the substance...which is to be changed by divine intervention into flesh which contains no gluten...

The Host retains all the physical attributes of bread, as Christ retained all the physical attributes of Man. The difference is that the Divine is also wholly present.

again sounds closer to consubstantiation as you have both present

But the substance is "transed"...the bread is changed into flesh...it just looks like bread.

And I maintain the allergen is not in what the bread looks like...

So, for 300 years, all these early Christians, who knew the Apostles, were listening to the apostolic teachings, and then teaching those things, themselves. Why, in any letter from the early Apostles, do we not have a correction of these men or their teachings, if it was a false doctrine?

those early christians who knew the apostles did not live to the third century...already before the temple was destroyed Peter and Paul were dealing with those who wished to slander them and accuse them that changes were made...another gospel new teaching wolves in sheep's skin

transubstantiation was a later development in attempts to make what was understood as a metaphor/symbol more than it really was...for the comfort of the gullible "He is in you now...literally"

Here is where it is best to address your first point, on the "flesh profits nothing." A good charge. However, the verse you refer to, John 6:63, is Christ saying that we, people, cannot accept the mystery if we think of it in too human form, having too much of an earthbound view. AKA: placing human and natural restrictions on the miraculous and supernatural. This is further expounded upon and seen, when observing this whole passage. This idea of consuming Christ, the Eucharist, caused arguments (v. 52) among those listening in Capernaum, scandalized some (v. 61), and led many to give up following Christ. Those to closed themselves to the divine were not ready to accept anything which went beyond their limited physical horizons.

So this tradition is claimed to have started from the first century just needed much clarification as time went on and people began to doubt

There is actually a common falsehood spread that the early Church legalized cannibalism, in order to be able to teach the doctrine of the Eucharist. This is simply a falsehood, easily debunked by the slightest of research. But the issue that you put forth, actually relates back to some early questionings of the Eucharist, in terms of actual consuming of flesh. One of the letters by the aforementioned men actually addressed this issue, declaring that it was not cannibalism in any form. The saint also reiterated this point using the very passage I used, from John 6.

I just gave you a video which shows this clearance to cannibalize is still being taught when those who would go against the Fathers Law are backed into a corner...as if the Son would counter His Father's Law.

I am not restricting the supernatural I am simply arguing that nothing supernatural occurs and that is why those who partake of eucharist and are allergic to it are responding not to its becoming flesh but its remaining bread...

As for being closed off to the divine many sadly still are due to ciliac disease and/or alcoholism...as if it is because the miracle is not strong enough to spare them?

If there was an allergic reaction to FLESH then the supernatural has indeed occurred...bread to flesh

or if they reacted to the blood...but instead people still get drunk if given access to the consecrated wine which was supposedly turned into blood...

I maintain the allergen is not in the accidents but in the substance which should have been miraculously changed into another substance which shouldnt harm the partaker

 

[jsanford108]

I am remodeling simple aesthetics. A few internal elements needed replacing, thus my delay.

I appreciate you understanding. As well as, your response. I will do my best to give my rebuttal tomorrow.

God Bless.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[clefty]

I am remodeling simple aesthetics. A few internal elements needed replacing, thus my delay.

indeed...complicated relationship that of simple aesthetics with internal elements replaced...

Hopefully what was once a door has not been changed into a wall yet still with accidents of a door...

I appreciate you understanding. As well as, your response. I will do my best to give my rebuttal tomorrow.

God Bless.

These poor saints need more patience than I:

"Catholics recently diagnosed with celiac disease experience a profound sense of loss for many of the things they loved and enjoyed in life. The loss of the Eucharist can be devastating. No longer able to receive Holy Com- munion as a part of the larger Church community, many Catholic celiacs feel abandoned by their Church and isolated from their Faith. They describe their feelings about facing Holy Communion with terms such as “marginalized”, “spiritual leper”, “beggar at the banquet”, “anxious”, “set apart”and “awkward”. This sense of loss is reinforced by the emphasis that is placed on the “Bread of Life”during the Mass (in hymns and in terms of communion) and the lack of parity that is demonstrated for Christ’s Precious Blood."

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/CatholicCeliacOverview.pdf

Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?

What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed

Biology says otherwise...

Here is a brave attempt to explain:

"The chemical effects of the gluten on the intestinal wall will consequently still remain, just as much as the appearance and texture of bread, for they are just as accidental to the real nature of what is there as the appearance and texture. Here lies the miracle and the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. It would be a miracle if the accidental qualities of gluten were not to harm the intestine. Although such miracles can happen, we cannot depend upon such an extraordinary intervention of Almighty God."

http://shamelesspopery.com/the-eucharist-for-those-suffering-from-celiac-disease/

REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?

Besides it is ecclesial law which makes wheat gluten not the accident but the essence the substance the thing of the thing...which changes transubstantiates to flesh...

And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....

It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...

Is a little allergic reaction too much?

Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...

 

[jsanford108]

indeed...complicated relationship that of simple aesthetics with internal elements replaced...

Hopefully what was once a door has not been changed into a wall yet still with accidents of a door...



These poor saints need more patience than I:

"Catholics recently diagnosed with celiac disease experience a profound sense of loss for many of the things they loved and enjoyed in life. The loss of the Eucharist can be devastating. No longer able to receive Holy Com- munion as a part of the larger Church community, many Catholic celiacs feel abandoned by their Church and isolated from their Faith. They describe their feelings about facing Holy Communion with terms such as “marginalized”, “spiritual leper”, “beggar at the banquet”, “anxious”, “set apart”and “awkward”. This sense of loss is reinforced by the emphasis that is placed on the “Bread of Life”during the Mass (in hymns and in terms of communion) and the lack of parity that is demonstrated for Christ’s Precious Blood."

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/CatholicCeliacOverview.pdf

Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?

What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed

Biology says otherwise...

Here is a brave attempt to explain:

"The chemical effects of the gluten on the intestinal wall will consequently still remain, just as much as the appearance and texture of bread, for they are just as accidental to the real nature of what is there as the appearance and texture. Here lies the miracle and the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. It would be a miracle if the accidental qualities of gluten were not to harm the intestine. Although such miracles can happen, we cannot depend upon such an extraordinary intervention of Almighty God."

http://shamelesspopery.com/the-eucharist-for-those-suffering-from-celiac-disease/

REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?

Besides it is ecclesial law which makes wheat gluten not the accident but the essence the substance the thing of the thing...which changes transubstantiates to flesh...

And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....

It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...

Is a little allergic reaction too much?

Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...

Do not be dismayed about my remodeling. I trusted the knowledge and blueprints of those who existed before me to give accurate and precise teachings on the substance and layout of my house. Turns out, they were accurate.

"Again why would the divine miracle not be more complete so that no wheat remained in the eaten flesh? Or does His body contain gluten?
What is essential is wheat and that is changed to His body yes? The accidents remain the same not what is the essence...that transubstantiates...bread becomes flesh...is believed
Biology says otherwise...": I believe I have addressed this, but I shall attempt to again, as it may be more clear with your phrasing. Christ's Body probably does contain substance that individuals' biology would reject. Such as blood type. A naturally occurring biological defect does not negate supernatural. We would not say Christ was not fully God if a blood transfusion of His was rejected by a person with O-, would we? Of course not. Because we know of such mutagens to be of natural origin, and unable to coexist within a person. Therefore, to reject the idea of the Eucharist, based on naturally occurring biological defects, is a fallacy inducing approach to miracles.

"REALLY? Why not? Why cant we depend on an Almighty God? Is He not faithful?": This is a faith issue. Such arguments could easily be utilized by those being persecuted for being born different than those in power. Do those African tribes, slaughtered for an opposing tribe, cry out, "why can I not depend on God for deliverance from this persecution?! Is he not faithful?!" But I am sure you do not dismiss the merciful nature of God, based solely on his lack of intervention in such brutal affairs. Why?

Likewise, a human, biological flaw is no reason to dismiss a supernatural miracle. As the explanation you provided stated, the Eucharist is wheat. It is the substance, aesthetics, appearance, etc. of bread. Just as Christ was the substance, aesthetics, appearance, etc. of man. But we know that He was fully God. As we know that the Eucharist is fully Christ. (Granted, if you deny the hypostatic nature of Christ, that is a different discussion altogether; and one that would make your current stance on the Eucharist make more sense from your perspective)

"And if not, why does the Church allow the host to be avoided? Received by wine only? Or purchase (HMMMM buying His body?) sanctioned crackers....
It is what He commanded to eat wheat bread..He asked we pick up our crosses...to tolerate persecution...to die...
Is a little allergic reaction too much?": The Church allows those who have gluten allergies to receive the wine. That is not an issue at all. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying there. If so, I apologize. And if you ask me, an allergen is an acceptable cross to bear. Unless there was an extreme circumstance, I would say that those who complain about their allergy, using it to draw attention, etc, are no better than the pharisee praying loudly in public, demonstrating how much they fast.

The Church understands that people have allergies. Biological issues which may hinder them in some capacity. As I am sure Christ does. But He used bread at the Last Supper, did He not? He didn't ask if each apostle was okay with using something that might create allergy issues. God made plants with pollen. He did not consult people with severe outdoor allergies. Why? Because it should not hinder one's ability to understand the glory of God.

"Martyrs today are the alcoholics who suffer from celiac disease...": Most people with celiac disease don't drink, due to gluten being in most alcoholic beverages. Also, if someone is such a bad alcoholic that they can't have church wine, which has such small percentage of alcohol in it, then they need to really get their life in shape. That is a whole different degree of self-control being let go in order to feed a sinful preference.

 

[jsanford108]

A knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out another piece of information, which I would like to present.

Now, maybe my previous points on Scripture and clarifications made by the Apostle John were enough. But, my friend pointed out that the verses where Christ describes "eating flesh," He kept using personal pronouns, such as "my flesh." Christ keeps insisting that His Flesh is indeed food and drink. But when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing," it was impersonal. Thus, a change of subject and noun. Scholars infer this passage of "the flesh" to be talking about looking at things from a worldly perspective vs eyes of faith.

I was advised to perhaps make that point clearer. If my previous point was already clear enough, I apologize, but I thought the suggested clarification did add to the discussion.

God Bless.

 

[clefty]

A knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out another piece of information, which I would like to present.

Now, maybe my previous points on Scripture and clarifications made by the Apostle John were enough. But, my friend pointed out that the verses where Christ describes "eating flesh," He kept using personal pronouns, such as "my flesh."

No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...

Why would He even need the bread and wine?

Christ keeps insisting that His Flesh is indeed food and drink.

yes to keep to the symbolism and metaphor of the teaching and keeping his students on their toes as every good teacher does...best to follow "I am a door" with "I am the way" really rounds out the lesson...

But when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing," it was impersonal. Thus, a change of subject and noun.

subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?

You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right? His flesh killed on the cross profited yes? So He lied? Or did He mean actually literally eating Him...as that is what the lesson was about which disturbed the disciples...luckily He clarified it...the Spirit...the words He speaks they profit not the His flesh as food...

Scholars infer this passage of "the flesh" to be talking about looking at things from a worldly perspective vs eyes of faith.

that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...

I was advised to perhaps make that point clearer. If my previous point was already clear enough, I apologize, but I thought the suggested clarification did add to the discussion.

God Bless.

thanks...indeed add to the discussion

 

[jsanford108]

No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...

Why would He even need the bread and wine?



yes to keep to the symbolism and metaphor of the teaching and keeping his students on their toes as every good teacher does...best to follow "I am a door" with "I am the way" really rounds out the lesson...

subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?

You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right? His flesh killed on the cross profited yes? So He lied? Or did He mean actually literally eating Him...as that is what the lesson was about which disturbed the disciples...luckily He clarified it...the Spirit...the words He speaks they profit not the His flesh as food...

that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...

thanks...indeed add to the discussion

I am unsure how you break down a quote like you do, but it is very impressive. Forgive my archaic form. If I figure out how to break down quotes like you, I will surely switch to that formatting technique.

"No surprise there as He wasn't talking about eating someone else's flesh despite apparently clearing the practice of cannibalism earlier(you havent responded to that) Did you expect Him to use another pronoun...like "his" or "her flesh"...or "your" flesh?...its about eating flesh...His flesh...symbolically...or did you think He expected them to eat Him then and there? Even before He was killed...": First, I can find no evidence of cannibalism being cleared. I thought I had addressed that, so forgive the lack of attention on my part. But, alas, I have searched for such sources that state an "okaying" of cannibalism in order to defend the Eucharist; I can find no such document.

I would not expect Christ to use another pronoun, rather than "my," due to my obvious stance. He was explicitly referring to His own flesh. If Christ was being symbolic, why is no clarification added by John or Christ? As stated before, any time Christ spoke figuratively, symbolically, etc., clarification was provided by either Christ, or the gospel writer. In the passage about "eating my flesh," no clarification is given. If Christ was being symbolic, can you point to where that is demonstrated in the Scripture? As I said, historical evidence points to the constant teachings of the Eucharist by the Apostles and their protegees.

"Why would He even need the bread and wine?": This is a question that I would say serves no purpose, as I am sure you would agree. Akin to asking "Why did God create the universe in 6 days?" Granted, I will say that bread and wine were utilized as a means of renewing/fulfilling the Paschal feast, first initiated by God, through Moses, in Egypt. Hence, the unleavened bread and wine.

"subject remains and noun remains flesh...His flesh...so if it profits nothing then why did this flesh have to be pierced?": I would disagree with the subject remaining the same. "my flesh" is not the same subject as "the flesh." Like "my body" is different subject-wise from "your body." One show's possession, while the other is generalized.

The reason Christ's flesh had to be pierced is to fulfill the Scriptures. His Body had to be broken, as the bread is, to be available for all to partake. There is your symbolism and allusion.

"You would agree that His flesh pierced is much more profitable than Peter's or judas' yes? Was He lying when He said flesh profits nothing? Or is it more in line within this contex...the eating of His flesh? The passover lamb's flesh profited right?": I would say that your point here proves my claim. If, as you say, Christ spoke true saying "the flesh profits nothing," meaning literal flesh, then His physical sacrifice would mean nothing. However, if Christ was changing subjects, making "the flesh" into "the things of the world," as it is commonly referenced, then there is no contradiction. By equating these two phrases, as many do, one creates a paradox in Christ's teaching, negating the need for physical sacrifice on His part. Therefore, by applying my claim, that His Flesh is true food, and "the flesh" (the things of the world) profit nothing, then Christ has not contradicted Himself, and instituted the Eucharist.

"that's nice...my faith remains in flesh that profits...whether in the passover lamb or His being pierced...certainly the words this son of man spoke...scholars inferences are an agenda...:" We are in a slight agreement. The scholars are in agreement with my claim though. And, I think you agree on the premise that I stated "the flesh profits nothing" would mean that the things of this world do us no good. It is the most logical analysis of that statement. Which, makes it a different statement, bearing no parallel in vocabulary, with "My flesh is true food."

If you submit that "the flesh profits nothing" refers to actual flesh, and thus negating "My flesh is true food," then yes, the Last Supper is pure symbolism. But this creates two errors. First, Christ and John never gave the clarification of John 6 being symbolic, and allowed a multitude to turn away without hearing such "truth." Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense. But, if you are merely partaking of a symbol, then what sin have you committed? But if the Eucharist is real, then unworthy partaking is grievous, for you are sinning against the actual Body of Christ.

Examine the follow up verse as well. "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Corinthians 11:30) This could easily be inferred that many, "those who sleep," do not recognize the legitimacy of the Eucharist. Thus, the logical progression, combining the Gospel according to John, as well as this passage from Paul, points to the Eucharistic teachings being accurate and fact.

*Now, I am sure you have a different interpretation than I. However, I would argue that my claims follow a simple logical progression throughout Scripture; without the need to jump to another book in order to clarify meaning, only to jump back to the previous book in an attempt to cement the claim.
I do applaud you on your discussion tactics. I really do enjoy your responses, despite my disagreement. Your claims are very well formed.

 

[clefty]

I am unsure how you break down a quote like you do, but it is very impressive. Forgive my archaic form. If I figure out how to break down quotes like you, I will surely switch to that formatting technique.

Let nothing be a mystery on this thread but let my words be bread to eat the code to type by the Spirit of truth to be your guide.

When wishing to respond to a text simply use the brackets "[" and "]" around the word "quote" and that begins the section of text you wish to respond to... so hit "reply with quote" button and type "[" "quote" "]" to begin the text you wish to respond to


end the desired text section with again the bracket "[" but now include back slash "/" then the word "quote" and final bracket "]" this now contains the text you wish to respond to... this looks like "[" "/" "quote" "]"



May the Spirit of Truth reveal even more

 

[clefty]

First, I can find no evidence of cannibalism being cleared. I thought I had addressed that, so forgive the lack of attention on my part. But, alas, I have searched for such sources that state an "okaying" of cannibalism in order to defend the Eucharist; I can find no such document.

well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?

I would not expect Christ to use another pronoun, rather than "my," due to my obvious stance. He was explicitly referring to His own flesh. If Christ was being symbolic, why is no clarification added by John or Christ? As stated before, any time Christ spoke figuratively, symbolically, etc., clarification was provided by either Christ, or the gospel writer. In the passage about "eating my flesh," no clarification is given. If Christ was being symbolic, can you point to where that is demonstrated in the Scripture? As I said, historical evidence points to the constant teachings of the Eucharist by the Apostles and their protegees.

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption

"Why would He even need the bread and wine?": This is a question that I would say serves no purpose, as I am sure you would agree.

no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him

Akin to asking "Why did God create the universe in 6 days?"

you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too

Granted, I will say that bread and wine were utilized as a means of renewing/fulfilling the Paschal feast, first initiated by God, through Moses, in Egypt. Hence, the unleavened bread and wine.

the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually

The reason Christ's flesh had to be pierced is to fulfill the Scriptures.

so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth

His Body had to be broken, as the bread is, to be available for all to partake. There is your symbolism and allusion.

again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...

If, as you say, Christ spoke true saying "the flesh profits nothing," meaning literal flesh, then His physical sacrifice would mean nothing.

but I don't say that...I know His physical sacrifice means something...and NOT "dinner is served" that is NOT what is meant as He clarified the words He spoke the truth the Spirit of them...etc...

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up

However, if Christ was changing subjects, making "the flesh" into "the things of the world," as it is commonly referenced, then there is no contradiction. By equating these two phrases, as many do, one creates a paradox in Christ's teaching, negating the need for physical sacrifice on His part. Therefore, by applying my claim, that His Flesh is true food, and "the flesh" (the things of the world) profit nothing, then Christ has not contradicted Himself, and instituted the Eucharist.

but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart

If you submit that "the flesh profits nothing" refers to actual flesh, and thus negating "My flesh is true food," then yes, the Last Supper is pure symbolism.

true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

But this creates two errors. First, Christ and John never gave the clarification of John 6 being symbolic, and allowed a multitude to turn away without hearing such "truth."

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

Verse 57 "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism

Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense. But, if you are merely partaking of a symbol, then what sin have you committed?

Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.

But if the Eucharist is real, then unworthy partaking is grievous, for you are sinning against the actual Body of Christ.

profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

If you cant understand His teaching and symbolisms I imagine Paul is even more difficult...many still are sick and weak and dead among us...spiritually

 

[Sleekbacksmile]

CATHOLICS ARE STILL ASKING, TO THIS VERY DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat

Lets Remember that the Greek word Eucharist Simply MEANS - THANKFULL - Thanks. Gratitude.

The Term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the Food at the Supper Dinner.

And Lets Remember that Not a Single Apostle or Disciple in the Scriptures, Taught that the Bread and Wine was Transformed into the Blood and Body Of Jesus.

Not a Single one of the Disciples or Apostles. not One. !


Please LOOK CLOSLY at 1Co 11:22 What? WHAT ? HE ( Paul ) SAYS

Paul says WHAT ? - have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

they are comming to CHURCH to have a big DINNER.

People are eating before the dinner starts and being dis ~ respectful to the others Who DONT have FOOD at HOME. . to bring OR EAT....

The FULL people COME to CHURCH FULL ..and embarrass the hungry, making them feel OUT OF PLACE and ashamed....

Why do Catholics always PURPOSELY Leave out the CONTEXT and the subject ?
.In every Catholic doctrine They ALLWAYS leave out the main PURPOSE of the scriptures...
NOTICE - Paul IN just the VERY chapters ABOVE.....

Paul is telling the ACTION of this PARTICULAR CHURCH.

Why and HOW would ONE be bringing DAMNATION on themselves...

WHY ? ?
Lets READ the REAL BIBLE story.

GO UP to 1Co 11:19 and lets look at PAUL TELLING this CHURCH that there are heresies among THEM

WHY ...WHATS THE PROBLEM in SUBJECT ?

When they come together people are filling UP on food before the OTHERS begin eating.

and PEOPLE are GETTING DRUNK…… Drinking and Getting DRUNK...
and PEOPLE are Disorganized

Not Participating in the purpose, MEANINGFULL Communion of the CHURCH - Which Is The Literal BODY OF JESUS … THE CHURCH is the ....BODY OF JESUS
WOW… Paul wants to remind them THEY are there to REMEMBER as a MEMORIAL ...... JESUS, With Respect. THEY / THE CHURCH...are the body of Christ. And they are disrespecting in blasphemous damnation. LOOK CLOSLY

1Co 11:22 What? WHAT HE SAYS - Paul says WHAT ?
have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? THEM THAT HAVE NO FOOD...
They are there To do some Serious eating and drinking. But paul tells them they are not there just TO GET ALL DRUNK....and disorganized and LOOSING the meaning.

SIMPLE Thats what the BIBLE is saying......

These Catholics are inventing something That is IN NO WAY at all within the pages of scripture..

N O T I C E HERE......... CLOSLY

1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, .. that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1Co 11:21 For in eating, every one taketh before others his own supper:
Greek 4301 prolambano¯ to take in advance, that is, (literally) eat before others have an opportunity;

overtake, take before. and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame shame them that have not?

Don’t be fooled by Catholic junk theology That is so full of lies.... ONE has to LITERALY BE BLIND and unable to read a book OF GOD Called the BIBLE .

ALSO REMEMBER

The biblical ..... SYMBOLOGY in Eze 39:17
Here God is describing the symbolic prophecy of a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, …
A HUGE sacrifice to THOSE who shall be filled at Gods table . a depiction of a battle.
Eze 39:20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
They will literally EAT ! GNAW CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOW ...... literally HORSES and CHARIOTS .. They will EAT ! … GNAW .. mighty men, and with all men of war of flesh, and to literally drink blood.
They will BE ! …GNAWING......cHOMP CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOWING ...... literally .. Eating the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in 1st Ch 11:19
David said, SHALL I ... DRINK and LITERALLY SWALLOW ..gurgling .... THE BLOOD of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy......
Therefore he would not drink it. LITERALLY SWALLOWING THEIR VERY BLOOD ! * ! !
I literallyDRINK THE BLOOD of these ...... men ?

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Psa 119:103

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

LITERAL words will be GNAWED and CHEWED tasting like...... LITERAL ;;;;REAL..HONEY..... ! ! * Ooh mY ! ^*)

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in.. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
THE LITERAL ! * "}{" TAST of DeaTh

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:14 -

Heb 5:14 - DECLARES Strong MEAT belongs to them that are of full age WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
Strong LITERAL gnawed , powerfull hardend and tough chewy difficult MEAT..... belongs to them that are of full age, WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

" Revelation 12:14 the WOMAN ..... LITERALLY ...GREW. REAL FEATHERS and WINGS UPON her back ...... The WOMAN FLEW To the wilderness .. with Literal WINGS/// like a BIRD squawk squawk ! shrieK chirP ... ! literal wings.... !

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

Heb 13:15 Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. the fruit of our lips grapes and ORANGES and WATERMELONS and LIP LIKE TOMATOES....

LITERAL fruit of our lips GNAWED and REAL fruit ~~~~ DRIPPING WITH JUICE ? fruit ?

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:12


Heb 5:12...... The oracles ,,,,,,,,,,, of God; ARE of milk, and of strong meat. ....

LITERAL MILK FROM REAL live.....tittiCAL BREAST MILK / ARE of LITERAL milk REAL... LIVE warm MILK ?
REMEMBER
Christ applied spiritual hunger as a sign of spiritual life... Jesus taught in MAT 5:6, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: .... Meat will come in due season."
Paul declared.....clearly ...... 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Paul and THE ENTIRE BIBLE... .IS NEVER...MENTIONING...... is never, EVER...EVER,..... refering...to anyone~~~ ~~ EVER , EVER ONCE...transforming OR CHANGING ANY bread and wine INTO human flesh and blood....OFFERING IT UP AS A VICTIM....and SACRIFICE.


Catholics deliberately ignore ..THAT THE CUP OF BLESSING .....{.OF WINE..}...IS THE the
COMUNION, FELLOWSHIP of the body of christ 17 FOR WE being many ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY:

Paul Clearly declares as well that
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

The CHURCH / SAINTS / Beleivers, BRIDE

WE are the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST……..

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:

this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,

in remembrance of me.


1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

REMEMBER

Mat 13:10 the disciples ASKED JESUS Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 Jesus said "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles ?
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. Parables . .and. mysterious puzzles....
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but
to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

THE JEWS ASKED , saying, HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?

{ JESUS REPLIED TO THE VERY QUESTION.... THAT THE JEWS ASKED , ""HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?"""

63 { JESUS REPLIED saying } It is the spirit that quickeneth; Greek zo¯opoieo¯ to vitalize (make alive, give life, quicken. JESUS CONTINUED THIS flesh / MEAT, FOOD profiteth nothing:

BUT the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
these catholics..thought,,Jesus ment his physical...flesh and blood...TOO

JESUS corrected them in his Word...Saying..that their idea..was wrong,,and that by thinking he ment,, physical... flesh..* blood....THEY WERE UNBELEIVERS.
Jesus Clarified...... to the subject.. .on the MATTER OF EATING His HUMAN

JESUS said that his " THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT profiteth nothing: BUT the words that HE speaks unto MAN.~~~ IS THE spirit, and life.

THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT {sarx} profiteth nothing

The Bible is filled with Symbolic use of Eating, Chewing and consuming type words of SYMBOLIC Statements.

Jesus was Speaking to a Hebrew Crowd who understood this. Caholics Who have no Scriptures for their Faith , Must jump to conclusions to invent new traditions

Thousands of Verses like the one below - Are what Caused Jesus to Use the parable of Eating his Flesh. because the Bible is filled with this same eXact symbology.

Num 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies

CATHOLICS STILL ASK TO THIS DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[/FONT]

 

[Truster]

That the Church has to take special action for those suffering from allergies to wheat exposes the idolatry of the Eucharist tradition.

This recently on how careful it must be:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201..._the_bread_and_wine_for_the_eucharist/1323886


This on the issue of those with allergies:

http://www.hprweb.com/2013/06/celiac-disease-and-holy-communion-a-medical-and-spiritual-dilemma/


The fact that there are allergic reactions to the wheat after the bread is transubstantiated into flesh the Body of Christ entire can either mean His flesh has gluten or the allergen is in the accidents as of course the substance is changed. Right?

HalleluYah that His creation through its process of biology and chemistry reveals this ancient idolatry of man's tradition.

The fact that allergic reactions to gluten occur proves the bread remains bread.

The host must be wheat by the Church's canon law. Rather than change that tradition they insist to make those suffer celiac disease suffer additionally and go without "His real presence"...

And yet the Church made changes to unleavened bread to seperate themselves from the orthodox...

I have an allergic reaction to error and false doctrine as do all the sheep in the flock...

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

 

[clefty]

CATHOLICS ARE STILL ASKING, TO THIS VERY DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat

Lets Remember that the Greek word Eucharist Simply MEANS - THANKFULL - Thanks. Gratitude.

The Term Eucharist has nothing to do with anything eXcept for Being Thankful for the Food at the Supper Dinner.

And Lets Remember that Not a Single Apostle or Disciple in the Scriptures, Taught that the Bread and Wine was Transformed into the Blood and Body Of Jesus.

Not a Single one of the Disciples or Apostles. not One. !


Please LOOK CLOSLY at 1Co 11:22 What? WHAT ? HE ( Paul ) SAYS

Paul says WHAT ? - have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

they are comming to CHURCH to have a big DINNER.

People are eating before the dinner starts and being dis ~ respectful to the others Who DONT have FOOD at HOME. . to bring OR EAT....

The FULL people COME to CHURCH FULL ..and embarrass the hungry, making them feel OUT OF PLACE and ashamed....

Why do Catholics always PURPOSELY Leave out the CONTEXT and the subject ?
.In every Catholic doctrine They ALLWAYS leave out the main PURPOSE of the scriptures...
NOTICE - Paul IN just the VERY chapters ABOVE.....

Paul is telling the ACTION of this PARTICULAR CHURCH.

Why and HOW would ONE be bringing DAMNATION on themselves...

WHY ? ?
Lets READ the REAL BIBLE story.

GO UP to 1Co 11:19 and lets look at PAUL TELLING this CHURCH that there are heresies among THEM

WHY ...WHATS THE PROBLEM in SUBJECT ?

When they come together people are filling UP on food before the OTHERS begin eating.

and PEOPLE are GETTING DRUNK…… Drinking and Getting DRUNK...
and PEOPLE are Disorganized

Not Participating in the purpose, MEANINGFULL Communion of the CHURCH - Which Is The Literal BODY OF JESUS … THE CHURCH is the ....BODY OF JESUS
WOW… Paul wants to remind them THEY are there to REMEMBER as a MEMORIAL ...... JESUS, With Respect. THEY / THE CHURCH...are the body of Christ. And they are disrespecting in blasphemous damnation. LOOK CLOSLY

1Co 11:22 What? WHAT HE SAYS - Paul says WHAT ?
have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? THEM THAT HAVE NO FOOD...
They are there To do some Serious eating and drinking. But paul tells them they are not there just TO GET ALL DRUNK....and disorganized and LOOSING the meaning.

SIMPLE Thats what the BIBLE is saying......

These Catholics are inventing something That is IN NO WAY at all within the pages of scripture..

N O T I C E HERE......... CLOSLY

1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, .. that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

1Co 11:21 For in eating, every one taketh before others his own supper:
Greek 4301 prolambano¯ to take in advance, that is, (literally) eat before others have an opportunity;

overtake, take before. and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame shame them that have not?

Don’t be fooled by Catholic junk theology That is so full of lies.... ONE has to LITERALY BE BLIND and unable to read a book OF GOD Called the BIBLE .

ALSO REMEMBER

The biblical ..... SYMBOLOGY in Eze 39:17
Here God is describing the symbolic prophecy of a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, …
A HUGE sacrifice to THOSE who shall be filled at Gods table . a depiction of a battle.
Eze 39:20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
They will literally EAT ! GNAW CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOW ...... literally HORSES and CHARIOTS .. They will EAT ! … GNAW .. mighty men, and with all men of war of flesh, and to literally drink blood.
They will BE ! …GNAWING......cHOMP CHOMP and CHEW and SWALLOWING ...... literally .. Eating the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in 1st Ch 11:19
David said, SHALL I ... DRINK and LITERALLY SWALLOW ..gurgling .... THE BLOOD of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy......
Therefore he would not drink it. LITERALLY SWALLOWING THEIR VERY BLOOD ! * ! !
I literallyDRINK THE BLOOD of these ...... men ?

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Psa 119:103

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

LITERAL words will be GNAWED and CHEWED tasting like...... LITERAL ;;;;REAL..HONEY..... ! ! * Ooh mY ! ^*)

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in.. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
THE LITERAL ! * "}{" TAST of DeaTh

the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:14 -

Heb 5:14 - DECLARES Strong MEAT belongs to them that are of full age WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
Strong LITERAL gnawed , powerfull hardend and tough chewy difficult MEAT..... belongs to them that are of full age, WITH senses exercised to discern both Good and evil.
the biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

" Revelation 12:14 the WOMAN ..... LITERALLY ...GREW. REAL FEATHERS and WINGS UPON her back ...... The WOMAN FLEW To the wilderness .. with Literal WINGS/// like a BIRD squawk squawk ! shrieK chirP ... ! literal wings.... !

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Revelation 12:14

Heb 13:15 Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. the fruit of our lips grapes and ORANGES and WATERMELONS and LIP LIKE TOMATOES....

LITERAL fruit of our lips GNAWED and REAL fruit ~~~~ DRIPPING WITH JUICE ? fruit ?

biblical..... SYMBOLOGY in Heb 5:12


Heb 5:12...... The oracles ,,,,,,,,,,, of God; ARE of milk, and of strong meat. ....

LITERAL MILK FROM REAL live.....tittiCAL BREAST MILK / ARE of LITERAL milk REAL... LIVE warm MILK ?
REMEMBER
Christ applied spiritual hunger as a sign of spiritual life... Jesus taught in MAT 5:6, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: .... Meat will come in due season."
Paul declared.....clearly ...... 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Paul and THE ENTIRE BIBLE... .IS NEVER...MENTIONING...... is never, EVER...EVER,..... refering...to anyone~~~ ~~ EVER , EVER ONCE...transforming OR CHANGING ANY bread and wine INTO human flesh and blood....OFFERING IT UP AS A VICTIM....and SACRIFICE.


Catholics deliberately ignore ..THAT THE CUP OF BLESSING .....{.OF WINE..}...IS THE the
COMUNION, FELLOWSHIP of the body of christ 17 FOR WE being many ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY:

Paul Clearly declares as well that
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.
1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

1Co 12:27 NOW YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and members in particular.

The CHURCH / SAINTS / Beleivers, BRIDE

WE are the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST……..

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:

this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,

in remembrance of me.


1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

REMEMBER

Mat 13:10 the disciples ASKED JESUS Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 Jesus said "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles ?
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. Parables . .and. mysterious puzzles....
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but
to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Jesus claimed to use "such double-speak. parables..and. mysterious puzzles

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

THE JEWS ASKED , saying, HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?

{ JESUS REPLIED TO THE VERY QUESTION.... THAT THE JEWS ASKED , ""HOW can this man GIVE US HIS flesh to eat ?"""

63 { JESUS REPLIED saying } It is the spirit that quickeneth; Greek zo¯opoieo¯ to vitalize (make alive, give life, quicken. JESUS CONTINUED THIS flesh / MEAT, FOOD profiteth nothing:

BUT the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
these catholics..thought,,Jesus ment his physical...flesh and blood...TOO

JESUS corrected them in his Word...Saying..that their idea..was wrong,,and that by thinking he ment,, physical... flesh..* blood....THEY WERE UNBELEIVERS.
Jesus Clarified...... to the subject.. .on the MATTER OF EATING His HUMAN

JESUS said that his " THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT profiteth nothing: BUT the words that HE speaks unto MAN.~~~ IS THE spirit, and life.

THIS " FLESH */BLOOD / MEAT {sarx} profiteth nothing

The Bible is filled with Symbolic use of Eating, Chewing and consuming type words of SYMBOLIC Statements.

Jesus was Speaking to a Hebrew Crowd who understood this. Caholics Who have no Scriptures for their Faith , Must jump to conclusions to invent new traditions

Thousands of Verses like the one below - Are what Caused Jesus to Use the parable of Eating his Flesh. because the Bible is filled with this same eXact symbology.

Num 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies

CATHOLICS STILL ASK TO THIS DAY ,,,,,,, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[/FONT]

Yes some hearing what was to be eaten were not mindful of scriptures which had set this metaphor well into place

"Deuteronomy 8:3
And He humbled you and let you go hungry and fed you the manna, which you had never known nor your fathers had ever known, so that He might make you know that man lives not by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out from the mouth of Jehovah.

Job 23:12
As for the commandment of His lips, I have not turned back from it; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my apportioned food.

Psalm 119:103
How sweet are Your words to my taste! Sweeter than honey to my mouth!


Jeremiah 15:16
Your words were found and I ate them, And Your word became to me The gladness and joy of my heart, For I am called by Your name, O Jehovah, God of hosts.

Ezekiel 2:8—3:3
But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I give you.
And I looked, and there was a hand, put forth toward me; and in it there was a scroll book.
And He spread it before me. And it was written on the front and back, and on it were written lamentations, mourning, and woe.
Then He said to me, Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.
So I opened my mouth, and He gave me that scroll to eat.
And He said to me, Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your inward parts with this scroll that I am giving you. And I ate it, and it was like honey in my mouth in its sweetness."

Ignoring these instances reveals those that walked away were not called...they were unable to discern the spiritual truth...

Peter understood it was not eating Him but that He spoke the words of life...

The Word became flesh...not food...human flesh is not cleared to eat

 

[jsanford108]

Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.

you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too

You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.

the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually

Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth

This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...

I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up

No disagreement there.

but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart

An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.

true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

Verse 57 "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism

I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.

How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

How?

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

I agree. It is not a memorial, but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ. It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.

If you cant understand His teaching and symbolisms I imagine Paul is even more difficult...many still are sick and weak and dead among us...spiritually

Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

 

[clefty]

Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.

you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too

You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.

the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually

Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth

This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...

I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up

No disagreement there.

but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart

An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.

true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

Verse 57 "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism

I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.

How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

How?

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

I agree. It is not a memorial, but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ. It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.


Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

First good good...you are able to start with the selection you wish to address but dont forget to end that which you wish to quote with "[" "/" "quote" "]"

You are forgetting the backslash in front of the word quote...all between brackets

 

[clefty]

Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.

well then you go against the biblical prohibitions of consuming blood and its association to cannibalism as NOT good...

There remains blood in a "bloodless" sacrifice

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important.

ummm...nope

He just asked the disciples if they would be offended at the Son of Man (flesh) ascending where He was before (spiritual realm). He now introduces the power of the Spirit (spiritual realm) who gives life the power to do just that. Spirit gives that sort of power not flesh eating.

If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing."

exactly...as it is the Spirit...even the bread He gave in the wilderness was not able to do (provide life eternal) what the Spirit is able to (provide life eternal)

Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

If He were to chase down all the times His teachings were misunderstood...if what you infer is correct then Peter would have said "you have the flesh we must eat for eternal life" He did NOT but said "you have the words of eternal life".

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

except it counters Law against consuming blood and cannibalism...

no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.

of course we gain from proper worship...as a remembrance a memorial there is much to gain...just like there is to know He is the way but I cant actually walk on Him

you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too

You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim.

you dont believe in creation? Time? That Sabbath was made for man?

That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.

not only before but certainly after the fall man had needs by which His Creator made Him to have...and by grace provided for...man needed to eat of the tree of life and it is a stretch to call that Yah's being restricted by man's need...the design of creation was to reveal NOT to keep mysterious

the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

events occuring before the feast of the Passover do not the Passover make.

John makes it clearest that when Judas was given the bread and departed the disciples thought he was leaving to get things for the feast the next day as he had the money box John 13:29

John 19:14 also makes clear that after the arrest and trial it was merely the day of preparation the 14th or the day when the lambs were killed the time He was...the lambs were eaten that same evening...the supper you insist He was eaten happened the night before...He offered the bread as a memorial before He was even killed...eating flesh before it is killed is well yuck and forbidden...

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually

Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

direct call to what John the Baptist said...the supper of the Lamb happened the day His flesh was broken and He died...the day after the last supper...

so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth

This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

ummm no...context is key because things of the world do profit but for what?...not in this context...cannibalizing His flesh does not profit eternal life or ascending to heaven but the Spirit gives life

again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...

I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.

you insist the body had to be broken for us to partake...yet the teaching is each broken bread is His whole body

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up

No disagreement there.

HalleluYah as physical food does not provide eternal life and eating of body did not either as all who supposedly ate His body died

but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

in this case you are insisting we all have threshing floors and clean them...He spoke of His flesh as food realized it still troubled the disciples and clarified it's not bread nor flesh but the Spirit which gives life

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart

An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary.

Modern miracles include things outside of scripture such as she is alive ascended to heaven and hearing prayers to take to her Son...

Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.

the staffs in the hands of the men of Pharaoh also turned to snakes...ain't denying

true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

Not attempting to prove anything. Peter did, said it was the words He spoke which were of eternal life not the eating of His flesh...and consuming of His blood. That is prohibited.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

I did...showed where He clarified to His offended disciples it was the Spirit that gives life...the words He speaks are spirit they are life...not the flesh not even killed yet...Peter affirms it is belief and knowing He is the Christ...not eating of His flesh

Verse 57 "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

you only changed "feeds on Me" to "eats me" the because is missed by you...

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism

I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

Then why did He not say I am God eat of me?" Or something akin...He said "I live because of the Father" He was begotten of Him after all...

Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.

How does this disprove my statement,

because you claim we can falsely worship Him against His instructions because its merely symbolic therefore no sin...

"Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

it makes sense symbolically as well

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

never said your claim is wild...but your insistence that this is more than the Spirit but the body itself is the only way unworthy worship is a sin...or only because it is literal and real can we worship without worth

profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

How?

the bronze snake was symbolic but then became an idol...they thought it remained "real or spirit filled"

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

I agree. It is not a memorial,

sure it is...you add a living memorial...as if we are not to proclaim His one time death in real time but assist in His death a continuance in a spiritual miracle as He is both dying and alive...

but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ.

communion includes hearing reading praying the words of the Spirit...not consuming His flesh...

It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.

yes like the bronze snake once healing but the event ended and now its become an idol...what was done is eternal...not its doing

Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.

Oh I understand and agree with Peter...who knew it was His words of eternal life not eating His flesh...Peter kept kosher...never consuming blood...not even that of his Savior...especially not that of his Savior...his Savior would never go against His Father's law...from Whom He was begotten...

 

[jsanford108]

Okay, I am going to try and utilize your advice on quotations.

Let us dive into your points.

well I included a video of a debate where all flesh apparently even human flesh and blood is argued by the papist cleared to eat...

This bloodless sacrifice includes blood yes?

The declarations of one person, not made ex cathedra, have no bearing on doctrine or teachings of the Church. Just because the one guy said it, doesn't make it fact. In fact, his statement is unsupported, as I pointed out with my claim of finding no historical evidence for such teaching or legalization. So, my point remains; there is no documented proof for Catholicism "legalizing" cannibalism.

I did provide a passage but here again...John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that gives life"...realizing His disciples were still troubled by the eating of human flesh and consuming blood He clarifies it for them...

Peter states verse 68 "You have the words of eternal life"...See? Peter got it...Peter did NOT say "we are to eat you" or "you have the flesh of eternal life" he understood it was by faith not flesh consumption

We have covered this topic. John 6:63 is a change of subject material. Christ is no longer discussing His Flesh, but the things of the world. Again, the change of pronoun being important. If we apply your inference, then John 6:48-58, could logically read, "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, which profits nothing." Or, if your inference is correct, why did Christ wait to reveal that actual flesh profits nothing, when the people murmured in verse 52? When they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ could have clarified this misunderstanding on their part (as you must infer with your claim), and then said, "The flesh profits nothing." If Christ had actually done this, your logic and claim would indeed make sense. But, alas, that is not the case. In fact, Christ only repeated His former statement that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why wait until the people left, who thought Christ was speaking literally, as I claim He was, to say "well, I was only speaking figuratively; flesh is useless."

The logical conclusion is that Christ was not speaking symbolically.

no I dont agree...why not allow them to eat Him and drink His blood literally? That would be a miracle indeed...they ate from manna...from bread multiplied many times over...why not allow them to eat Him

My claim is that Christ did allow them to eat Him and drink His Blood literally. My point by saying "Why would Christ even need bread and wine," is a declaration of the sovereign nature of Christ/God. He does all according to His Good Pleasure. But, you did see the underlying point that I was going to make. Bravo! If the Eucharist is mere symbol, then this whole communion and Last Supper, using bread and wine, is just frivolous action. Why should we, anyone including Catholics and Protestants, ever consume bread and wine (or juice)? If it is merely symbolic, then we are not gaining anything by doing it, or losing anything by not. If it is mere symbolic, then it serves no purpose to repeat.

you really do miss a lot dont you? Making it in 6 days instead of 1 or an instance or 9 is the basis for understanding the week into the month into the year...it is a calander a cadence to life...with its seventh day Sabbath of course but you reject that too

You are the one who missed the point, my friend. My statement on God utilizing 6 days was merely to allude to the sovereign nature of God. But, your suggestion is that God used 6 days in order to give us a systematic calendar. This is kind of a loose, and unsupported, claim. That would infer that God, being omni-everything, was restricted by man's future need of a calendar? Come on, friend. God used 6 days, because he is God. Not because man needed anything.

the last supper was not the passover...eastern orthodox celebrate with leavened bread

False. It was the Passover. John 13 opens with "Now before the feast of the Passover...."

Wine was not even a part of the original passover meal...

The lambs were killed and eaten the following day...their flesh profiting both nutritionally and spiritually

Oh, how ironic. The lamb was killed the next day. That doesn't in any way relate to the Last Supper....
The Last Supper, being the Passover, makes even more sense with the historical Passover featuring the sacrifice and consumption of the lamb being the next day. This perfectly aligns with Christ being the Lamb of God. And, it perfectly aligns with Eucharistic doctrine. The claim, that Christ is speaking literally in John 6:48-58.

In the Eucharistic consecration, the priest says "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This is a direct call back to the Last Supper and Crucifixion.

so He lied when He said flesh profits nothing? Or was He being specific to the context of eating His flesh...that would profit nothing indeed...and when we speak of His flesh being pierced I dont think we mean pierced by our incisor teeth

This has been addressed. Christ was talking about the things of the world. Not in any way related to the "context of eating his flesh," which is your position.

again you are switching categories...and its not broken pieces of body handed out but whole and complete bodies of Him in each piece...

That His body was broken is symbolic of His actual death which does profit...

I am unsure of what your point is here. Forgive my lack of ability to understand. I just don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You are just affirming what I said.

Hie Body is food indeed...spiritual food but those that ate still died...need raising up

No disagreement there.

but you said earlier s it was seeing with fleshy eyes...it's not the things of this world...but seeing it with fleshy eyes and not spiritually...

Why in this context would you have Him even bringing up the things of this world? You are adding to the word.

I am not adding to the Scripture. I was simply saying what that particular passage was about. If I say "Christ spoke of things eternal," when referencing the parable of "cleaning the threshing floor," I am not "adding to the word"; merely stating what the passage is about.

I don't need spiritual discernment to see physical miracles...I can see bread multiplied with eyes of the flesh...

I need spiritual eyes to see symbols and spiritual meaning...like circumcision of the heart

An excellent point to bring up. As many Protestants do not believe in modern day miracles, especially when it contains "Catholic" stuff, like Mary. Such an example is the events at Fatima. Protestants just dismiss it as Catholic craziness, despite the number of witnesses, as well as physical manifestations of natural evidence.

true food is not food but spiritually significant...just like not all meat is food is meant to learn there is spiritual nourishment

Everyone who supposedly ate of His flesh died...did He lie when He said they would live forever if they ate of this bread? V 51, 58...obviously He is not literal

You are being intellectually dishonest, here. You know, as do I, when Christ mentions eternal life, that He speaks of post-death. This is clarified in the Scriptures, by Christ and His Apostles. To bait and switch in such a fashion is a fallacy, as it is being used to attempt at proving your claim of figurative speech.

It would be more profitable if you just logically prove your claim, rather than interchanging passages of figurative language into the passage of discussion, John 6:48-58. Such tactics make your claims seem unstable (which I already thought, so such interchanging and fallacy is aggravate to your cause/claim)

Verse 57 "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" now answer me this...so He lives because He eats His Father?

This is not what the verse says. The actual quote reads, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (John 6:57)

Or is it His Father's Spirit in Him

Obviously this is a symbolism

I disagree, as there is no evidence of symbolism. Christ is God, not symbolically God.

Really? Seeing something as symbolic allows for wild interpretations and applications? Hardly.

How does this disprove my statement, "Second, it renders null the statement made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 null. Paul states that "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Corinthians 11:29) If Paul, as Christ, is referring to the Eucharist, this passage makes sense."

Please, provide a discourse on how my claim is "wild."

profaning a symbolic memorial is also not good

How?

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...

First good good...you are able to start with the selection you wish to address but dont forget to end that which you wish to quote with "[" "/" "quote" "]"

You are forgetting the backslash in front of the word quote...all between brackets

Apologies. My Fault.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

The hour is late. I will reply on Monday if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[clefty]

The hour is late. I will reply on Monday if that is okay.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

No problem...when you hit "reply with quote" button on the bottom right you can see how quoted text is begun and ended...begun without back slash "/" ended with the backslash with the word quote between brackets...

 

[jsanford108]

Okay, I apologize for making such a quoting mess. It has affected us both. My bad.

As for our debate on John 6, 48-58, and 63, I would say we have kind of reached an impasse. I am arguing simple basic interpretation, based on what is written, and you are arguing use of another verse to go back and prove a doctrine. Both of us are just arguing our doctrine, and the tactics used by our doctrines to prove themselves. So, I would say that we have exhausted that passage, debate-wise. If you disagree, then we can continue. I have just noticed we keep repeating the same things in a viscous cycle.

(I would like to apologize for providing a quote that was a mere two words different; I was reviewing two threads at once, and misplaced my accusation of misquoting. My bad.)

So, if I may, I will skip to your example of the snake going from something good to idolatry, as I believe that is a great example and excellent point for your argument.

because you claim we can falsely worship Him against His instructions because its merely symbolic therefore no sin...

never said your claim is wild...but your insistence that this is more than the Spirit but the body itself is the only way unworthy worship is a sin...or only because it is literal and real can we worship without worth

the bronze snake was symbolic but then became an idol...they thought it remained "real or spirit filled"

The bronze snake was a temporary fix, right? The Hebrews were even assured of this. It was they who made it into an idol. Now, it would be easy to make the claim that Catholicism did this with the Eucharist. But, there is not insistence that the Last Supper was a temporary, or brief thing. We do have the passage of "do this in remembrance of me." So either Catholics have it accurate and you are blaspheming Christ, or Catholics have it wrong and are idolaters, and you are right. But which one seems more sinful for the one in the wrong? After all, if you are correct, then Christ covered the sin of idolatry that we are committing, so no harm.

And believing it is actually the sacrificed flesh and blood makes it no longer a memorial...but actually still occuring...
I agree. It is not a memorial,
sure it is...you add a living memorial...as if we are not to proclaim His one time death in real time but assist in His death a continuance in a spiritual miracle as He is both dying and alive...

but active participation in the eternal communion with Christ.
communion includes hearing reading praying the words of the Spirit...not consuming His flesh...

Where is this definition of "communion" found? I would say that "Communion" includes the reading and praying the words of the Spirit, but I call that "Consecration," where the priest reads and prays the passage where Christ said "This is My Body...."

And I am not saying Christ's death is continual, but that His Redemptive Sacrifice is. If it weren't, then people post-Christ could not receive salvation. As I outlined already in the below quote.

It is Christ's redemptive Sacrifice occurring eternally. Not a once and done event. But a moment of sacrifice which covers all generations. So yes, it is still occurring. Is Christ dying over and over? Of course not. But is His Sacrifice eternal, meaning still enabling us to be redeemed by His Sacrifice? Absolutely.
yes like the bronze snake once healing but the event ended and now its become an idol...what was done is eternal...not its doing

Paul is easy if the Gospels are easy. Which, I find the Gospels to be very easy to read and understand. Of course you must say that inability to understand symbolism must make Paul more difficult, because you have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to "prove" your claims; displacing various verses and using one verse of figurative language to point to another figurative verse, in order to then go back and say "see how this verse is not literal but figurative," despite the clarity of the verse being literal.

I would advise reading what is simply written. Don't use other passages to try and prove another passage. Rather, just take what the Scripture simply states. When subject material changes, just go with it. Don't try and make it do backflips and rewrites in order to make a doctrine you hold dear, fit into Scripture. Which anyone who makes the claim of John 6:48-58 is doing, if they claim it is symbolic or figurative.
Oh I understand and agree with Peter...who knew it was His words of eternal life not eating His flesh...Peter kept kosher...never consuming blood...not even that of his Savior...especially not that of his Savior...his Savior would never go against His Father's law...from Whom He was begotten...

Where are you receiving this knowledge that that is what Peter believed or knew? Because all of Peter's disciples, as well as those of the other Apostles, agree with my claim. So, they were all wolves who successfully kept their beliefs secret from all the Apostles, or I am right.

I would also like to posit these two links for consideration.
This first one is a list of five "Eucharistic Miracles."
http://dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/
If these are falsehoods, could you submit an explanation that disproves them.
Especially when considering that testing was done by both Catholic sources and secular sources, confirming the exact same conclusions. And, how did all these examples bear the exact same blood type (AB+, the universal receiver).

This second link is just a little more on the most recent of that list. So, nothing really new, just extra information.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/check-out-this-eucharistic-miracle-in-poland-96162/