The "eucharist" is unbiblical

[ninja007]

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.

The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.

It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

 

[ninja007]

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”


Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

Peter the Rock that Ages

 

[ninja007]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

Sorry. To say it is unbiblical is a serious rush to judgment. John 6 alone does not align itself with such a conclusion. To say it is unbiblical is tantamount to saying the Catholic Church practices sacrilege and idolatry. It is tantamount to saying that God allow the Catholic Church to error egregiously in its dogmas for 1500 years and mislead the faithful before starting some “new church” and giving them the proper teachings. It gets even worse than that. Plus all the great saints have been lied to or are lying to us. None of this makes any sense, nor does it resemble the nature of a good and caring God.

Not to mention, scores of Eucharistic miracles have been well documented. Here is merely one.

Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

To literaly eat blood is a sin.

Leviticus 17:10
‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

That is why the comments disturbed even some of the followers. But several had a grasp on Peter's confession. It is Christ we place our all upon. Perhaps Peter did not quite understand it, but he knew Jesus was the focal point of it all.

We are to feed on the Word.

John 1:1–3 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

 

[ninja007]

John 6:54-72 (New King James Version)
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 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. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

The words are spiritual. Israel literally ate Manna and died. This manna is different for when we eat of it we live. It is Spiritual.

 

[ninja007]

Mark 14:22 -- And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mark 14:23 -- And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.
Mark 14:24 -- And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mar k14:25 -- Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

In verse 25, read what Christ says. He will drink no more of the fruit of the vine... this was said AFTER everyone had drank from the cup.

So if this had actually become Christ's blood, why did he then refer to it as the fruit of the vine, i.e. wine?

 

[Meriweather]

Mark 14:22 -- And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mark 14:23 -- And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.
Mark 14:24 -- And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mar k14:25 -- Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

In verse 25, read what Christ says. He will drink no more of the fruit of the vine... this was said AFTER everyone had drank from the cup.

So if this had actually become Christ's blood, why did he then refer to it as the fruit of the vine, i.e. wine?

Jesus and his disciples were celebrating Passover. Scholars point out that in Mark 14:25, Jesus did an astonishing thing, tantamount to our having a birthday party, and then abruptly ending when it was time to serve the cake. In the Passover meal, four cups of wine are served. It was the third cup Jesus gave thanks and said, "This is my blood..."

Then he announces there will be no fourth cup of wine until the day he drinks it new in the kingdom of God. He gets up, leaves, goes to Gethsemane and prays that the cup pass from him. Was he speaking of the fourth cup? In Jewish tradition, the fourth cup is the cup of hope, a realization that although redemption is there, it is not yet fully complete.

On the cross, before he dies, Christ says, "It is finished," and his blood (the fourth cup) is poured forth for us. Redemption is here, now fully complete, once again we are fully God's children/His chosen people. It could be said that it is this fourth cup Catholics partake of each time the Eucharist (Christ's sacrifice) is celebrated. Or is it the third cup of the Last Supper? We could get into a conundrum over this unless we remember both the third and fourth cups are part of the Last Supper.

Perhaps this will help you to understand why Catholics believe the Eucharist is exactly how Christ described: His body, broken; his blood given up for us.

 

[hobelim]

Strong words from Jeremiah 25 you have cited, but can it be applied universally to all sinners and all times? I hope not. As far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned, here however, St. Paul speaks of partaking in the sacrament unworthily..

It is no small coincidence that Jeremiah is referring to a curse under the appearance of a cup of wine sent through the nations beginning in Jerusalem which parallels the words of Jesus in giving the so called great commission, not to mention the cup given at the last supper, and the verse also identifies the sword that Jesus said he came to bring as such, a curse.

The body of Christ, is a metaphor for the words that Jesus received from God like manna from heaven that became his flesh, a metaphor for teaching.

The Body of Christ, the words that Jesus received from God that form the body of his teaching, bread from heaven, the food of angels, must be " eaten by hearing and chewed over by the understanding and digested by faith." Tertullian.

Paul was referring to those who partake in a communal meal without discerning the subject of the body of Christ, (the divine revelation that Jesus received about how to correctly understand and comply with the divine commands that results in the eternal life promised), eat and drink judgment upon themselves and go mad by thinking and teaching others that the Body of Christ is something edible made by human hands, which is perjury in the name of God and a brazen desecration of the teachings of Jesus.

 

[turzovka]

Strong words from Jeremiah 25 you have cited, but can it be applied universally to all sinners and all times? I hope not. As far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned, here however, St. Paul speaks of partaking in the sacrament unworthily..

It is no small coincidence that Jeremiah is referring to a curse under the appearance of a cup of wine sent through the nations beginning in Jerusalem which parallels the words of Jesus in giving the so called great commission, not to mention the cup given at the last supper, and the verse also identifies the sword that Jesus said he came to bring as such, a curse.

The body of Christ, is a metaphor for the words that Jesus received from God like manna from heaven that became his flesh, a metaphor for teaching.

The Body of Christ, the words that Jesus received from God that form the body of his teaching, bread from heaven, the food of angels, must be " eaten by hearing and chewed over by the understanding and digested by faith." Tertullian.

Paul was referring to those who partake in a communal meal without discerning the subject of the body of Christ, (the divine revelation that Jesus received about how to correctly understand and comply with the divine commands that results in the eternal life promised), eat and drink judgment upon themselves and go mad by thinking and teaching others that the Body of Christ is something edible made by human hands, which is perjury in the name of God and a brazen desecration of the teachings of Jesus.

Paul wrote: --- “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” That is not referring to any common meal. Nor does one die because of their unworthiness by eating any old meal. This has no theological reason to it.

John 6 is pretty clear. --- Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?


The apostles would not be troubled if Jesus was speaking symbolically, nor would the “Jews” become disturbed by this preaching and leave Him. No, this is clear, Jesus said “unless you eat the fles of the Son of man and drink his blood”…. because…. “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” That is also what St. Paul was clearly speaking of as well.

 

[hobelim]

John 6 is pretty clear. ---“This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?


The apostles would not be troubled if Jesus was speaking symbolically, nor would the “Jews” become disturbed by this preaching and leave Him. No, this is clear, Jesus said “unless you eat the fles of the Son of man and drink his blood”…. because…. “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” That is also what St. Paul was clearly speaking of as well.

Yes, John 6 makes it clear if you read all the way through to John 6:63-68 where Jesus says in John 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life"

and then when Jesus asked if they were going to leave him too after he explained that flesh was a metaphor for words, Simon Peter replied in John 6:68,

"Lord, to whom shall we go?, Your words are words of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God."

After the explanation given by Jesus in John 6;63, the apostles were no longer troubled

This clearly shows that the flesh that must be eaten to have life are the words that Jesus spoke, his revelation from God about the figurative nature of the words and subjects in the divine commands that have a deeper hidden meaning not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used that must be heard to be received and understood to be acted upon encapsulated in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh, a sublime teaching and direct reference to Kosher law.


This is what Jesus taught, this is what the apostles believed. This is the Body of Christ.


"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again." Matthew 13:44

 

[DGS49]

hobelim, you should be an attorney or a union rep. You turn words and logic on their head and do it with a straight face.

 

[ninja007]

Mark 14:22 -- And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mark 14:23 -- And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.
Mark 14:24 -- And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mar k14:25 -- Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

In verse 25, read what Christ says. He will drink no more of the fruit of the vine... this was said AFTER everyone had drank from the cup.

So if this had actually become Christ's blood, why did he then refer to it as the fruit of the vine, i.e. wine?

Jesus and his disciples were celebrating Passover. Scholars point out that in Mark 14:25, Jesus did an astonishing thing, tantamount to our having a birthday party, and then abruptly ending when it was time to serve the cake. In the Passover meal, four cups of wine are served. It was the third cup Jesus gave thanks and said, "This is my blood..."

Then he announces there will be no fourth cup of wine until the day he drinks it new in the kingdom of God. He gets up, leaves, goes to Gethsemane and prays that the cup pass from him. Was he speaking of the fourth cup? In Jewish tradition, the fourth cup is the cup of hope, a realization that although redemption is there, it is not yet fully complete.

On the cross, before he dies, Christ says, "It is finished," and his blood (the fourth cup) is poured forth for us. Redemption is here, now fully complete, once again we are fully God's children/His chosen people. It could be said that it is this fourth cup Catholics partake of each time the Eucharist (Christ's sacrifice) is celebrated. Or is it the third cup of the Last Supper? We could get into a conundrum over this unless we remember both the third and fourth cups are part of the Last Supper.

Perhaps this will help you to understand why Catholics believe the Eucharist is exactly how Christ described: His body, broken; his blood given up for us.

Hebrews 9

1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

 

[ninja007]

To start off; What is transubstantiation? Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine at the celebration of Mass becomes the literal flesh of Christ, and the literal blood of Christ. When it says literal, it means literal. You are no longer eating bread; you are eating flesh (and in fact, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ). You are no longer drinking wine, you are drinking blood. My main contention with this is not that this is taught per se, but rather, scripture is claimed to back it up. Transubstantiation is not something taught in scripture, nor was it believed or taught by the earliest church leaders. When we examine scripture; Christ did not teach it, Paul did not teach it, and even James, the leader at the earliest church, Jerusalem, did not teach it.

John Chapter 6; this chapter, to get at the meaning of Jesus’ words must be read in entirety and in context. Please do so, here I will only give a run down on context, then on to the the main verses at hand.

John 6:1-14 Jesus feeds the five thousand. He fed them loaves of bread and fishes. This same group follows Him after this incident.

John 6:15-21 Jesus walks on the water

John 6:22-71 As we go through this, you’ll probably want your Bible opened to this, or your web-browser open as there is a lot of ground to cover here. I’ll quote the whole verses in my responses.

So, in John chapter 6, the large group that followed Jesus were after one thing:

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

They wanted actual physical literal food. They were there when He did it before (verses 1-14), and they want more.

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believenot.

So Jesus is the Bread of Life. Is He literal flour and water? No. This is a spiritual analogy. This clues us in right off the bat that He’s going to be speaking this way in this discourse. The symbolic language surrounding Christ is present in full effect in the Gospel of John, for example:

John 15: 1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Is Jesus literally a plant? No.

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. We have a perfect example here, because what is being compared is an actual drink; water. Does Jesus give actual physical literal water? No.

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture Is Jesus a literal door or opening, made out of wood, or nothing? No. He’s a Spiritual one. Is He an actual lamb or lion? Are we literal and physical sheep? No.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. In this context, is He literal light waves? No. The point here is that John especially is filled with highly meaningful symbolic language.

How does Jesus give life to the world? He came, walked perfect, was a sacrifice, gave His flesh and blood in that sacrifice for us. How do we participate in this life He brings us; not by physical eating, but by coming to Him and believing (faithing) on Him. He will not give them physical, literal food, but only Himself to faithe on.

For those that believe in Transubstantiation do you claim not to physically and literally hunger anymore? Do you claim not to thirst? Of course not, so this idea is not a literal physical one. We don’t hunger spiritually anymore, we don’t thirst spiritually anymore after coming to Christ and faithing on Him.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

For everyone that has Faith in Him, they get everlasting life.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

So, He is the living bread. For those of you who believe Transubstantiation is literal, do you believe that you will not literally, physically die? Of course not, it is obvious He is talking about spiritual death. If we come to Christ, and Faith on Him, we will not die. How does He give His flesh for the life of the world? By sacrificing it, not by us literally ingesting it.

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Notice it is NOT as their fathers did eat manna. How did they eat manna? Literally and Physically. We also have a repeat of the phrase “hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Where did we see this phrase before? In verse 40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day

So, we get this everlasting life by belief, or more accurately rendered; by faith in Him. This too lines up with all of Paul’s teachings on faith vs. works. And also professing Christ (Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation) is indeed what saves, not literally eating or drinking.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now we come to the conclusion of this chapter, and it wraps the whole thing up. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus is blatantly telling us that nothing you physically and literally eat can save you (this goes right along with His teaching that nothing you physically and literally eat can make you unclean; Matthew 15:18). His word are about Spiritual matters, not fleshly, the flesh doesn’t profit anything. Peter’s answer sheds more light on the situation. “Thou has the WORDS of eternal life.” Peter got it, it was Jesus’ words themselves that were giving life, His teachings. Again, it’s backed up by Peter’s believing Him; thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. That is what saves, that is what we need to come to and believe in order to have eternal life.
At the end of Jesus’ discourse in John chapter 6, in which He used symbolic language to get His point across, many of the people that had been following Him left. The ones who left Jesus when He made the Bread of Life speech were the ones that misunderstood Him. The ones that left Him took Him literally. The Roman church (RC) POV would have us believe that the ones who left Him understood Him perfectly. This isn’t so.

We have scriptural evidence that when people got angry at analogies used by Jesus, they were NOT understanding.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

They took Him at His literal word, and they were wrong to do so. He did not mean the literal physical temple, He meant His body. The listeners got upset, and sarcastic, they misunderstood Him here, just as they misunderstood Him about “flesh and blood” in John 6. I’ve had many RC’s ask me why Jesus didn’t stop them from leaving if they misunderstood. Look at all the instances in scripture; He doesn’t stop people that leave or get mad over misunderstandings. He talks in parables so that faith plays a role, and so that not everyone will get it, or have it “forced” upon them;

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Now, we also have the timing and positioning of the words in other scripture to show that the bread and wine are symbols.

Mat. 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Note in verse 29 that the Lord says; I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine. It does not say blood, and this verse follows the blessings. He labels it fruit of the vine even after the blessing. The blessing is where the Roman church sees the transubstantiation as happening; however, from scripture we can see this isn’t accurate. Jesus is still at the table, the goblet of wine is still there and He labels what they’ve just drunk together as fruit of the vine.

Paul too seems to back this up:

1. Cor. 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And 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. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Notice Paul went through the happenings at Passover. Then he says in verse 26 that as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup. He does not say flesh and blood. And again in verse 27 he says whosoever shall eat this bread. It is literal and physical bread.

If one views the wine as becoming literal blood, then it goes against this:

Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

And, to show that it is not just an old covenant teaching:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This is teaching coming from James, the leader of the first church; Jerusalem. Now, whether or not you agree with all of James’ teaching, and his seeming legalistic bent, you can’t deny that he taught that believers should not drink blood. It’s straight forward; no blood. There are no exceptions taught, or mentioned. Notice in the OT verse that it is any manner of blood; it isn’t limited. Jesus did not break the Law, which can only mean He did not partake of blood at the Passover.

Another issue; Christ is not bodily on this Earth. He’s seated at the right Hand of the Father. He will only return bodily, touching this earth, at the second coming. If the eucharist is His literal body, blood, soul, and divinity, then He would already be here physically, which is not what scripture teaches, so it is another contradiction.

This brings me to the fact that not even the Roman church takes Christ literally. He said this is my flesh, this is my blood. However, the RC teaches that the wafer becomes not just Christ’s flesh but body, blood, soul, and divinity by transubstantiation. This idea is clearly not scriptural, even if you take His words as being completely literal. Jesus instructed the disciples to both eat and drink. The Roman POV is that you don’t have to do both, just one. This isn’t scriptural. We are to do both, first, the bread shows His body that was abused and pierced for us, second the wine, the symbol of His blood shed for us.

And finally, we have one really good example of what happens when Jesus turns one thing into another in scripture. He turned water into wine. When He did this it looked like wine, tasted like wine, everyone knew it was wine. With transubstantiation you do not have this. For all practical intents and purposes, to every scientific look, that bread is still bread, and that wine is still wine, not flesh and blood. We have a good basis; water to wine, to show that this is not how this type of miracle works. Why does the blood not taste like blood?

Taking all of scripture into account, and by looking at the context of all of these various verses, transubstantiation is not supported, and even contradicts several key verses.
Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

First notice that the apostles tried to take Christ literally. He’s talking about bread and leaven…He must be referring to the literal, right? Nope. Next notice that Jesus does not correct them outright; He makes them get to the conclusion on their own. He gives them the non-sinful equivalent of an eye roll. They do eventually catch on to the truth themselves; Jesus was being metaphorical.

I also note that when He brought used the idea of bread and leaven here, that He was speaking about doctrine. That further supports that idea that He was also speaking of doctrine, or partaking of the the words of life, in John 6, not His literal body.

 

[ninja007]

Is the LORD s Supper Literal or Symbolic - Page 3

 

[Meriweather]

First notice that the apostles tried to take Christ literally. He’s talking about bread and leaven…He must be referring to the literal, right? Nope. Next notice that Jesus does not correct them outright; He makes them get to the conclusion on their own. He gives them the non-sinful equivalent of an eye roll. They do eventually catch on to the truth themselves; Jesus was being metaphorical.

I understand this is how you wish to see it.

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

 

[hobelim]

I understand this is how you wish to see it.

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

LOL.... Tell that to the people in the catacombs..

 

[hobelim]

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.


The only possible way that Jesus could be present in anyone is if his flesh, symbolic of teaching from God, bread from heaven, is in you.

Nothing made by human hands that has no life and can neither see, hear, walk or talk can give life.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.



When Jesus said this;

"The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life."

he wasn't talking about wine and crackers.


Jesus is not and never was present in the eucharist and if you say that he is, the teaching of Jesus is not present in you.

 

[turzovka]

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.


The only possible way that Jesus could be present in anyone is if his flesh, symbolic of teaching from God, bread from heaven, is in you.

Nothing made by human hands that has no life and can neither see, hear, walk or talk can give life.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.



When Jesus said this;

"The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life."

he wasn't talking about wine and crackers.

What is of greater interest to me is that it took 500 years for anyone to question Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.


The only possible way that Jesus could be present in anyone is if his flesh, symbolic of teaching from God, bread from heaven, is in you.

Nothing made by human hands that has no life and can neither see, hear, walk or talk can give life.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.



When Jesus said this;

"The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are both spirit and life."

he wasn't talking about wine and crackers.

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.

And you actually believe this???

Sounds like another Dan Brown novel / movie in the making to me.

 

[hobelim]

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.

And you actually believe this???

Sounds like another Dan Brown novel / movie in the making to me.

What's not to believe? Its a part of our collective historical record and the shameful and bloody history of your Church.


What would you have me believe?

The countless pogroms, persecutions and inquisitions never happened and your Church never persecuted and killed by the millions to save souls because some people didn't buy into the crap that Jesus was both God and edible?

A false Roman trinity impregnated a virgin to become fully human without a human father, preformed some demonstrations of supernatural power over reality, hosted a magical fish sandwich party, said things that no one understood, was ridiculed, rejected and crucified because he loved the Romans so much and then rose from the dead and bodily floated up into the sky?

All I have to do is 'just believe' and worship and eat the eucharist as if it was a god that can give life even though it is made by human hands and has no life I will not die as stated in divine law but instead I will live forever?


Not by the hairs of my chinny chin chin.....

 

[turzovka]

What actually happened was that Rome persecuted everyone who would not submit to the authority of Caesar or would not worship roman gods, Christians in particular, so when the people who understood the teachings of Jesus were wiped out and Christianity was ultimately assimilated by Rome they put the name of Jesus all over a false roman triune god that was edible and then through the Papacy, given power and authority from Rome, proceeded to continue to persecute anyone who would not worship an edible roman triune god, Jews in particular.

And you actually believe this???

Sounds like another Dan Brown novel / movie in the making to me.

What's not to believe? Its a part of our collective historical record and the shameful and bloody history of your Church.


What would you have me believe?

The countless pogroms, persecutions and inquisitions never happened and your Church persecuted and killed by the millions to save souls because some people didn't buy into the crap that Jesus was both God and edible?

A false Roman trinity impregnated a virgin to become fully human without a human father, preformed some demonstrations of supernatural power over reality, hosted a magical fish sandwich party, said things that no one understood, was ridiculed, rejected and crucified because he loved the Romans so much and then rose from the dead and bodily floated up into the sky?


Not by the hairs of my chinny chin chin.....

You do not sound interested. Which makes all the more difficult to explain all your mishaps.

There is nothing the Catholic Church has taught that causes me any reason to doubt. Their numerous sins over history disprove nothing, they only prove that even the faithful are weak at times and sin. What of it?

But if you are standing by that Roman "bait and switch" you proffered as something you believe in... well, all I can say is good luck.

 

[hobelim]

You do not sound interested. Which makes all the more difficult to explain all your mishaps.

There is nothing the Catholic Church has taught that causes me any reason to doubt. Their numerous sins over history disprove nothing, they only prove that even the faithful are weak at times and sin. What of it?

But if you are standing by that Roman "bait and switch" you proffered as something you believe in... well, all I can say is good luck.

Bait and switch? Are you insane?


According to the teachings of your Roman Catholic Church the Eucharist, made by human hands, becomes the body of Christ in actuality during mass and by worshiping and eating it on your knees one may receive eternal life.

Do you deny the church teaches this abomination?

Good luck with that.......