Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Pagans and Atheists have a warped view of what Christians are actually like. They see us as snobby, selfish, hypocrites, when in fact, it is THEM who are snobby selfish hypocrites in their actions. They think we somehow look down on people because they think that we think was are somehow better than they are. There may be some Christians who act that way, but they aren't behaving the way that Christ and the Bible tell us to act. They are offended that Christians believe that they are right, but they aren't offended that Muslims and Hindus and all other religions believe that THEY are right. The reason is that it's a Spiritual war and they are blinded by satan. If it weren't satanic, they would either be just as offended by other religions OR just as unoffended by other religions, but they aren't. They are ONLY offended by Christians.

I disagree, Frodo. Having traveled to other countries, I see that there are critics of hypocrisy and mean spirit of every dominant culture. I have seen harsh criticism of Buddhists in China who do not show compassion or charity, for example, and the same criticism of Muslims who are stone-hearted in the Middle East. In the United States and Europe, Christianity is believed to be the dominant culture and so it is Christian ministers who come under the strongest criticism when they are hypocritically and unlike Christ.

It is true that some who attack Christianity do so out of hatred for the faith and against believers, but we also would do well to look for our sins so we can repent of them and keep our eyes and heart on Christ, rather than fall into self-worship. This thread has a number of examples of some poorly chosen words and selfishness which should be considered and repented rather than ignored or worse, praised as some commendable behavior.

Not sure who you are defending in your post, the Christians or the False Religions.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Not sure who you are defending in your post, the Christians or the False Religions.

---

It's only unclear if you assume what is said before reading.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

As per Jesus, "the words … are spirit". "This (the bread) is my body". Believe Jesus.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Sola Scriptura does not always mean literal and without context. But even in this case, in Scripture shortly after Jesus said these things, he explains that it was a metaphor ("the flesh profits nothing"). So the plain meaning is evident.

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He said this to His Disciples because they were troubled by Him saying what He said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He comforted them with saying that these things are SPIRIT and they are Life. We eat His Flesh and Drink His blood by FAITH in His Death and Resurrection for our sins. Communion is a symbol of this.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. End of Story. Sola Scriptura. After all, The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Sola Scriptura does not always mean literal and without context. But even in this case, in Scripture shortly after Jesus said these things, he explains that it was a metaphor ("the flesh profits nothing"). So the plain meaning is evident.

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

---

So, you're saying your interpretation is not the same as my interpretation of what is "plain" to me and has been vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit? Quelle surprise! Your take is just your feeble attempt to deny the clear teaching of Scripture.

I've listed several passages in other posts that suggest the possibility of Purgatory and/or the necessity of purgation. Look them up for yourself and "pontificate" (irony intended) all you like. How many times must I say I'm agnostic about it for you to take me seriously? FWIW, I don't think you can disprove it. Knock yourself out. Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deny the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. End of Story. Sola Scriptura. After all, The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Let's rearrange it a bit so that perhaps you can understand your own quote: "the words that I speak are spirit and life". Yes, very clear. Once you understand that Jesus said and meant "this is my body", whenever you participate in the Lord's Supper you are receiving him in body and therefore have Him in spirit and have life. After all, Sola Scriptura, the plain meaning of Scripture, right? End of story.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Sola Scriptura does not always mean literal and without context. But even in this case, in Scripture shortly after Jesus said these things, he explains that it was a metaphor ("the flesh profits nothing"). So the plain meaning is evident.

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

---

So, you're saying your interpretation is not the same as my interpretation of what is "plain" to me and has been vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit? Quelle surprise! Your take is just your feeble attempt to deny the clear teaching of Scripture....

---

Yes, people can have wrong interpretations, and wrongly believe it was given by the Holy Spirit. And if we look into it, rightly dividing the word of God, we can discern such. For example, how can one believe it is the "clear teaching" of Scripture that eating Jesus' flesh counts for something, when Jesus explicitly said the flesh "counts for nothing"?

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. End of Story. Sola Scriptura. After all, The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Let's rearrange it a bit so that perhaps you can understand your own quote: "the words that I speak are spirit and life". Yes, very clear. Once you understand that Jesus said and meant "this is my body", whenever you participate in the Lord's Supper you are receiving him in body and therefore have Him in spirit and have life. After all, Sola Scriptura, the plain meaning of Scripture, right? End of story.

---

"The flesh counts for nothing." Yes, very clear.

Have you all decided yet who among you is the 'best Christian'?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The flesh counts for nothing." Yes, very clear.

---

Once again, this is a VERY common Protestant objection, because is uses the word flesh again.

Jesus says "THE flesh counts for nothing." Not "MY flesh counts for nothing."

The flesh that Jesus is referring to is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God's grace.

Why would Jesus contradict Himself after speaking this NO less than 5 times he tells us:

"if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever" (v.51a)
"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood" (v.53)
"he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me" (v.56)
"he who eats me will live because of me" (v.57)
"he who eats this bread [his flesh] will live forever" (v.58)

In John 6:50-53, Jesus uses forms of the Greek verb phago, "eating." After the other disciples were murmuring, in John 6:54 He uses the the Greek word, trogo, which means to "chew on" or "to gnaw on" like an animal.

The word for flesh in these verses, He uses the Greek sarx, which means "flesh" or "meat".

The disciples, many of who had been with Jesus for weeks, months, or longer leave because the could not accept what He was teaching any longer. He doesn't call them back and say, "Hey guys, this is just a symbol. He lets them go. Peter and the apostles didn't leave. They didn't understand, but they stayed with him.

Ignatius of Antioch writes:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 A.D. 110).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 A.D. 110).

Let's go biblical with the words of Paul in 1 Cor 10:16:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

and 1 Cor 27-30:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep


If the Eucharist was just a symbol how could they be guilty of sinning? If you were to stab a picture (symbol) of your wife, you wouldn't be guilty of sin, but if you were to stab your wife (her actual body), you would be guilty.

We know from the Last Supper forward when Christ instituted the Eucharist, Christians believed this was the Body and Blood of Jesus. Early Roman pagans accused Christians of cannibalism for their beliefs.

Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. End of Story. Sola Scriptura. After all, The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Let's rearrange it a bit so that perhaps you can understand your own quote: "the words that I speak are spirit and life". Yes, very clear. Once you understand that Jesus said and meant "this is my body", whenever you participate in the Lord's Supper you are receiving him in body and therefore have Him in spirit and have life. After all, Sola Scriptura, the plain meaning of Scripture, right? End of story.

---

"The flesh counts for nothing." Yes, very clear.

---

Typical eisegesis from you. Yes, very clear.

Decent post until you threw this out:

"Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false."

Sorry but what I read there was 'my interpretation and experience makes yours invalid'.

I say that because a) we would not be arguing this point if Scripture clearly supported one side or the other. Once we fall back on interpretation, human error pops up and says 'hello'.

As for History, again that is plainly rhetorical bullying, as if you were saying 'we argued this sooner and longer so we win.' But that is faulty logic on its face.

I really don't see much effort by either side to understand the other on this one.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yes, I believe ALL of those passages and I ALSO believe Jesus when He said that those things are SPIRITUAL , not Physical

Did Jesus mean they were Physical or Spiritual when He said this about those things?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

---

"This is my body". End of story. Sola scriptura, after all. The plain meaning of Scripture, right?

---

Sola Scriptura does not always mean literal and without context. But even in this case, in Scripture shortly after Jesus said these things, he explains that it was a metaphor ("the flesh profits nothing"). So the plain meaning is evident.

On what scripture(s) do you base your belief in purgatory on? Let's evaluate the soundness of using a non-literal and contextual approach to deduce the existence of it, according to your reasoning.

---

So, you're saying your interpretation is not the same as my interpretation of what is "plain" to me and has been vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit? Quelle surprise! Your take is just your feeble attempt to deny the clear teaching of Scripture....

---

Yes, people can have wrong interpretations, and wrongly believe it was given by the Holy Spirit. And if we look into it, rightly dividing the word of God, we can discern such. For example, how can one believe it is the "clear teaching" of Scripture that eating Jesus' flesh counts for something, when Jesus explicitly said the flesh "counts for nothing"?

---

It's obvious from almost everything you post that people can have wrong interpretations and wrongly believe it was given by the Holy Spirit. Who are you to claim that you, contra myself and the majority of others throughout all of Christianity, are "rightly dividing the word of God"? Indeed, we can discern such.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Decent post until you threw this out:

"Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false."

Sorry but what I read there was 'my interpretation and experience makes yours invalid'.

I say that because a) we would not be arguing this point if Scripture clearly supported one side or the other. Once we fall back on interpretation, human error pops up and says 'hello'.

As for History, again that is plainly rhetorical bullying, as if you were saying 'we argued this sooner and longer so we win.' But that is faulty logic on its face.

I really don't see much effort by either side to understand the other on this one.

---

Respect your point, but there's nothing here left to understand as far as I can discern. One studies, thinks, and prays then reaches a decision. I think it is really a binary choice. Regardless, I also don't see believing one way or the other as being salvific, though it does have implications for other beliefs such as apostolic succession and the sacerdotal role of priests. All I can say is that from my experience, fully embracing the Real Presence dramatically changed worship for me in the best possible way. I commend it to all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Have you all decided yet who among you is the 'best Christian'?

---

Not me, for sure. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Have you all decided yet who among you is the 'best Christian'?

---

Not me, for sure. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

---

Amen!

I love me the Jesus Prayer. I say it everyday!

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Have you all decided yet who among you is the 'best Christian'?

---

Not me, for sure. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

---

Nor me. I have this recurring mental image of Jesus noticing me, stopping and pulling me out of the pit in which I fell, chuckling gently and saying 'now will you listen to me?'

Oldbear83 said:

---

Decent post until you threw this out:

"Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false."

Sorry but what I read there was 'my interpretation and experience makes yours invalid'.

I say that because a) we would not be arguing this point if Scripture clearly supported one side or the other. Once we fall back on interpretation, human error pops up and says 'hello'.

As for History, again that is plainly rhetorical bullying, as if you were saying 'we argued this sooner and longer so we win.' But that is faulty logic on its face.

I really don't see much effort by either side to understand the other on this one.

---

Thank you. While I will stand by the validity of that statement, I have to honestly ask myself if it was made in charity.

Nearly every day I pray 1 Peter 3:15 -

... Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (charity)

I will admit that the comment was not written in charity. I do apologize for that.

Hopefully, I will try to be more gentle in my responses.

For Catholics, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. We fully believe the the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God's dearly beloved Son, Jesus. Therein lies my passion for this topic.

My goal was not to "bully" someone with history, but merely to state that the apostles, including Paul, believed, scripture affirms, and history going back to 107-110 AD that the Catholic Church has always believed and thought this principle.

If I had more time, I would love to expound upon this incredible rich belief and how it ties back to the Passover when Moses had the Hebrews kill the unblemished male lamb and spread the blood so that the angel of death would Passover. But that's not all that was required. They had to eat the entire lamb - the whole sacrifice.

When we investigate the Last Supper, we are never told that the apostle eat the lamb. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Where is the lamb? It is Jesus. He is both priest and lamb at the last supper. When He Transubstantiates the bread, the apostles are eating the lamb of God Himself.

This is just a tiny scratch on the surface of the mystery of the Eucharist. I could go on for hours on this topic. Many good books have been written about this. One of the best is by Dr. Brant Pitre - Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper. Joe Heschmeyer has a new one that I need to get called The Eucharist Is Really Jesus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Have you all decided yet who among you is the 'best Christian'?

---

Not me, for sure. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

---

Nor me. I have this recurring mental image of Jesus noticing me, stopping and pulling me out of the pit in which I fell, chuckling gently and saying 'now will you listen to me?'

---

Funny! I do nearly the same thing. Many times (often daily) when he corrects me on something in only how He can, I will laugh out loud and say, "OK God, I get it now."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The flesh counts for nothing." Yes, very clear.

---

Once again, this is a VERY common Protestant objection, because is uses the word flesh again.

Jesus says "THE flesh counts for nothing." Not "MY flesh counts for nothing."

The flesh that Jesus is referring to is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God's grace.

Why would Jesus contradict Himself after speaking this NO less than 5 times he tells us:

"if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever" (v.51a)
"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood" (v.53)
"he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me" (v.56)
"he who eats me will live because of me" (v.57)
"he who eats this bread [his flesh] will live forever" (v.58)

In John 6:50-53, Jesus uses forms of the Greek verb phago, "eating." After the other disciples were murmuring, in John 6:54 He uses the the Greek word, trogo, which means to "chew on" or "to gnaw on" like an animal.

The word for flesh in these verses, He uses the Greek sarx, which means "flesh" or "meat".

The disciples, many of who had been with Jesus for weeks, months, or longer leave because the could not accept what He was teaching any longer. He doesn't call them back and say, "Hey guys, this is just a symbol. He lets them go. Peter and the apostles didn't leave. They didn't understand, but they stayed with him.

Ignatius of Antioch writes:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 A.D. 110).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 A.D. 110).

Let's go biblical with the words of Paul in 1 Cor 10:16:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

and 1 Cor 27-30:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep


If the Eucharist was just a symbol how could they be guilty of sinning? If you were to stab a picture (symbol) of your wife, you wouldn't be guilty of sin, but if you were to stab your wife (her actual body), you would be guilty.

We know from the Last Supper forward when Christ instituted the Eucharist, Christians believed this was the Body and Blood of Jesus. Early Roman pagans accused Christians of cannibalism for their beliefs.

Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false.

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally.

Let's look at it this way: Jesus said in the beginning of this whole discourse that he was the "bread of life", and that whoever comes to him "will never hunger or thirst again". Question: have you ever been hungry or thirsty at any time in your life after taking the Eucharist?

Also, if Jesus said that we have no part with him unless we literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then that would make the Eucharist absolutely necessary for salvation. Therefore, that would make all the declarations in the bible about how to get saved wrong. The Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius - all were misled about being saved, because none were given some of Jesus' flesh to eat. Jesus and Paul were wrong that faith/belief saves you. Too bad for Nicodemus, who wasn't told he had to literally eat Jesus' flesh as well.

Notice that Jesus said the same thing when he washed the disciples feet. When Peter refused, Jesus said that unless he let Jesus do it, "you have no part with me". Question: have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus? Isn't he clearly saying here that if your feet aren't literally washed by him, that you aren't saved? So does this mean you need another sacrament? Does a priest have to call Jesus down to enter his body, so that the priest literally becomes Jesus himself, to where he can then wash everyone's feet in the church?

If we're going to be literal, and parse what Jesus said in that way, then look carefully at what he said: "THIS bread is my body....." He means that particular loaf of bread that he shared with the disciples in that specific supper was his body. He doesn't say that "any bread of your choosing, I will come down and my flesh will literally become that bread also". So unless you go to Israel and dig up a 2000 year old stale piece of bread and eat it, you're in trouble. Jesus said to do it "in remembrance" of him. He doesn't say it's literally happening each and every time. It was meant to be a symbolic reminder.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Decent post until you threw this out:

"Scripture and history CLEARLY shows this Protestant claim to be false."

Sorry but what I read there was 'my interpretation and experience makes yours invalid'.

I say that because a) we would not be arguing this point if Scripture clearly supported one side or the other. Once we fall back on interpretation, human error pops up and says 'hello'.

As for History, again that is plainly rhetorical bullying, as if you were saying 'we argued this sooner and longer so we win.' But that is faulty logic on its face.

I really don't see much effort by either side to understand the other on this one.

---

Scripture clearly shows it is symbolic, not literal. If it were literal, then it is absolutely necessary for salvation, as Jesus would be indicating. Is that what you believe? Do you believe we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.....and we also have to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

---

So have you had your feet literally washed by Jesus?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your argument seems to be "feeding" itself - "eating his flesh is literal, because look where Jesus and others say we're eating his flesh...". You've already convinced yourself to take it literally each and every time, so even where it's meant symbolically you're still going to see it literally

---

Did the apostles believe the he meant literally? Yes, they were shocked by the saying, but stayed with him because, Jesus "has the words of eternal life."

Did the disciples believe he meant literally? Yes, they left because "they turned back and no longer followed Him."

Did Paul believe he meant it literally? He says so, in 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27-30.

Did the early Church believe he meant it literally? Yes, as evidenced in my previous post. I can site many, many more Church fathers that believed it.

Did opponents of the Catholic Church believe that Catholic's believed it? Yes, they were accused by many as being cannibals.

The Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Jesus has been Church teaching from the very beginning.

---

If Paul took it literally, then doesn't that mean he believes Jesus made it a requirement for salvation? If so, why doesn't he say so, but instead he says we are saved by grace through faith alone?

Fre3dombear said:

---

I've already pointed you to a / the verse proving my point

---

But the verse I shared shows that your point is wrong. It's a Spiritual meaning. WHY do Catholics believe that the Bible is all Spirituallize UNTIL the Bible specifically says that this verse is Spiritual, THEN you say it's Literal in that instance? Backward.

Please take the time to read this first if you haven't yet.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

(KJV)