The plain reading of Scripture then Traditional

[Cathode]

The plain reading of Scripture is where you work out the context. Whether the allegorical or literal sense, and who is it being directed at etc.

John 6 is an example we have been discussing recently.

How do we interpret Jesus words here.

We see in other scriptures Jesus always corrects people if he speaks metaphorically and they take him literally.

Examples: John 3 Nicodemus takes Jesus born again language literally, but Jesus explains it is spiritual rebirth.

John 4 To the woman at the well Jesus describes Himself symbolically as Living Water, the woman initially thinks He is talking about literal water. But He corrects her revealing that He is the Messiah.

In John 6 People didn’t take Jesus literally initially, the idea was so outlandish and unthinkable and not kosher they had to be told over and over again, to get it.
Jesus left no space for a symbolic escape in understanding and He kept telling them literally.
It was a hard teaching they could not accept, and they no longer followed Him.

They had every cultural, religious, rational, practical and human reason to leave, it was offensive at every level to eat His flesh and drink His blood, even today.

The only escape was to believe Jesus in Faith because He said it, not because they understood with their minds.

This is what Peter does, he entered by the singularity of Faith, not by his understanding.

Only later at the last supper did Jesus reveal how His flesh and blood was to be literally consumed.

And we can see Ignatius disciple of John who penned John 6 holding to the same literal meaning of the Eucharist.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing ” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[DaveXR650]

So in the other examples the human tendency is to take a spiritual lesson and make it literal, which then had to be corrected. Yet in the case of the bread and cup, the natural tendency is to take it figuratively, but in this case it should have been taken literally. Even though in John 6:63 it is specifically said that the words are to be taken spiritually. Add to this the objective fact that it simply is not true that the bread becomes literally anything but bread and so with the fruit of the vine.

In addition, there is nothing in the quote from Ignatius that indicates the problem is the belief in transubstantiation. He said that they don't believe in what it means which includes that Jesus suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead. They were abstaining from the ceremony, and from prayer, because they did not believe. That's why they are perishing.

 

[Cathode]

So in the other examples the human tendency is to take a spiritual lesson and make it literal, which then had to be corrected.

Yet in the case of the bread and cup, the natural tendency is to take it figuratively, but in this case it should have been taken literally.

They didn’t know that Jesus was going to establish the new covenant in His flesh and blood at the Last Supper.
They only knew that Jesus was saying that His flesh was real food and blood real drink and they must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Even though in John 6:63 it is specifically said that the words are to be taken spiritually.

No, Jesus words are meant to believed and discerned spirituality by Faith, but taken literally.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.“

When Jesus says that it is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing, He is talking about the difference between how the spiritual man discerns His words and the natural man (the flesh) profits nothing from His words.

Jesus words were foolishness to those that walked away, they were the natural man, the flesh, stuck in human thinking.

Peter on the other hand was the spiritual man that discerned and believed Jesus
words spiritually by Faith, not by the natural man’s thinking.

Peter makes a supernatural act of Faith in Jesus words. But he did not understand with his mind, but believed those words by Faith.

“ You have the words of everlasting life “

So today, those that say John 6 is metaphorical are running away from Jesus obviously literal words like those that left Jesus in John 6.

Jesus literal words must be confronted and believed by Faith, that His Flesh is real food and blood real drink, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

We have the benefit of hindsight, we actually know how Jesus would establish the Covenant of His flesh and blood at the Last Supper, the Apostles believed Jesus words purely by Faith, they didn’t know with their minds or know how it would take place until later at the Last Supper.

Add to this the objective fact that it simply is not true that the bread becomes literally anything but bread and so with the fruit of the vine.

Jesus words make it true. “ This is my Body “ and “ This is the Cup of my Blood “

What Jesus says is, truly is.

Note how the Fathers understood what happens.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

The Eucharistic/thanksgiving prayer is Jesus words “ This is my Body “ and “ This is the Cup of my Blood”

In addition, there is nothing in the quote from Ignatius that indicates the problem is the belief in transubstantiation. He said that they don't believe in what it means which includes that Jesus suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead. They were abstaining from the ceremony, and from prayer, because they did not believe. That's why they are perishing.

If the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, then it is obvious a change has happened.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing ” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

They didn’t believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

They who deny this gift of God are perishing.

Which fits with Jesus words in Scripture. “ Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you “

The Eucharist is pure Life, it is Jesus Himself.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day “

The Eucharist has the force of resurrection through Jesus.

“ so he who eats me, will live because of me “.

“ I am the resurrection and the Life “

 

[DaveXR650]

@Cathode. I understand your position. I would only say that not all writings of early church fathers agree with the selected quotes you listed above as I'm sure you know. But more importantly, the claim that the cup and bread turns literally into the blood and body of Christ is verifiable and - it doesn't. If you want to take the position that Presbys take, and increasingly Catholics, that by faith it means the body and blood of Christ then that's fine.

They didn’t believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

They who deny this gift of God are perishing.

It truly never takes long, when you talk to a serious Catholic, to get cursed. Are you really claiming that everyone who refuses to believe in a literal change from wine and bread to the actual literal blood and body of Christ are lost? Do you really think that is the message of John 6? I have noticed that all the movements over the years of Catholics and Protestants coming together always hinge in how far Protestants are willing to go back to Rome.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode. I understand your position. I would only say that not all writings of early church fathers agree with the selected quotes you listed above as I'm sure you know. But more importantly, the claim that the cup and bread turns literally into the blood and body of Christ is verifiable and - it doesn't. If you want to take the position that Presbys take, and increasingly Catholics, that by faith it means the body and blood of Christ then that's fine.

We can say with all safety and intellectual honesty, that all Christianity for the first 1500 years believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches all profess the same belief.
Only after the reformation do we see the denial of the Eucharistic reality creep in calling it merely symbolic, along with calling baptism merely symbolic.

It truly never takes long, when you talk to a serious Catholic, to get cursed. Are you really claiming that everyone who refuses to believe in a literal change from wine and bread to the actual literal blood and body of Christ are lost?

No. When a Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic receives the Eucharist, the Grace goes out to all the baptised by transfusion into the Body of Christ, Protestants and Baptist’s included. Even if they aren’t receiving Jesus directly in the Eucharist.

Without the Eucharist the entire Church would be dead, it’s the source of Grace for the whole Church.
The Eucharist is the new manna coming down from heaven each day to feed God’s people in the wilderness.

As Padre Pio said, we would do better without the Sun than without the Eucharist.

Do you really think that is the message of John 6? I have noticed that all the movements over the years of Catholics and Protestants coming together always hinge in how far Protestants are willing to go back to Rome.

Not sure about that, but mind you, all roads do lead to Rome.

 

[DaveXR650]

We can say with all safety and intellectual honesty, that all Christianity for the first 1500 years believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches all profess the same belief.
Only after the reformation do we see the denial of the Eucharistic reality creep in calling it merely symbolic, along with calling baptism merely symbolic.

Not all believed in literal transubstantiation.

No

Yes. When the East and West split they excommunicated each other, and the West later did Luther.

No. When a Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic receives the Eucharist, the Grace goes out to all the baptised by transfusion into the Body of Christ, Protestants and Baptist’s included. Even if they aren’t receiving Jesus directly in the Eucharist.

There again, if you mean that the person participating is by faith eating and drinking because they believe that Christ's blood saved them then okay. But if you believe there is something that the literal host and wine is doing then no. Luther's later writings on the Eucharist were against what the ceremony itself was claiming to do more so than the state of the elements.

Without the Eucharist the entire Church would be dead, it’s the source of Grace for the whole Church.
The Eucharist is the new manna coming down from heaven each day to feed God’s people in the wilderness.

There again. Without the shed blood and death of Christ the entire church would be dead. What Rome did was turn the Eucharist into an idol which is what men tend to do. That's why they had to eventually destroy the serpent lifted up in the wilderness rather than keep it as a memorial. You guys especially have filled your churches with statues, symbols and so on that you worship. This is where others doubt whether Roman Catholics can be brothers in Christ. I don't agree with them but you are illustrating their point. Why you would be posting on a Baptist Board and not challenged by a moderator puzzles me somewhat.

 

[37818]

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

A third century forgery.
The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr.…

 

[Cathode]

Not all believed in literal transubstantiation.

They all believed that the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation was a word that came along much later, to describe exactly that.

Yes. When the East and West split they excommunicated each other, and the West later did Luther.

Even in schism East and West all believed that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ.
So for the first 1500 years, all Christianity believed in the literal flesh and blood reality of Jesus in the Eucharist.

There again, if you mean that the person participating is by faith eating and drinking because they believe that Christ's blood saved them then okay. But if you believe there is something that the literal host and wine is doing then no. Luther's later writings on the Eucharist were against what the ceremony itself was claiming to do more so than the state of the elements.

No, the Eucharist was believed to be Jesus flesh and blood. And Jesus come personally in Covenant Communion to sustain us.

There again. Without the shed blood and death of Christ the entire church would be dead. What Rome did was turn the Eucharist into an idol which is what men tend to do.

The Eucharist is Jesus Himself, not an idol.

That's why they had to eventually destroy the serpent lifted up in the wilderness rather than keep it as a memorial. You guys especially have filled your churches with statues, symbols and so on that you worship. This is where others doubt whether Roman Catholics can be brothers in Christ. I don't agree with them but you are illustrating their point. Why you would be posting on a Baptist Board and not challenged by a moderator puzzles me somewhat.

I’m on the Other Denominations part of the forum, where people of other denominations can represent their Faith in Jesus. I don’t need moderators to challenge me, my beliefs have been attacked as satanic, idolatry, paganry, garbage, delusional and not Christian and many many other nasty things.

I have tried to explain my beliefs and set the record straight, even citing the Fathers and Church history and showing traditional understandings Scripture.
There is nothing pagan about the Catholic Church, or satanic, I think it is totally unjust for people to be saying these things. Especially as it isn’t true.

 

[DaveXR650]

They all believed that the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ.

Either you are just uninformed or you are taking every instance where they said as part of the ceremony "this is my blood" as proof that they believed it was literal. A quick and easy internet search will turn up quite a few quotes where early church fathers specifically explained that this was symbolic and spiritual.

So for the first 1500 years, all Christianity believed in the literal flesh and blood reality of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Nope.

No, the Eucharist was believed to be Jesus flesh and blood. And Jesus come personally in Covenant Communion to sustain us.

The Eucharist is Jesus Himself, not an idol.

Keep on. You are just proving the tendency of idolatry that we all deal with. When you really look into this, especially if you read what Luther himself had problems with concerning the Catholic mass and eucharistic teaching, you start to see the reasons for the divisions that needed to occur.

I try to be open minded on this because I enjoy sites like "First Things" and like to read many of the Christian political writers from Hillsdale and so on which happen to be Catholic. I have some Catholic friends and relatives who I hope and pray are true Christians. I have the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism and believe there is much good in Catholic theology. But you came one here, on a Baptistboard forum and said in posts above that all of us that reject transubstantiation are not true believers - then you wallow in self pity as if you are unjustly attacked for saying such things. Why don't you try to have a conciliar attitude from your direction too. I have suffered enough from my Calvinist and Baptist friends for taking me to task for not saying that all of you are going to Hell. Then you come on and say the same about us!

 

[Cathode]

Either you are just uninformed or you are taking every instance where they said as part of the ceremony "this is my blood" as proof that they believed it was literal. A quick and easy internet search will turn up quite a few quotes where early church fathers specifically explained that this was symbolic and spiritual.

Nope.

Keep on. You are just proving the tendency of idolatry that we all deal with. When you really look into this, especially if you read what Luther himself had problems with concerning the Catholic mass and eucharistic teaching, you start to see the reasons for the divisions that needed to occur.

I try to be open minded on this because I enjoy sites like "First Things" and like to read many of the Christian political writers from Hillsdale and so on which happen to be Catholic. I have some Catholic friends and relatives who I hope and pray are true Christians. I have the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism and believe there is much good in Catholic theology. But you came one here, on a Baptistboard forum and said in posts above that all of us that reject transubstantiation are not true believers - then you wallow in self pity as if you are unjustly attacked for saying such things. Why don't you try to have a conciliar attitude from your direction too. I have suffered enough from my Calvinist and Baptist friends for taking me to task for not saying that all of you are going to Hell. Then you come on and say the same about us!

Never said anyone is going to hell, nor have I accused any Baptist’s of satanism or paganry, or called their church the whore of Babylon, nor intimated that a few Baptist’s might be saved, but generally they are all going to hell. All of these things have been directed at me by Baptist’s however, and very few times have people stepped up to speak against these untrue, unjust and uncharitable things.

There is one small section of the entire board where other denominations can talk about their faith. Is it there so you can put boots to other people’s beliefs or so you can gain other perspectives and perhaps learn something ?

I actually like hearing things from a huge number of perspectives, it’s far more interesting.

There are many things I haven’t shared on this site simply because I now know what kind of reception it would get. Does it make the site richer when people feel they can’t share things because they think their beliefs and experiences are going to get gut kicked. I learned lately that many on the site are cessationists, something I had to look up, but it explained general hostility to the miraculous and supernatural I had been sensing on the site for a long time.

I was told I couldn’t talk on Catholic topics for months even in the other denominations section, and I respected that, even when people could say anything they wanted against my Catholic beliefs, I remained mute.
I could never do that to anyone, I have always believed people’s right to have their say is something sacred, stemming from God granting perfect liberty in that sense. But suppose if that’s the rules of the forum.

If people want me to go I’ll go, I only need to be told once. I think it would be a shame though, I learned a lot of things, and perhaps others have learned something from my perspective, don’t know.

 

[DaveXR650]

Once again:

So today, those that say John 6 is metaphorical are running away from Jesus obviously literal words like those that left Jesus in John 6.

They didn’t believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

They who deny this gift of God are perishing.

Did you not say, and does Catholic doctrine not teach that those who reject the literal presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist are perishing? Don't get offended when people read what you said. You made the direct comparison between those who reject your teaching with those who left Jesus in John 6.
The only thing I have said about you is exactly what you said above. In addition, Catholic doctrine clearly states that those who reject transubstantiation are "accursed". If you reject that then now you have a chance to say so.

Now. I'll say it once more. I think there are Roman Catholics who are genuinely saved. I can name a some Reformers who said the same, as well as Spurgeon, G. Campbell Morgan, even John R. Rice, who said the same. I don't know why you would be so offended if people say you're lost on this site anyway. There are people on this site who say the God of Calvinism is a monster and there are Calvinists who say that anyone who claims that he chose to believe is doing salvation by works and is - well, accursed. Don't leave. You fit right in.

 

[Cathode]

Once again:

Did you not say, and does Catholic doctrine not teach that those who reject the literal presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist are perishing? Don't get offended when people read what you said. You made the direct comparison between those who reject your teaching with those who left Jesus in John 6.
The only thing I have said about you is exactly what you said above. In addition, Catholic doctrine clearly states that those who reject transubstantiation are "accursed". If you reject that then now you have a chance to say so.

That was Ignatius’s quote, about heretics. Where does it say “accursed”?

Now. I'll say it once more. I think there are Roman Catholics who are genuinely saved.

Gee thanks.

 

[DaveXR650]

That was Ignatius’s quote, about heretics. Where does it say “accursed”?

That was from Trent.

Gee thanks.

Well. Wasn't that your big complaint? You still have a chance to say that you really don't agree with Catholic teaching that those of us who don't believe in transubstantiation are not heretics or lost, as Ignatius and Trent say. Where do you stand on that?

 

[Cathode]

That was from Trent.

Well. Wasn't that your big complaint? You still have a chance to say that you really don't agree with Catholic teaching that those of us who don't believe in transubstantiation are not heretics or lost, as Ignatius and Trent say. Where do you stand on that?

No, I agree with Trent and Ignatius, it’s the heretics that face condemnation, not the separated brethren, unless they are convicted of its truth but still resist it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Where is that "separated brethren" teaching found. I remember reading that a long time ago when confronted with the constantly moving Catholic apologetics shell game but couldn't remember where. I was working at a Catholic hospital and during a political campaign a candidate had visited Bob Jones University. Bob had said some things about the Roman Catholic faith and everyone was discussing how outrageous it was to do so I pointed out that they had condemned us (meaning Baptists) and told them to read Trent. As I remember, Trent remains in effect as long as the separated lesser brother is aware of his errors and still persists in such errant belief and practices. Once again, a shell game, of reaching out with conciliar reconciliation but then the reality of "you must submit to our way" or else. I mean really, with your tradition, and infallibility issues, you guys cannot really reverse Trent, can you?

 

[Cathode]

Where is that "separated brethren" teaching found. I remember reading that a long time ago when confronted with the constantly moving Catholic apologetics shell game but couldn't remember where. I was working at a Catholic hospital and during a political campaign a candidate had visited Bob Jones University. Bob had said some things about the Roman Catholic faith and everyone was discussing how outrageous it was to do so I pointed out that they had condemned us (meaning Baptists) and told them to read Trent. As I remember, Trent remains in effect as long as the separated lesser brother is aware of his errors and still persists in such errant belief and practices. Once again, a shell game, of reaching out with conciliar reconciliation but then the reality of "you must submit to our way" or else. I mean really, with your tradition, and infallibility issues, you guys cannot really reverse Trent, can you?

You are running quite the shell game yourself. You aren’t even trying to understand what I said.
It feels like you would rather the Catholic Church issued you a condemnation, to justify your prejudiced position.

Fact is no, you are separated brethren.

The original purveyors of the heresy are the ones responsible. They are the ones that harm the little ones yet unborn down the generations by their error. The error brings its own millstone on those that innovated it.

A lot of you guys were either malformed in theology or born into the error, and are fully indoctrinated in it, so the Catholic Church actually has great love and compassion for the separated brethren.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are running quite the shell game yourself. You aren’t even trying to understand what I said.
It feels like you would rather the Catholic Church issued you a condemnation, to justify your prejudiced position.

They already have. The Council of Trent clearly was designed and meant to condemn to Hell all the major Protestant teachings. It gives little comfort that you seem to think it only applies to our teachers and theologians. Still, you prove the shell game charge. The fact is you stated it correctly in the post. The Catholic church has great compassion and love for us in the same way we all have love for unreached people. But they are still lost if they don't become converted. That's what I meant by shell game and I stand by that. Say one thing but really mean quite another. Oh, we're all brothers - unless we refuse to come around to your view of the Eucharist and justification.

 

[Cathode]

They already have. The Council of Trent clearly was designed and meant to condemn to Hell all the major Protestant teachings. It gives little comfort that you seem to think it only applies to our teachers and theologians. Still, you prove the shell game charge. The fact is you stated it correctly in the post. The Catholic church has great compassion and love for us in the same way we all have love for unreached people. But they are still lost if they don't become converted. That's what I meant by shell game and I stand by that. Say one thing but really mean quite another. Oh, we're all brothers - unless we refuse to come around to your view of the Eucharist and justification.

No, Catholics don’t hold them as lost if they don’t become converted, we aren’t Baptist’s you know.

The concern is that you don’t have all the powerful assistance of the Church that Jesus wanted you to have.

The Eucharist and Confession, being the primary help to salvation.

Because of the original heresy, you have been robbed of and alienated from your inheritance in the Faith.

It’s exactly like parental alienation, you have been poisoned against a parent, by lies and prejudice.
One bloke I know said it was the hardest thing he had to go through when he became Catholic, is overcoming the ingrained prejudice he harboured that was instilled in him.

It’s only when the kids are mature enough to look deeply in the past at what really happened that they can recover and regain what was lost to them.

In many cases the alienation and poisoning has been so thorough that people never explore the past, all the birthday cards and well wishes were burned or trashed, they were told that the parent never cared.

Sadly the alienation has become invincible for many, harbouring an undying hostility, no amount of explaining can change that.

This is why heretics pay such a terrible price, they poison the hearts of children and nothing deserves a mill stone more than this.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, Catholics don’t hold them as lost if they don’t become converted, we aren’t Baptist’s you know.

You say that. And I have Catholic friends who also say that and I will take you at your word. I would only say that this does show one of the problems of tradition. That is even "tradition" if recorded and believed, leaves one in a position of either denying the traditional teaching or modifying it to suit a more modern time. Trent says what it says, and at the same time an infallibility is claimed which makes ignoring it problematic. But if you say that is not what you believe I accept that.

In many cases the alienation and poisoning has been so thorough that people never explore the past, all the birthday cards and well wishes were burned or trashed, they were told that the parent never cared.

Not sure what you are talking about here. I know some converted Catholics, and their biggest complaint is that the basics of the gospel were never clearly taught to them as Catholics. They do have friction with still Catholic relatives and so discussion at family gatherings can become strained.

Look. No one else on a Baptistboard seems to have any problem with Catholic teaching so I will sign off. I do appreciate you taking the time for thoughtful responses and I think you are well versed in your beliefs.

 

[GentleGospeller]

The plain reading of Scripture ...

Jesus speaking symbolically, or about spiritual matters, and people constantly misunderstanding Him by thinking on natural things.

John 1:19-25 -- John the Baptist as spiritually Elijah’s successor
John 2:19-22 -- Temple of His (Jesus’) body
John 3:1-21 -- Nicodemus, Born Again From Heaven Above
John 4:7-15 -- Woman at the Well, Water, Eternal Life, Faith
John 4:31-34 - Meat to Eat, Water to Drink, Will of God, Faith
John 5:6-7 -- Will you be made whole, Pool, Forgiven and restored whole
John 6:50-52 -- Eat my Flesh, Word, Believeth
John 7:38-39 -- Water out of the belly, Spirit
John 8:21-22 -- Whither I go, ye cannot come, back to Heaven
John 9:40 -- Pharisees are blind, Jesus speaks about their heart, not natural eyesight
John 10:1-6 -- Jesus is the Good Shepherd, they do not understand
John 11:11-14 -- Lazarus was asleep, Jesus explains dead
John 12:12-19 -- Triumphal entry, totally misunderstood
John 13:1-20 -- Wash, Don't know now what I (Jesus) do
John 14:1-14 -- Shew us the Father, Example of Jesus does exactly like the Father
Matthew 16:5-12 -- Leaven, Bread, Sin, False Doctrine & Hypocrisy

1Co_15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

So, Moses had the Natural come down:

Exo_16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

Psa 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
Psa 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
Psa 78:25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.​

Jesus is the Spiritual (not natural) bread, the living Word of the Father (Jhn. 1:1-3):

Joh_6:35 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.

Joh_6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh_6:51 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.

Joh_6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh_14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh_14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
​

How many are still thinking naturally, of natural flesh, natrual blood, when none of it avails anything?

In the Catholic Mass, the 'unbloody sacrifice', it is dead (no life). Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that it becomes the actual (dead, as it is a 'sacrifice') "body, blood, soul and divinity" 'under the guise of (earthly) elements' and touches the earth (altar). Jesus said:

Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
​

I remember Jesus saying:

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Joh 14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
​

I remember Paul (who actually saw Jesus, multiple times), say:

1Th_4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
​

So, in the Catholic mass, I have never heard a loud trumpet from Heaven, the voice of Jesus, any resurrections from the grave (though Catholic cathedrals are 'beautiful' tombs, but inwardly filled with dead men's bones), definitely no glorious unfallen angels (though I know the Vatican is in contact with fallen angels claiming to be righteous angels, even beings from the unfallen worlds).