Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Matt Black]

Er...no, you hear, "Do this in remembrance of me" at both; evidently you've never been to a Mass, otherwise you wouldn't post such drivel.

 

[saturneptune]

Er...no, you hear, "Do this in remembrance of me" at both; evidently you've never been to a Mass, otherwise you wouldn't post such drivel.

Drivel LOL, you left out cheereo.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is how to tell the difference. At the Lord's Supper, one will her "Do this in rememberence of Me." At the Catholic Eucharist, one will hear "now, for my next trick...."

Obviously you won't hear that at the mass.

But here is what you will find out if you look into the details - only relying on Catholic sources for what they are thinking and teaching during the Mass.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in cradle Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?),mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

How SERIOUS do they take this worship of bread “as god”??

=======================
[FONT=&quot]Catechism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1374[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]makes himself wholly and entirely present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."203 [/FONT]


======================end quote

And of course the evolution of the mass over time

A Concise History of the Catholic Church:

[FONT=&quot]Ibid - Page 42 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Constantinian revolution.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Millions of pagans suddenly entered[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the church and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features [/FONT][FONT=&quot]derived from the imperial court[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Under this pagan influence[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Christians began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in conducting the liturgy. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even wording[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the canon was left to his discretion
[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

And more to the "here is a magic trick" argument - the real question is about the "powers" of the priest - retained by that priest even if they are found to be excommunicated from the church.

======================

Magic “powers” of the RC Priest retained after excommunication

Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126

Q: Our former priest has been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and h as opened his own Church, which he calls “Christ Catholic Mission”. He now has some kind of connection with what he calls the “Catholic Church of God and Christ” with headquarters in Missouri. More and more people are attending his church. Some are former Catholics, but those I asked did not know whether this priest still had the power of consecrating the bread and wine for Communion. Does he? M.M


A.Yes. But he commits a grave sin of disobedience if he is excommunicated… The priest’s Consecration can be valid, that is, there can be the real change of bread and wine INTO the body and blood of Christ, but it is illicit because of his excommunication and brings him no actual graces.

You sometimes hear that the reason the Church recognizes the validity of an excommunicated priest’s Mass, and his continuing power to forgive sin, is the salvation of the dying in cases of necessity. But the deeper reason is the mark of the Holy Orders, along with Baptism and Confirmation, puts on the soul.

Of course “Mark on the soul” is just a figure of speech to indicate the difference between the baptized and the nonbaptized , the confirmed and the nonconfirmed, the ordained and the nonordained. Once the status of a soul is established by any of the three sacraments, it cannot be changed by any human power so as to be like it was before the reception of these sacraments.

The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. He does, by his apostasy, lose the power to do these things licitly, without sin.

The legal mechanics of all this is that only the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, the power to govern. Consequently, the ordained priest must have the permission of a bishop to exercise the powers of Consecration and absolving. The bread and wine consecrated by an excommunicated priest truly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, [/i but the priest and anyone who knowingly receives Communion from him is guilty of extremely serious sin.

 

[BobRyan]

In Hebrews 10 it is ONE offering, ONE sacrifice - completed ONCE -- Thus every Lord's Supper "in REMEMBRANCE" memorial of a once for all sacrifice completed at the cross. For Catholics the complaint is that the Protestant version is just a memorial - where as the Catholic version is participation in the actual sacrifice itself. The victim is there - is the same.

But in Catholic doctrine it is an ongoing sacrifice - an ongoing victim

===
Council of Trent put it in these terms:

"And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, Who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid…For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different."5

 

[Bro. James]

Con Su Permisso

Legalism is alive and well on planet earth. If your religion is not authorized by the authorized dubbing authority, you have not an authorized religion.

This all goes back to Mt. 16. Who got the authorized keys? If Peter got them to pass on to the authorized bishoprics, all outside the Holy See are usurpers. Rome has not delegated any authority lately.

This presents a bit of a dilemma. The so-called protestants(reformers of Rome), have no authority if their mother has any or not. Anyone else in the world of Christendom has a similar problem: no scriptural authority.

There is one glorious exception: the Church that Jesus is building--the one referenced in the Mt., Acts, and Rev. These are the ones called out to do the work of the kingdom. Jesus promised to never leave nor forsake them.

He has kept His promise.

What is in your wallet?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why not use some common sense when you are reading? Obviously to those who have not yet eaten it is future and it will always be future to those who presently are not beleiving!

However, His presentation of himself for eating in this sense is always PRESENT not future. "I AM...eatETH....drinkETH..." However, this is impossible for your position as the Lord's Supper had not yet been instituted and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense. His blood and flesh had not yet been sacrified and so none could PRESENTLY partake in your sense.

Peter claims he already had eaten the "WORDS of LIFE" and then defines precisely what partaking of Christ really means "WE BELIEVE thou art the Christ...."

Rome's interpretation is simply false without any Biblical or practical basis for the audiance Jesus is addressing.

The problem Biblicist is you don't understand my post because you are in a middle of a conversation between BR and myself. Also you are the kind of person that likes to spout vitrol against anything you disagree with.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem Biblicist is you don't understand my post because you are in a middle of a conversation between BR and myself. Also you are the kind of person that likes to spout vitrol against anything you disagree with.

The problem Thinkingstuff is that you cannot answer the facts of the text which I presented and so as usual turn to your favorite whipping post and make it all personal.

Your interpretation is impossible for this text when all grammatical and contextual factors are objectively considered. He is using present tense exhortations to eat and drink of him right then and there. It should be obvious that such exhortations are unnecessary if they already had heeded them and that the future tense is necessary if they have not heeded them.

Your position is simply false.

In John 6:30-40 eating/drinking; coming; are all equal to seeing and believing in Christ

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ uses the physical symbol of birth to stand for the spiritual idea of spiritual regeneration. (even Catholics refer to this as a "mark on the soul" and not a Baby being born to its physical mother).

The problem you continue to face with understanding both John 3 and John 6 is the notion that Spirit means symbolic. I've been trying to tell you that it does not mean symbolic but is a reflection of reality. So a person who is Born Again is truelly a new creature in reality despite the fact his outward apperance remains the same. So it is with Jesus Discussion in John 6. In John 3 Jesus says "one must be born of water (baptism) and the Spirit" The physical substance of water is a sign of the Spirit reality it is also the seal of the covenant. Which we know is fact because Paul says.

11 In him also you were circumcised (Old Testament Language referring to the covenant)with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. Col 2:11-12

Therefore the water in baptism is the covenant act that connects us to the Spiritual reality of being a really new creature in Christ. As Paul says again in Col 3:9

seeing that you have put off the old self[d] with its practices 10 and have put on the new self

Which is why Catholics believe

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 - CCC

Nicodemus is an unbelieving state in John 3 - so when Christ uses this symbol of Birth - Nicodemus sticks with "physical birth" -- the too literal response of an unbeliever.

Again Nicodemus is thinking only in the Flesh and ignores the Spiritual component of the man. As I've said man is both flesh and spirit. But it is the spirit and not the flesh which makes man a living being. This is why Jesus said.

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] John 3:5-6

Note at no point in his discussion with Nicodemus does he say any of this is symbolic but in fact a reality. As I noted before Nicodemus gets the mode flesh/spirit wrong by ignoring the spirit aspect of the human being despite his being a Pharisee which is why Jesus said.

Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

And again note when Jesus speaks of "heavenly things" he isn't suggesting "symbolism" but a Heavenly reality in which a born again person really is a new creature. Has gone a real ontological change in the substance of who they are.

Incredibly obvious to any Baptist who is at the point of possibly considering Catholicism but has not yet gone for it hook-line-and-sinker.

What is incredibly obvious is that the Baptist perspective isn't taking Jesus at his word rather is obviously equating spirit to symbolism as you have done dispite the disparity with the scriptures. In Both John 3 and John 6 Jesus isn't talking about symbolism but a heavenly reality which he identifies as "spirit".

Hint - As we all know the "two modes" for physical birth are c-section vs natural child birth. Your effort to bend this is not working.

Hint you don't know the nature of Man if you think he is a living creature because of his physical birth. Thus as there are two modes of being for a man flesh (physical)/Spirit that occure simultaneously. Thus a man is born both physically and spiritually. Even according to Watchman Nee ( a person I read while a Bapitist) holds that this is the general view of the Human Being

The ordinary concept of the constitution of human beings is dualistic—soul and body. - The Spiritual Man pg 25

Though he is a believer in the human as a tripart being. But still when it comes to the Spirit he makes this observation

The Lord Jesus tells us “it is the spirit that gives life” (John 6.63). This breath of life comes from the Lord of Creation...When the inbreathing of God entered man’s body it became the spirit of man; but when the spirit reacted with the body the soul was produced. This explains the source of our spiritual...lives...The body apart from the spirit was dead, but with the spirit man was made alive. The organ thus animated was called the soul...However, we must remember well that whereas the soul is the meeting-point of the elements of our being in this present life, the spirit will be the ruling power in our resurrection state. For the Bible tells us that “it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body”...It is through the corporal body that man comes into contact with the material world. Hence we may label the body as that part which gives us world-consciousness...The spirit is that part by which we commune with God and by which alone we are able to apprehend and worship Him. Because it tells us of our relationship with God, the spirit is called the element of God-consciousness. - The Spiritual Man pg 27-29

So it is quite obvious that the human is both a physical being and a spirit being but the spirit is the reality that gives life to the man. Like Nicodemus you are only stuck on the physical. But that doesn't mean to speak of spirit is to speak of symbolism. Thus Jesus is speaking to that very part of man that makes him connect to God. This is why your insistance on natural vaginal or cessarian birth is a non sequitur to the discussion and isn't working for you. Neither is speaking to a dog or a horse which is still an insistance on ignoring the reality of the Spirit to which Jesus speaks.

Again this is incredibly obvious to all of us.

Again what is incredibly obvious is the fact that you as I have said before are reading a pretext into both passages that is based on the paradigm that by saying "by the spirit" Jesus means symbolic. However, understanding "the spirit" in context of Jesus discussion and cultural context we know that is not what he is saying.

Jesus is using the physical symbol to represent a spiritual reality. Hint that is how symbolism works in cases like this.

As I've stated before they physical symbol of "water" in John 3 connects us to the covenant as does circumcision did in the Old Testament. The differense between John 3 and John 6 is that Jesus isn't saying bread connects by way of covenant but that He is the bread of life. Or simply put Bread of Life = Jesus. And Jesus said that this bread is his flesh which he gives for the world. Or simply put Bread = Crucified body. Thus in both John 3 being born again isn't symbolism but a statement of fact on a heavenly level or by the Spirit so it is that the bread which Jesus gives is his flesh also on a heavenly level or by the spirit. Niether is symbolic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem Thinkingstuff is that you cannot answer the facts of the text which I presented and so as usual turn to your favorite whipping post and make it all personal.

Your interpretation is impossible for this text when all grammatical and contextual factors are objectively considered. He is using present tense exhortations to eat and drink of him right then and there. It should be obvious that such exhortations are unnecessary if they already had heeded them and that the future tense is necessary if they have not heeded them.

Your position is simply false.

In John 6:30-40 eating/drinking; coming; are all equal to seeing and believing in Christ

Your out in left feild with your comment to begin with. Look at the actual discussion. And see the context in Post 84 BobRyan said

And in John 6 - Jesus said it must already happen - not that some day in the future it would be needed.

To counter that statement I said.

Here is another problem you face. You mentioned that Jesus doesn't present his flesh to be eaten as some future date. But I while re-reading the passage it became clear to me you missed something.
Quote:
And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh

So he is talking about a future time when he will offer his bread.

So contextually I'm right on the mark. You don't get credit for jumping in with a non-sequitur.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your out in left feild with your comment to begin with. Look at the actual discussion. And see the context in Post 84 BobRyan said To counter that statement I said. So contextually I'm right on the mark. You don't get credit for jumping in with a non-sequitur.

I read his remark and he responded to my statement confirming that my statement was exactly one of the points he had made.

This is just another attempt by you to avoid the real contextual problem we have placed before you to the Catholic misinterpretation of John 6.

1. Jesus is calling on them to take PRESENT ACTION right then and there.


However, Rome's interpretation makes PRESENT ACTION impossible as no blood had been shed, no body had been broken, no supper had been instituted.

2. The future tense text you allude is essential consequence for PRESENT ACTION.

If you will go back and read, you will see Bob commented on my post and affirmed he had made the same point.

Quit playing hide and seek and deal with the evidence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I read his remark and he responded to my statement confirming that my statement was exactly one of the points he had made.

This is just another attempt by you to avoid the real contextual problem we have placed before you to the Catholic misinterpretation of John 6.

1. Jesus is calling on them to take PRESENT ACTION right then and there.


However, Rome's interpretation makes PRESENT ACTION impossible as no blood had been shed, no body had been broken, no supper had been instituted.

2. The future tense text you allude is essential consequence for PRESENT ACTION.

If you will go back and read, you will see Bob commented on my post and affirmed he had made the same point.

Quit playing hide and seek and deal with the evidence.

One word will throw you whole argument under the bus. the word "will". IE I "will" give. Not present now is it?

 

[The Biblicist]

One word will throw you whole argument under the bus. the word "will". IE I "will" give. Not present now is it?

You either do not read very good or you are intentionally playing silly games.

"will" refers to the consequence of responding to PRESENT ACTION. Believing, coming, eating precede life. However, the "will" is a consequence of taking PRESENT ACTION to eat, drink, come, believe. Can't simplify it more than that! Christ is exhorting them to PRESENTLY eat, drink, believe, come and you cannot deny that as that is the plain grammatical facts. However, you are choosing to divorce common sense from your dealing with these PRESENT TENSE exhortations when you conlcude that a future tense consequence for taking present tense actions is contradictory!!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You either do not read very good or you are intentionally playing silly games.

Neither. Think of this senario. You visit a doctor. The Doctor tells you. "you need to take crestor for your cholesterol" - present tense. "take a crestor and you reduce your chances for a heart attack" - present tense. "the script I will give you is for crestor." - Future tense. The conversation and contexts of present tenses and future tenses are exatly the same as in the John 6 discourse. You just want to force your pretext into the verse. But that one phrase as the phrase I showed you above with the script. Throws out that argument. "The bread that I will give." It is understood that it isn't yet given. Its really simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

Neither. Think of this senario. You visit a doctor. The Doctor tells you. "you need to take crestor for your cholesterol" - present tense. "take a crestor and you reduce your chances for a heart attack" - present tense. "the script I will give you is for crestor." - Future tense. The conversation and contexts of present tenses and future tenses are exatly the same as in the John 6 discourse. You just want to force your pretext into the verse. But that one phrase as the phrase I showed you above with the script. Throws out that argument. "The bread that I will give." It is understood that it isn't yet given. Its really simple.

Your examples disprove your interpretation not mine! The words "you need to take" infer a future action not a present action or else he would not even have to say these words.

He is exhorting them to PRESENTLY act (believeth, eateth, drinketh, cometh) in order to obtain life (future tense). So simple! So clear and so contrary to your forced interpretation.

Your intepretation denies the possibility they can respond to present tense exhortations. If Rome's interpretation was true they should have said, well lets get to killing you so we can eat and drink of you. Or let's observe the Lord's Supper so we can have eternal life. But neither is true and neither is what Christ intended. Just plain common sense should show the context defines coming, eating and drinking as believing on him (Jn. 6:35).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your examples disprove your interpretation not mine! The words "you need to take" infer a future action not a present action or else he would not even have to say these words.

I don't know how much english you've had but that statement is present tense. The term "need" indicates present necessity. I does not say you will need. It seems you are confused.

He is exhorting them to PRESENTLY act (believeth, eateth, drinketh, cometh) in order to obtain life (future tense). So simple! So clear and so contrary to your forced interpretation.

Just like in the example. In order to have eternal life you must eat my flesh. The bread that I will give. Indciates a future event. Its not forced You ignore the word "will".

Your intepretation denies the possibility they can respond to present tense exhortations. If Rome's interpretation was true they should have said, well lets get to killing you so we can eat and drink of you.

No that is incorrect. Look at the passage again

'Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood ye have no life in you' John 6:53

the comment isn't speaking this must immediately be done rather that this is the action you must take. Time isn't indicated. You imagine immediacy when there is none. You've added immediacy to the passage when none was suggested and in fact Jesus indicates that the bread that he is giving isn't in the present but some point in the future when he says

And the bread that I will give

Just like it is some time in the future one will obtain eternal life when he says

If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

Note he doesn't say currently living forever. But you must do this when I will give this to have this at some future point. Your time constraints go against the context of the Passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't know how much english you've had but that statement is present tense.

Your made up sentence in a made up context has no comparison to John 6:29-35. It is not a matter of tense with your sentence but with content and context in which you place it that makes it future.


The context you placed it in demands taking of it is future tense application as he does not even possess the prescription yet.

However, that is not the context of John 6:29-35 because he rebukes them for not already taking his prescription for eternal life:

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 believe not.

If as Rome interprets the "crestor" they needed to take was something impossible at present, and indeed is impossible as neither the Supper was instituted or the sacrifice offered and must be yet future from this preaching then how could Christ rebuke them presently????? He couldn't!

Just like in the example. In order to have eternal life you must eat my flesh. The bread that I will give. Indciates a future event. Its not forced You ignore the word "will".

He uses the PRESENT TENSE "I AM the bread of life - he that "EATETH"! The future tense giving of his life on the cross later does not prevent obtaining eternal life NOW by EATING NOW! However, Rome's application makes it impossible to EAT NOW as neither the supper or the cross was PRESENT and AVAILABLE.

You are making a simple thing confusing

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your made up sentence in a made up context has no comparison to John 6:29-35.

You know I'm right so now you have to make an accusation. Typical of you. Ie "You made it up!!!" Blah, blah, blah. Of course I relayed a conversation I had with my doctor and that is how it went. The point of the conversation use is to show you the tenses and context with in a discussion which showed your appeal is wrong.

It is not a matter of tense with your sentence but with content and context in which you place it that makes it future

Before in your previous post tense made all the diffence now it doesn't? Just admit you were wrong. Why don't you keep on with Spirit = Symbol that gives you more traction than this arguement.

 

[The Biblicist]

You know I'm right so now you have to make an accusation. Typical of you. Ie "You made it up!!!" Blah, blah, blah. Of course I relayed a conversation I had with my doctor and that is how it went. The point of the conversation use is to show you the tenses and context with in a discussion which showed your appeal is wrong.

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to describe your response. Jesus rebuked them for not PRESENTLY eating, believing on him as the present tense "I AM" the bread of life. You canont respond so once again you get personal and play the ridicule game.

Before in your previous post tense made all the diffence now it doesn't? Just admit you were wrong. Why don't you keep on with Spirit = Symbol that gives you more traction than this arguement.

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to descibe this response. It is your concocted illustration that tense makes no difference. I have not moved one iota from what I first stated about the context of John 6:29-35.

You simply can't respond and so you make up things that have no connection with the Biblical context, and you ignore that your illustration does not harmonize with the words of Jesus in John 6 as he rebukes some for not PRESENTLY eating RIGHT THEN AND THERE, or in the words of your illustration, for not PRESENTLY taking the prescription right then and there.


Your concocted non-biblical illustration falls apart in your attempt to apply it to Christ's words. Your illustration demands only a FUTURE application while Jesus rebukes them for not having applied EATING him ALREADY (Jn. 3:35-35). So your illustration breaks down at the very point of debate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to describe your response. Jesus rebuked them for not PRESENTLY eating, believing on him as the present tense "I AM" the bread of life. You canont respond so once again you get personal and play the ridicule game.

I'm not the one whose ridiculing you, however, started off your whole discussion on this very topic by ridiculing. I'm just stating what is true. For instance you make this assertion

Jesus rebuked them for not PRESENTLY eating (him)

Ok I'm looking at the passage and I'll put in the passages that he rebukes someone.

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill

But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered

“Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

These are where he rebukes them not one of these verses indicate that he rebukes them for not presenting eating. However, If you are trying to imply that this passage

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

is a rebuke then you didn't understand it in the context of the passage. Its an explanation to their questioning. As you can see as I expand the passage so you can better see the context.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

So they wonder how they can eat his flesh. And he say "Yep truly, unless you eat my flesh". Therefore it is not a rebuke. As for present tense of the discussion that would be comparable to the discussion my doctor and I had. "you need to take crestor" - Doctor and I replied "Isn't there some way I don't have to take that pill?" The Doctor answered "Look, unless you want a heart attack you really need to be on this medicine." The tense is present but I still hadn't got the script yet. So your understanding of this passage is way off if you think he is rebuking them for not yet eating. That is nonsense sorry the passage doesn't support your hypothesis.

Irrational and illogical are the only apt words to descibe this response

Remember, when you point one accusing finger at me you got three pointed right back at you.

Your concocted non-biblical illustration falls apart in your attempt to apply it to Christ's words. Your illustration demands only a FUTURE application while Jesus rebukes them for not having applied EATING him ALREADY (Jn. 3:35-35). So your illustration breaks down at the very point of debate.

Unfortunately, Not concocted as much as I would like. I hate having to have to rely on pills but really its my fault for not eating right. But that aside. It's used to show how you are wrong about tenses of the passage. There is nothing in that passage that suggest and immediacy of eating right then and there. What is presented in the passage is understanding his point which is once again

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

and we know that this bread which he gives will be in the future because of this one word..."will" as it is used in this passage.

50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

As in it hasn't been given as yet. The passage is clear. Which means you are imposing your views into the passage.