Rome's Mary on the Cross and God's Throne

[KJVRICH]

Yes he did.

I do not agree. I dont think Jesus had his own flesh and blood in his hands and gave it to the disciples. There is no indication in scripture the disciples thought the bread and wine changed into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Jesus did not give His crucified body and blood to the disciples before he was crucified.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not agree. I dont think Jesus had his own flesh and blood in his hands and gave it to the disciples.

I disagree. I believe in a supernatural way he certainly did.

There is no indication in scripture the disciples thought the bread and wine changed into the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

Actually the fact that it was recorded the way it was in the Gospel certainly is evidence they did. I also think it is pointed to in the inclusion of the disciples going to Emmaus where they didn't recognize Jesus until he offered up the bread and he disappeared indicating he was still very present in the Eucharist.

Jesus did not give His crucified body and blood to the disciples before he was crucified.

You may find that difficult to believe if you have difficulty believing that God is outside space time or that miracles happen. For me its easy to believe because God created ex nihilio or out of Nothing by simply speaking it into existance. God shows he can turn one thing into another when he turned water into wine. God shows he can multiply an item when he feeds the five thousand. Thus Jesus can give his of his glorified body before the resurrection at the institution of the Eucharist and uphold his sacrifice at the same time. All before the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus.

 

[KJVRICH]

What I think you are asking is 'how can Jesus be really present in the Eucharist he instituted at the last supper if he hasn't died yet?' I have heard people on this board say that this is evidence of symbolic communion.

If my God is big enough to turn water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana do you not think that Jesus could turn the bread and wine at the last supper into his Divine body and blood? The ability to do this would not be impacted by the fact that His sacrifice had not yet happened in "time" yet as it is a making of that sacrifice present to the apostles in an unbloody manner. Similarly, when we participate in the Eucharist now (after Jesus death), we are partaking of his divine body and blood by participating in the one and only sacrifice which is made "present" for us-He is not re-sacrificed.

I do not agree. The old covenant was still in effect, the new covenant came to be after the death of Jesus Christ. With what you are saying. Jesus was violating old testement law,..... "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not agree. The old covenant was still in effect, the new covenant came to be after the death of Jesus Christ. With what you are saying. Jesus was violating old testement law,..... "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Its an interesting argument. So lets look at what we are talking about. Cannabalism which is defined as

the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind

or

eating the flesh of one's own species under the form of flesh

However, when we eat the eucharist we are eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread and wine. Thus not committing Cannibalism. Let me make this example though its probably a poor example. I heard a tragic tail of a person disposing a murdered body by feeding it to pigs. Now lets say this pig is used to make bacon. Now is the person eating the pig guilty of Cannibalism? No. which is why there is a differentiation between the form of the Eucharist or accident and the substance of the Eucharist or the reality of the Eucharist.

 

[Walter]

A few examples of Old Testament typology of the Eucharist:
Passover lamb
Manna in the desert
Elijah given hearth cakes to strengthen him for the journey (1 Kings 19:4-8)
The widow's jar of flour that does not go empty (1 Kings 17)

New Testament typology of the Eucharist:
Wedding at Cana (changing water to wine)
Multiplication of loaves

There are so many, many more. The entire book of Revelation is chock full of typology of the Eucharist. Scott Hahn's book 'The Lambs Supper' has a detailed study on the mass in scripture. Most Protestants have precious little use for the typology of the bible though. I remember in my Baptist college someone asking what the significance of
Melchizedek offering bread and wine was. People saw the type of Christ of Melchizedek in other ways but the significance of the bread and wine wasn't recognized.

The Talmud says that the only sacrifice that will exist in the messianic age is what is called the Todah; a sacrifice of lamb, bread and wine, AKA the "thank offering" or "thankgiving." Eucharist, of course, means "thanksgiving.

An interesting presentation (transcript) by Hahn on how it is that Christ in the Last Supper and in the Eucharist offers himself up as the new covenant Passover, and why the mass and the Old Testament passover are in a sense 'two sides of the same coin'. It answers the objection and continual accusation on this board of 'Catholics re-sacrificing Jesus over and over in the mass'.

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html

 

[Zenas]

I do not agree. I dont think Jesus had his own flesh and blood in his hands and gave it to the disciples. There is no indication in scripture the disciples thought the bread and wine changed into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Jesus did not give His crucified body and blood to the disciples before he was crucified.

Scripture doesn't bear out what you are saying.

“Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:26-27.

"Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Mark 14:22-24.

19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. Luke 22:19-20.

nless 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. John 6:53-54.

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 10:16.

Five writers and not one of them includes a single word to suggest the bread and wine are symbolic. You would think at least one of them would make the distinction if it really existed. Or maybe it didn't exist and the communion elements really are the body and blood of Christ. Then no explanation would be necessary. Maybe that's why no explanation is given.

 

[Walter]

Scripture doesn't bear out what you are saying.
Five writers and not one of them includes a single word to suggest the bread and wine are symbolic. You would think at least one of them would make the distinction if it really existed. Or maybe it didn't exist and the communion elements really are the body and blood of Christ. Then no explanation would be necessary. Maybe that's why no explanation is given.

Excellent points! TS also made an excellent point that the 'disciples KNEW Him in the breaking of bread'. I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!
Let's look at John chapter 6. Let me ask you, when Jesus said 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', did anyone say 'how can this man be a door' (or vine)? Or 'how can this man be a plant?' When Jesus spoke in metaphor the people around Him seemed to know it. I ask you to look at the surrounding context of John 6:53 and I do not see how His words could have been clearer. He says He IS the 'living bread' that His followers MUST eat. Doesn't He say in no uncertain terms that 'the bread that I now give is my flesh'? Doesn't He say emphatically, 'truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'
It is true that Jesus spoke in parables (common in that day) but this is no parable. Look at this and some other examples in Scripture where His followers are confused about his teaching. In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (see also Matthew 16:5-12).
Now, let's look at the language used by St.John, a literal interpretation—which may disturb you—drives it home. Here in John 6:50-53 there are several forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” The Jews say how disturbed they at the suggestion they should be eating Christ’s flesh, and the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Isn't Trogo a lot more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey?
Now we get to verse 61 where we no longer have great multitudes of people following Him (why?) but disciples who are having difficulty understanding this. SURELY now He would clear this matter up and explain 'this is all symbolic'! Well, what did He do? He again re-affirms what He has just said: 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?' in verses 61 and 62. Do you think anyone thought Him to mean: “What if you were to see me symbolically ascend?” I don't think you believe that. Didn't the Apostles see Jesus literally ascend to heaven?
When Jesus addresses the twelve what does He not say? He doesn't say: “Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically.” He asks them if they will take off as well. And their response? “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” verse 68
I used to counter Catholics with: Doesn't our Lord says to the disciples “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” and doesn't this prove that Jesus was talking symbolically (spiritually)? But Jesus did not say "MY flesh is of no avail', He said 'the flesh is of no avail'. Big difference! Jesus would have been contradicting Himself because He just spent a lot of time telling them that His flesh would be given for the life of the world. Isn't The flesh a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace? “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” Mark 14:38
It is the Holy Spirit that brings about the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in Holy Communion for the life of the world.
What confuses most people here is often based upon confusion between spirit—a noun—and the adjective spiritual. When spirit is used, “God is spirit” in John 4:24, it is taling about that which is not material. However, the adjective spiritual is not necessarily referring to the absence of the material; rather, it is referring to the material controlled by the Spirit. Don't His words have two meanings? “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle which occurs at Holy Communion and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle

 

[webdog]

H

Scripture doesn't bear out what you are saying.
Five writers and not one of them includes a single word to suggest the bread and wine are symbolic. You would think at least one of them would make the distinction if it really existed. Or maybe it didn't exist and the communion elements really are the body and blood of Christ. Then no explanation would be necessary. Maybe that's why no explanation is given.

Do yoy believe He is also bread, water, a door and a lamb?

 

[Walter]

HDo yoy believe He is also bread, water, a door and a lamb?

I'd be interested in your response to my last post (#87), Webdog. I did address this.

 

[webdog]

I'd be interested in your response to my post, Webdog. I did address this.

I just read it. To be honest I saw a lot of reading between the lines and assumptions. Much is built on an argument of silence.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I just read it. To be honest I saw a lot of reading between the lines and assumptions. Much is built on an argument of silence.

It is common for RC's to read much-later doctrine and practice back into the NT which simply isn't there.

 

[Zenas]

HDo yoy believe He is also bread, water, a door and a lamb?

1. The context of passages about the door, the lamb, etc. leave no doubt that they are metaphorical. The context of the Bread of Life discourse suggests just the opposite--that Jesus really commands us to eat his body and drink his blood.

2. If Jesus had been speaking metaphorically, John would likely have inserted a parenthetical saying so. John does this often in his gospel and he did not do it in Ch. 6. Even if John forgot to insert a parenthetical, it seems incredible that Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul would have also overlooked this vital explanation (if indeed it were true).

3. Second generation Christians (Ignatius of Antioch) and third generation Christians (Justin Martyr) leave no doubt in their writings that Jesus was speaking of eating his literal body and drinking his literal blood.

 

[DHK]

I must point out a couple of things about this post which makes no sense. Lets start with the bible not being written in Latin. This is true. The autographs were in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The NT was written in Greek because in that part of the world Greek was the common tongue. It was the language of commerce and it would effect the largest population. They even spoke Greek in Rome. This is why the NT writers wrote in Greek. However, where you go askew is in believing that Greek itself was inspired or Hebrew or Aramaic. These languages weren't inspired. The Men who wrote the text were inspired

I'll stop your post here in mid-sentence. No. The men are not inspired. It is the very words of God that are inspired, not the men. It is the original MSS that are inspired, which (in the NT) are written in Greek, not the authors thereof. It is not the authors, or apostles, that were inspired. God inspired the documents, now lost, but preserved copies. We have the preserved Word of God. We don't have inspired apostles. At one time we had the inspired words of God written by apostles. Now we have his preserved Word, not the prophets and apostles.
[FONT=&quot]"Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)[/FONT]

and they chose to use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek because of its accessibility to the general populace in their location. The next thing that you said which makes no sense is that concepts of Latria, dulia, hyper dulia are not found in scriptures. This is untrue.

In context of true worship it is true.
But if you are speaking of idolatry, carnality and secularism, yes, I will agree with you. But I thought you were monotheistic? Both prayer and worship belongs to "God" and God alone; not "gods."

The words themselves aren't found in scriptures this is true because scriptures weren't written in Latin. However, we see in scriptures worship due God alone,

All worship belongs to God. All prayer belongs to God. If it is directed elsewhere it is idolatry.

Honor which belongs to kings, Honor due to people who serve God. So yes the concepts are there.

Honor is not worship. Honor is not prayer.
I give my wife her due honor as the Bible commands. But I do not worship her, neither do I pray to her. Both of those acts are reserved for God alone. My wife is not my idol. I do not commit idolatry. Since you do pray to Mary you do commit idolatry since Mary is not the Christian God.

For instance you have God called Lord, you have the king called Lord, you even have a prophet called Lord. Are we to believe that all are given the same honor that belongs to God from this? Of course not. So yes the concepts are there.

No the concept is not there. Words have meanings. Why is Jesus called the Lord of lords, and the first "Lord" is capitalized but the second "lord" is not? Because there is only one Lord. The same holds true for the term King of kings. There is only one King. Christ is the only Lord and King whom I would pray to or worship. Prayer is worship. No the concepts are not there.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

See and that is your problem even with scriptures if you don't take things in their original context you take them out of context. Which you not only do with Latin but it seems with scripture as well.

What are you talking about? The terms are not in the Bible. They are primarily used by Catholics. In fact I have never heard the terms used by anyone else but Catholics (or in discussions involving Catholic doctrine). Have you?

Two points. 1) Roman Catholicism doesn't defend idolatry.

That is because they are not saved, and thus blinded to the truth.
Yes, they defend idolatry. They deliberately rewrote the Ten Commandments in their literature leaving out the command that prohibits both the making of images of God and the bowing down to them. Then to make up for only having nine commandments, it took the tenth (Thou shalt not covet), and split it into two. Yes, the RCC does defend its idolatry. That is fairly good evidence of it right there.

The terms were used because by the time many theologians in the west were writing comprehensively about theology everyone spoke Latin. So they wrote in the tongue they spoke which was Latin. They already commonly held differences in honor and worship and had more specific language than English. There were already terms used to show Honor to God alone and Honor to respected persons. English is insufficient because we use one word to have two different connotations. We use worship for God alone and worship for respected persons as we can see from the dictionary.

This is not true. This is where the Bible trumps your dictionary. However, if you really want to do a study on worship, prayer, etc. take some scripture on the subject and study the Greek words that are used.

For example, the passage I already referenced for you:
Revelation 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--What is the word for worship:

proskuneō
Thayer Definition:
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4314 and a probable derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand)
Citing in TDNT: 6:758, 948

It is evident that you can worship anyone you want, the devil himself. The definition of the word allows that. But the Bible does not. If the Catholic Church quoted all the Ten Commandments they would know not to make any image of God, or bow down to any person or representation of God. That is why praying to another is worship. Praying to Mary is idolatry; to another person is idolatry; praying before a statue (the stations of the cross) is idolatry. But the RCC conveniently leaves out part of the Ten Commandments--and deliberately so!

The object of the word "worship" is not Satan, but God alone.

 

[DHK]

And thus your mistake is to impose a meaning that isn't meant because of 1) The Limitation of Language which has more than one meaning and applying the wrong meaning universally to all contexts. and 2) and impose a false characteristic to the bible of defining words.

The context of the Bible defines the word.
Here is another example:
Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
--The object of our worship is to be God alone.

Ye,s lets look at this. Note though you've shown how prayer is used note we do not find it defined in any of the passages you've quoted. What you find is the activity associated with that word. Not one passage you site says that the definition of prayer is only the worship of God.

I simply quoted a few verses on prayer that came to my mind. I didn't give a definition. The verses I gave all give a command to pray. The object of the command of pray is God. We pray to God. Every verse shows that.

Prayer is defined as

That is your limited definition, and it is very limited. That is not a good definition of prayer at all. I already told you all what prayer includes. Now you tell me prayer is only one small part of what I have told you. That is totally unacceptable.

Since prayer means petition

A false premise. Prayer simply does not mean petition. Why consider the rest of your post?
Read Adam Clarke on James 5:16

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much - The words δεησις ενεργουμενη signify energetic supplication, or such a prayer as is suggested to the soul and wrought in it by a Divine energy. When God designs to do some particular work in his Church he pours out on his followers the spirit of grace and supplication; and this he does sometimes when he is about to do some especial work for an individual. When such a power of prayer is granted, faith should be immediately called into exercise, that the blessing may be given: the spirit of prayer is the proof that the power of God is present to heal. Long prayers give no particular evidence of Divine inspiration: the following was a maxim among the ancient Jews, שתפלת צדיקים קצדה the prayers of the righteous are short. This is exemplified in almost every instance in the Old Testament.

Prayer is not just simple petition. One would be naive to think that a definition of prayer could be so limited.

lets look at those same verses So we see the activities required by scripture is to petition God in these situations. However, does that prevent us from petitioning anyone else for other things? No.

To petition does not mean to pray. I petition you to stop this nonsense. But I will not pray to you and commit the sin of idolatry.

And does that mean if I petition someone else for something else I'm giving them the worship due God? No.

If you pray to them, YES!

Therefore, your premise is wrong because once again you get the language and the context wrong. And it all stems from believing that the bible is a dictionary. It is not.

You started from a false premise, and I don't know what kind of "bible dictionary" you used.

I have just shown they are not. You have wrongly developed that view point.

And I have shown you how wrong you are. Prayer in the Bible is always directed to God. If not it is idolatry. Satan tried to get Jesus to worship him. If he did, would it have been sin, or just a simple petition??

Yes you do. Because you are stuck in the modern 21st century context you forget not long ago people would say "pray tell". It is from this language that our modern language is rooted in and the problem with the modern connotation is that words have multiple meanings which people seem to easily apply the wrong meaning because they fail at context. In this case you have failed at context.

The Bible gives the context. The Bible allows that we pray only to God. That is made certain in the Ten Commandments which the RCC tried to change or tamper with. Remember: I first memorized them as a Catholic; and then re-memorized them after I was saved. They were two different sets of Ten Commandments! Now how can that be if there is only one Bible. Someone is wrong.
Definitions haven't changed. Words have more than one definition. The proper definition is defined by the context, and we are speaking of Biblical contexts, not RCC theology.

It certainly isn't a game. These concepts were developed long before English was a language when people spoke Latin and they had specific language that provided the contextual base which to apply meaning. So Yes I can petition God, I can petition a friend. But its clear my petition to a friend is different than my petition to God though the activity is exactly the same.

Petition isn't necessarily prayer, but prayer can include petition.
You can petition me, but not pray to me. If you do you commit idolatry.
They are not exactly the same as you say they are. Petitioning God is worship.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'll stop your post here in mid-sentence. No. The men are not inspired.

Too funny!!! So let me get this right. You believe God did not inspire the men who wrote scripture? Sorry Pastor DHK that doesn't fly. Even the definition you use goes against your supposed principle that the men who wrote scripture weren't inspired. Lets look at the definition you posted.

]"Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority

So looking at your definition which supposedly supports your perspective that the men who wrote scripture were not inspired, I would like to point to several things. the "supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost" on whom? The writers. Yes, inspiration was exerted on the writers by the Holy Spirit. So that "their words were also rendered the words of God". Who's words? "Their words". Who is they? The writers. So that the writers words also were rendered the word of God. Thus It is Clear the writers were inspired to write and their words were rendered the word of God. I think you want to treat the bible like Joseph Smith's claim that Golden Tablets came down from heaven whole written by the physical hand of God when in fact God inspired men to write and thus who wrote. Thus God is the true author as well as the men who wrote the text are true authors. And note if you read the bible you find a principle going down through out the entire text. God works in and through men to reveal himself. God saved Noah and his family but he got Noah to build the ark. God saved the Israelites from Pharaoh but used Moses to lead them. God gave the land to Israel but he used Joshua and the Israelites to fight the battles. God destroyed the walls of Jericho but he got Joshua and the Israelites to walk around and blow their horns. And even in our redemption God becomes incarnate (Joining himself to man intimately) through a woman. It is no different with the writing of scriptures. Thus Greek is not a divine language, nor is Hebrew, or Aramaic. They are the languages of the human authors whom God inspired. Now when I'm saying God inspired them men to write scripture I'm not saying they themselves are the inspiration nor is everything they said or did inspired. God initiated the inspiration, and directed the inspiration for the texts. But still he used men and men used the languages that they knew. The words are truly theirs and truly God's. As Norman Geisler says

The prophets who wrote scripture were not automations. They were more than recording secretaries. They wrote with full intent and consciousness int he normal exercise of their own literary styles and vocabularies. The personalities of the prophets were not violated by a supernatural intrusion. TheBible which they wrote is the Word of God, but it is also the words of men. - From God to Us, Moody Publishers 1974, p. 13

But if you are speaking of idolatry, carnality and secularism, yes, I will agree with you. But I thought you were monotheistic? Both prayer and worship belongs to "God" and God alone; not "gods."
All worship belongs to God. All prayer belongs to God. If it is directed elsewhere it is idolatry.
Honor is not worship.

Again you show your problem with defining words. Honor is worship. But because of your limited understanding of these words you fail to recognize that honor is given at different levels. I honor my parents, I honor the president, I honor God. All differing levels given depending of the subject. Again political offices' titles especially in England where English comes from worship is used to reference those titles.

Honor is not prayer.

this is true. I spent a whole post explaining that prayer is petition. Thus your argument that prayer is only for worship falls flat.

 

[KJVRICH]

Scripture doesn't bear out what you are saying.
Five writers and not one of them includes a single word to suggest the bread and wine are symbolic. You would think at least one of them would make the distinction if it really existed. Or maybe it didn't exist and the communion elements really are the body and blood of Christ. Then no explanation would be necessary. Maybe that's why no explanation is given.

but there is this,

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

but there is this,

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

When we understand that God is a spirit we know that the spirit is a greater reality than anything else. Thus he's sayings not only is it not just symbolism but its a real reality because its based in the spirit. Therefore its life as only the spirit gives life.

 

[KJVRICH]

When we understand that God is a spirit we know that the spirit is a greater reality than anything else. Thus he's sayings not only is it not just symbolism but its a real reality because its based in the spirit. Therefore its life as only the spirit gives life.

Here is my issue with the catholic mass, with regards to the eucharist, I have a hard time believing that it was/is Gods will, to have a priest, a sinner(as we all are) say a few prayers, and it turns a wafer and wine into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is my issue with the catholic mass, with regards to the eucharist, I have a hard time believing that it was/is Gods will, to have a priest, a sinner(as we all are) say a few prayers, and it turns a wafer and wine into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

First of all you are right priest, and all humanity are sinners. But where you are mistaken its not on the basis of the priest saying the Mass which God performs the Miracle. It is God himself who does it. All the priest does is repeat the very words of Jesus himself. It is Jesus' invokation at the meal which makes it so. Not the priest. The preist only recalls the events in his prayers and words. It is Jesus words of institution that are spoken. The priest is in need of the grace and salvation as much as anyone else.

 

[Walter]

but there is this,

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

Yeah, as a Baptist, I thought that too. I used to counter Catholics with: Doesn't our Lord says to the disciples “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” and doesn't this prove that Jesus was talking symbolically (spiritually)? But Jesus did not say "MY flesh is of no avail', He said 'the flesh is of no avail'. Big difference! Jesus would have been contradicting Himself because He just spent a lot of time telling them that His flesh would be given for the life of the world. Isn't The flesh a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace? “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” Mark 14:38

I ask you to look at another example in the bible showing that Jesus would clarify important teachings when followers of the Lord are confused. Look at John 4:32, what is the Lord saying? “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” What did His disciples think? They were thinking that He was speaking about physical food. Jesus clears this up quickly doesn't He? He uses c;ear. concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish His work”
When you look at the surrounding context of John 6:53, our Lord's own words could hardly have been clearer. In verse 51, he plainly claims to be “the living bread” that His followers must eat. And he says in no uncertain terms that “the bread which I shall give . . . is my flesh.”
The disciples were CLEARLY disturbed by this teaching. They had no problem when He used purely metaphorical language such as: 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine'. Do you find anyone asking “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant in a vinyard?'. No, His followers knew when He was speaking metaphorically and this is why this teaching was so upsetting to them.