I have had experiences.
) that it merely my imagination or a brain synapse misfiring. You need to ask “So”?
Been there, done that. Show me the god you found with evidence and not claims.I have had experiences.
Yes, I know. You "believe" (here I am quoting you
The point is, I recommend seeking and finding God. If I could do it (yes, it took years and years), others can do it just as easily (if they put effort and time into it).
You never learned back in elementary school that Moses was said to have written the first five books of the Bible? And then around high school, that there were probably at least five authors, or perhaps editors? David wrote the Psalms (elementary school); the Prophets wrote those books (middle school) and the New Testament was written by early Christians/followers of Jesus. Not once did anyone sit me down, hand me a Bible, and say, "God wrote that." Where did you go to school anyway?
Moses saw a burning bush. The bush was the same before, during, after. No evidence. What does this tell you about God? Next, God's appearance to Elijah. It didn't happen during storms, volcanoes, earthquakes...it was in that tiny whispering sound. Let me teach you something regarding the differences between the physical realm (has what is measurable) and the spiritual realm (contains what is not measurable). How come that is that so hard to comprehend?
The EVIDENCE makes it pretty clear that transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharist has been part of Catholicism since the very beginning.
You still don't get it.
First and foremost Jesus was given an opportunity to make it symbolic and he chose not to. He even asked, does this shock you which is why you reject his words because it shocks you.
Your rationalizations and logic are flawed. Jesus said the flesh is of no avail. So why do you keep thinking in terms of the flesh? I'm not hungry or thirsty anymore. My spirit has been quenched by the body and blood of Christ.
You should read each passage as the author intended it to be written. Your argument that we should read all passages the same is ridiculous. Clearly Genesis was written allegorically. The New Testament was not.
My spirit is quenched. My spirit is not hungry or thirsty. Jesus is the bread of life and Jesus did command you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But this shocks you, so you turn it into something else. You rewrite the Bible.
No. But I can ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance.
He also said, 27: "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." The Eucharist spoils if left out on a counter, correct? The bread gets moldy, and the wine sours, yes? They are but temporal earthly representations of things eternal.
Okay, manna was a physical thing God provided for the sustenance of His people. The Bread of the Presence was bread that was made holy by God's presence but was not transformed into God's flesh, it was simply bread that David and his men ate because they were hungry. There's no mention that God was displeased with them, not like the man who died simply because he touched the Ark to steady it. You have multiple times used these examples to bolster your contention that bread and wine are physically transformed into flesh and blood, but these were not transformed. They were simply physical objects given for the benefit of God's people.
And you believe that only a Catholic priest who utters a certain incantation can make this change happen, even though the Bible does not declare anything such. If you are going to take this literally, it would make much more sense to accept that Jesus transforms the elements every time His faithful gather to remember His sacrifice, yet you would layer on top of that the requirement that only a Catholic priest can do it and Jesus won't do anything until the priest commands Him to. Why limit God and not allow Him to transform the elements if that's what He wants to happen? Basically, you should be able to go into any communion service and your faith would transform the elements IF THAT IS WHAT GOD WANTED FOR YOU.
I have a problem with that, because the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to say just the opposite, that the consecrated Eucharist cannot be distinguished by observation from unconsecrated, that the transformation is NOT to the physical structure of the elements, but in the spiritual realm only. You are here saying the opposite, that their physical characteristics DO change, at least in this case. In fact, you had a negative visceral physical reaction when I talked about the consequences of bread physically turning into flesh and wine physically turning into blood, but here you are speaking approvingly of that actually happening.
That is agreed, and many times God reveals Himself to people in ways that are unique to that person. We have to be careful to not exclude those who have different experiences and hold differing ideas but genuinely seek the presence of the Lord.
And it was right after He did what miracle that He spoke of bread and wine sustaining life?
Yes, and if they honestly believed He was saying if they ate His flesh and drank His blood, they would live forever, His life was forfeit.
You must be born again.
And you are demonstrating exactly what I've been saying, that you take one portion of His discourse and insist it must be taken literally while happily casting the rest into "It's spiritual only" because it doesn't work when taken literally. Far better to understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically the whole time. People had a lot of trouble accepting the things He said.
The Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, like the Bread of the Presence, is not left out, but eaten. This is like saying no one should be baptized because of all the bacteria in water. Jesus illustrated himself as living bread. I doubt that he was trying to paint a picture of himself as moldy, or that sour blood was running through his veins. What say you?
Exactly what I said, you neatly proclaim one part to be literal and the rest to be spiritual only. I don't deny the Word, I seek to understand it, ESPECIALLY the things that Jesus said.
What is your personal opinion of "inspired" by your god and where is your evidence of this?
Exactly, living bread. Why then insist that He inhabits unliving bread? Better to leave it where He put it, in the spiritual realm.
That the Eucharist remains bread and wine, subject to the physical laws of this universe. They degrade if they are not consumed because they are not transformed into anything else. You could not tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated if they were placed before you. On the one hand, you say that the elements were actually physically transformed, while on the other, the Church goes to great lengths explaining that the physical form doesn't change at all.
You are the poster child for one who believes everything some unknown person who wrote the bible encountered what they say they did for no reason other than it is in the bible and evidence that they saw, heard, did or anything else does not matter. It's in the bible.
What is there to get? Nonsense? Claims? Writings of unknown people?
