This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Helen]

I cannot believe that after 2,000 years Christians still debate this. I'm amazed that it is even an issue. What a waste of time, time that could be devoted to prayer, fasting, Bible study, helping others in the community with real bread and real fruit juice, with shoes for their feet, clothing.............. how "wasteful" can we get while following in His footsteps.

Thank you, Helen, for your proper insights, nontheless.

:jesus: <----- We need no other argument, we need no other plea.

Thanks. Most people won't look at a thread past the first couple of pages, so if I can argue against a heresy I try to do it then, in the first pages. Then most threads degenerate to something like this one has. But it IS worth the time to speak out against heretical doctrines and at least present the biblical point of view for those who might read.

God bless.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not Random

Yes it is. That's what random means

unless one can prove the theory by Med Lab Test or can prove the Biblical explanation that Jesus instructed Disciples drink Human Blood despite the Law prohibiting Blood drinking.

None of ECF explained that one should or can drink Blood despite the Law of OT. None of them proclaimed such Heresy before RCC brought it into Christendom. Nobody could bring such writing proving ECF claimed such heresy.

I am glad that I don't drink Human Blood as other Heretics do!

The rest of your post is irelevant to the issue of proof-texting - stop changing the subject!

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes it is. That's what random means The rest of your post is irelevant to the issue of proof-texting - stop changing the subject!

You must be busy with finding which verse applies to which situation, which teachings to which heresies, which I am not.


Ephesians 6:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


1 John 4
13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Does the Holy Spirit in you teach you always and every moment? or is He sleeping mostly? check that out! otherwise, you may have been deserted ( 2 Cor 13:5)

As for the rest, the questions were about Transubstantiation related to this subject - This do in remembrance of me.

If you cannot answer on Medical Lab Test or about the Law prohibiting Blood drinking, are they irrelevant? No, you cannot answer but you may want to stop it, but the Truth still works there!

Jesus offered Himself to God, based on that Truth that no human being can EAT Blood, but it should be offered to God!, which is the main core Truth of Redemption, which most of RC do not know even now.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thanks. Most people won't look at a thread past the first couple of pages, so if I can argue against a heresy I try to do it then, in the first pages. Then most threads degenerate to something like this one has. But it IS worth the time to speak out against heretical doctrines and at least present the biblical point of view for those who might read.

God bless.

GE:

You must be missing out on sometimes the best!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I mean, just read Eli's latest posts on this thread -- they come out in their bare essentials. Earlier one's could be indistinct. So other's statements as well.
"Let us reason together" -- it helps and improves while helping!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Whaaa...?! :laugh: This thread just gets funnier and funnier! So...plop! There's the Bible - just like the Book of Mormon.

GE:

O no, the Bible 'came into being' through or rather against all odds by the clear, discernable intervention of God, every inch.

But 'plop' and there stood the pope, vicar of Christ, head of the Church, infallible, authoritative, voice of God, 'Father', 'your Holy'.

 

[Eliyahu]

I would rather return to the original theme, though someone's catchphrase is just provocative against Biblical Truth.

I was and am quite sure that Nooobody who holds Transubstatiation could answer the basic questions about the Lord's Supper:

1) Medical Lab Test
What is left unchanged and what is changed substantially should be answered. If they say that the Substance is not changed, then they are admitting that they don't follow the Transubstantiation, but they also accept them by Faith, which is the fundamental point of Memorialism.
If they still insist that the Substances of the Bread and Wine are changed to the Human Flesh and Human Blood, then they must prove it, which could never be done so far.
If they claim none of the above, they may be claiming either Illusion, or Delusion, or Deception. Please prove it!

2) Biblical Trespassing.
If they drink Blood, it is a violation of the Law given by God in Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 12:16, 15:23
They are confessing that they are ignorant about the Law of God and they are cut off from the people of God.
None of the ECF's exegeses could be presented on this question. None of the Catholic sites provides the explanation on this issue, as far as I know. Therefore, RCC who are usually bringing the ready-made Catholic interpretation like parrots, rather than their own thinking and interpretation, cannot find the answer to this question again.
If they are honest, they must try to answer to this.
Was Jesus violating the Law when He gave the cup? Did He indeed distribute the human Blood to the disciples to drink?

3) Ignorance of the Bible
The Blood was to be offered to God, not to the human beings to eat. This is the fundamental Tru!th, for which Jesus came to this world. But RCC doesn't know this truth! How miserably foolish they are!
The whole Redemption Truth is based on this Truth and Jesus offered Himself at the Cross by shedding the precious Blood there, based on this Truth!
Did disciples suck the Blood shed at the Cross?


As for John 6:63, RCC made some childish interpretation on it., but don't understand why the Jews left Jesus.
The Jews came to Jesus to get some physical food like Manna after eating miraculous food from 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes.
They still pursued the physical food to eat.
So they said this:
John 6:
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Then Jesus said
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

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

Then the Jews were disappointed and departed from Jesus


66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

RC people are confessing that they are the descendants of those Jews who pursued the physical food instead of Words of God, then were disappointed with Jesus and departed from Him.

The Words of God are the real food for the life of the believers, which is not understood by many natural or carnal churchmen ( 1 Cor 2:14, 3:1, 3:3)

 

[BobRyan]

According to the RCC - the bread is STILL bread from the standpoint of the electron Mircoscope AND chemical analysis. They claim it's "substance" is turned into God by arguing that a Carbon atom in a diamond is "substantially different" from a carbon atom in skin such that if you were to swap them - your skin would be "in substance" a diamond.

These kinds of wild rationalizations are predictabl defenses for the wild myths of the dark ages - when brought into the light of the scientific age.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

GE:

O no, the Bible 'came into being' through or rather against all odds by the clear, discernable intervention of God, every inch.

But 'plop' and there stood the pope, vicar of Christ, head of the Church, infallible, authoritative, voice of God, 'Father', 'your Holy'.

You assume incorrectly that I'm Catholic.

So, tell me, how do you know that the Bible in your possession has the correct 27 books of the New Testament? How do you know that Revelation and James should be in there and the Gospel of Peter shouldn't be. Explain the processes and reasoning that lead you to your conclusion.

And, the return to the OP subject, can anyone cite me an authority prior to the Sixteent Century where a purely memorialist interpretation is put pn Scriptures such as Matt 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, John 6:32-59, and I Cor 11:23-29? (Drums fingers on table.)

 

[Matt Black]

You must be busy with finding which verse applies to which situation, which teachings to which heresies, which I am not.

Yes. It's called studying the Scriptures.

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes. It's called studying the Scriptures.

Then it is high time for you to answer my questions biblically.

Should I reiterate my questions again here? Read above !

People standing on the Transubstantiation seems to be standing on the sinking sand as do the people believing in the Purgatory.

 

[Matt Black]

I presume you mean the following?:-

If I need to define the issues more, I would add as follows:

1) Are the Believers eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus at the Lord's Supper?

Yes, at least spiritually

2) Is the Blood shed by Jesus for the people to eat? Did Jesus shed His Blood for eating?

Er...I think you'll find it's for drinking not for eating

3) Or did Jesus offer His Blood as Sin Offering to God?

Jesus offered Himself as a sin offering to God in our place

4) When we read John 6, Jesus said " Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Does this mean that we should eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

We should eat the Bread and drink the Wine which become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus

This was said before the Crucifixion, during OT times when the people had do keep the Commandments of God that one should not eat Blood.
Did Jesus say to the people that they should eat and drink His Blood despite the Commandments of the Law in Leviticus 17:10-14 and Genesis 9:4?

Er...that's what He said, yes - re-read John 6:32-59, If you have a problem with that and think He's breaking the Law, I suggest you take it up with Him!

5) When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper, the time was before the Crucifixion, and therefore it was still during the OT times. Then did the Disciples eat Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper? Did they eat Human Flesh and Human Blood?

No; the Body and Blood of Jesus had not then been sacrificed on the Cross

6) Jesus said this word:
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.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words by Flesh and Blood by His Words ?

Sorry, I don't understand your question here

7) Some say that the Flesh of Jesus is not applied to " Flesh profits nothing"
But IMO, they see the Words of Jesus by flesh:

2 Cor 5:
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


These are the main issues.

I would see that Johannine verse as referring to the fleshly understanding of the Jews who deserted Him

 

[PreachingTruth]

Christ spoke in parables to leave the non-elect in darkness (Matthew 13:11, 15). In John 6, Christ preached in this cryptic language (a parable), knowing that His sheep would understand, but that the non-elect would be confused and ultimately disgusted. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and its daughter harlots have twisted this passage of scripture to support their pagan ritual. Let there be no mistake, my friends: the Mass is an abomination, and a mockery of the Cross!

Communion is symbolic...we eat in remembrance of Him. The substance of the bread does not transform into the substance of Christ's body; nor does the substance of the wine transform into the substance of Christ's blood. The teaching that the bread is the literal body of Christ, and the wine His actual blood, is a lie from the pit of Hell.

Thousands of Protestants were butchered by that whore of Babylon because they rejected the blasphemous Mass. I, for one, refuse to forget that!

 

[Matt Black]

And your authority for this particular interpretation of Scripture is what, exactly?

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt, first of all I want to thank and praise you for the answers.
I feel we can narrow the gap between my belief and your understanding, at least.

Matt said: : I presume you mean the following?:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
If I need to define the issues more, I would add as follows:

1) Are the Believers eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus at the Lord's Supper?

Matt said : Yes, at least spiritually


Eliyahu answers: so, you mean that it is not Physically, right?
Then you are admittting that Bread and Wine are the Spritual Symbols, not the physical change in substances.

What I asked you was if the Substances of Bread and Wine are changed to Flesh and Blood physically. Would you be honest once more to reiterate whether the Believers are eating Flesh and drinking Blood physically?



Quote:
2) Is the Blood shed by Jesus for the people to eat? Did Jesus shed His Blood for eating?
Matt said : Er...I think you'll find it's for drinking not for eating


Eliyahu answers:

So, you believe that Blood was for the people to Drink, don't you? You believe that Drinking Blood is OK, though Eating Blood was prohibited, don't you?

You better ask any high school students whether you may drink Human Blood when God prohibited Eating of Blood.

Can you drink Blood without Eating?


Quote:
3) Or did Jesus offer His Blood as Sin Offering to God?
Matt said : Jesus offered Himself as a sin offering to God in our place

Eliyahu answers : Then Jesus didn't offer Himself for the human bneings to eat and drink, right?



Quote:
4) When we read John 6, Jesus said " Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Does this mean that we should eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?
Matt said : We should eat the Bread and drink the Wine which become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus

Eliyahu answers:
Now you are admitting that we should eat the Bread and drink Wine, not the Flesh and Blood, right?

where do the Bread and Drink become Flesh and Blood of Jesus? Is it in the intestine, in the belly? or just by believing so or reckoning so?


Quote:
This was said before the Crucifixion, during OT times when the people had do keep the Commandments of God that one should not eat Blood.
Did Jesus say to the people that they should eat and drink His Blood despite the Commandments of the Law in Leviticus 17:10-14 and Genesis 9:4?
Matt said : Er...that's what He said, yes - re-read John 6:32-59, If you have a problem with that and think He's breaking the Law, I suggest you take it up with Him!

Eliyahu answers:

Jesus didn't break the Law and what He meant by Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood was indicating the acceptance of His Words as you read the verse 63. People who had no faith could not understand what Jesus said, because they just pursued only the physical things, not the spiritual words.



Quote:
5) When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper, the time was before the Crucifixion, and therefore it was still during the OT times. Then did the Disciples eat Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper? Did they eat Human Flesh and Human Blood?
Matt said : No; the Body and Blood of Jesus had not then been sacrificed on the Cross

Eliyahu answers:

So, now you are admitting that Disciples ate neither the human flesh nor human blood, right?


Quote:
6) Jesus said this word:
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.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words by Flesh and Blood ?
Matt said : Sorry, I don't understand your question here

Eliyahu answers :
Sorry, it was not clear there.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words for the Relationship between Him and the Believers by saying " Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood" ? neither eating the physical Flesh nor drinking the physical blood?

Why does Jesus say His Words are Spirit and they are Life?


Quote:
7) Some say that the Flesh of Jesus is not applied to " Flesh profits nothing"
But IMO, they see the Words of Jesus by flesh:

2 Cor 5:
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

These are the main issues.
Matt said : I would see that Johannine verse as referring to the fleshly understanding of the Jews who deserted Him


Eliyahu answers:

Excellent understanding! You are correct.

That's why you and Roman Cahtolic should not follow the fleshly understanding of the Jews about the Words of Jesus in John 6, right?


Conclusion:

Don't you think that Transubstantiation could work only during the Dark Age when the science was not developed to prove it's wrong?
Don't you think it was still a violation of the Law prohibiting the drinking of Blood and a kind of Ignorance about the truth that Blood was not offered to human beings to eat, but to God as a Sin offering?

 

[Eliyahu]

Christ spoke in parables to leave the non-elect in darkness (Matthew 13:11, 15). In John 6, Christ preached in this cryptic language (a parable), knowing that His sheep would understand, but that the non-elect would be confused and ultimately disgusted. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and its daughter harlots have twisted this passage of scripture to support their pagan ritual. Let there be no mistake, my friends: the Mass is an abomination, and a mockery of the Cross!

Communion is symbolic...we eat in remembrance of Him. The substance of the bread does not transform into the substance of Christ's body; nor does the substance of the wine transform into the substance of Christ's blood. The teaching that the bread is the literal body of Christ, and the wine His actual blood, is a lie from the pit of Hell.

Thousands of Protestants were butchered by that whore of Babylon because they rejected the blasphemous Mass. I, for one, refuse to forget that!

Amen! May God bless you throughout the life in Jesus Christ.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, first of all I want to thank and praise you for the answers.
I feel we can narrow the gap between my belief and your understanding, at least.

Matt said: : I presume you mean the following?:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
If I need to define the issues more, I would add as follows:

1) Are the Believers eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus at the Lord's Supper?

Matt said : Yes, at least spiritually


Eliyahu answers: so, you mean that it is not Physically, right?
Then you are admittting that Bread and Wine are the Spritual Symbols, not the physical change in substances.

To be honest I don't know and I don't particularly care; I leave that up to God. The sort of differentiation between the physical and spiritual, between the natural and supernatural, which your question implies is very much a Modernistic post-Enlightenment Western innovation and one which would have been unknown to the Early Church.

What I asked you was if the Substances of Bread and Wine are changed to Flesh and Blood physically. Would you be honest once more to reiterate whether the Believers are eating Flesh and drinking Blood physically?

See above.

Quote:
2) Is the Blood shed by Jesus for the people to eat? Did Jesus shed His Blood for eating?
Matt said : Er...I think you'll find it's for drinking not for eating


Eliyahu answers:

So, you believe that Blood was for the people to Drink, don't you? You believe that Drinking Blood is OK, though Eating Blood was prohibited, don't you?

You better ask any high school students whether you may drink Human Blood when God prohibited Eating of Blood.

Can you drink Blood without Eating?

I would say that since both blood and wine are liquids rather than solids, one drinks rather than eats them. The prohibition on 'eating' of blood refers to the eating of meat with blood still in it, which is pretty unhygienic when living in a hot climate.
Quote:

3) Or did Jesus offer His Blood as Sin Offering to God?
Matt said : Jesus offered Himself as a sin offering to God in our place

Eliyahu answers : Then Jesus didn't offer Himself for the human bneings to eat and drink, right?

Why does the one exclude the other? Why does He offer us His flesh and blood in John 6? Surely it's both: He offers Himself to God on the Cross as a pure sacrifice, and by partaking in communion we partake in the fruits of that offering and feed on Him in our hearts by faith and thanksgiving.

Quote:
4) When we read John 6, Jesus said " Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Does this mean that we should eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?
Matt said : We should eat the Bread and drink the Wine which become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus

Eliyahu answers:
Now you are admitting that we should eat the Bread and drink Wine, not the Flesh and Blood, right?

It is both

where do the Bread and Drink become Flesh and Blood of Jesus? Is it in the intestine, in the belly? or just by believing so or reckoning so?

By the Holy Spirit at the epiclesis during the Eucharistic Prayer

Quote:
This was said before the Crucifixion, during OT times when the people had do keep the Commandments of God that one should not eat Blood.
Did Jesus say to the people that they should eat and drink His Blood despite the Commandments of the Law in Leviticus 17:10-14 and Genesis 9:4?
Matt said : Er...that's what He said, yes - re-read John 6:32-59, If you have a problem with that and think He's breaking the Law, I suggest you take it up with Him!

Eliyahu answers:

Jesus didn't break the Law and what He meant by Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood was indicating the acceptance of His Words as you read the verse 63. People who had no faith could not understand what Jesus said, because they just pursued only the physical things, not the spiritual words.

Your interpretation only; I ask again: show me an interpretation of that Scripture prior to the 1520s which agrees with yours.

Quote:
5) When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper, the time was before the Crucifixion, and therefore it was still during the OT times. Then did the Disciples eat Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper? Did they eat Human Flesh and Human Blood?
Matt said : No; the Body and Blood of Jesus had not then been sacrificed on the Cross

Eliyahu answers:

So, now you are admitting that Disciples ate neither the human flesh nor human blood, right?

Not at that stage no; the Last Supper was an antitype of communion just as the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 was an antitype of communion

Quote:
6) Jesus said this word:
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.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words by Flesh and Blood ?
Matt said : Sorry, I don't understand your question here

Eliyahu answers :
Sorry, it was not clear there.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words for the Relationship between Him and the Believers by saying " Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood" ? neither eating the physical Flesh nor drinking the physical blood?

Since His words entreated the believers to eat His flesh and drink His blood then you can't divorce the one meaning from the other.

Why does Jesus say His Words are Spirit and they are Life?

Because they point us to Him, the Living Bread, Who is given to us in communion; His very words entreat us to eat His flesh and drink His blood and that is truly spiritually life-giving.

Quote:
7) Some say that the Flesh of Jesus is not applied to " Flesh profits nothing"
But IMO, they see the Words of Jesus by flesh:

2 Cor 5:
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

These are the main issues.
Matt said : I would see that Johannine verse as referring to the fleshly understanding of the Jews who deserted Him


Eliyahu answers:

Excellent understanding! You are correct.

That's why you and Roman Cahtolic should not follow the fleshly understanding of the Jews about the Words of Jesus in John 6, right?

Correct. And we don't.

Conclusion:

Don't you think that Transubstantiation could work only during the Dark Age when the science was not developed to prove it's wrong?

I don't particularly believe in transubstantiation; as I said above, I'm content to be agnostic about exactly how the Real Presence is manifest in communion, about exactly how the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood. But my understanding of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is that they fully accept that a scientific analysis of the bread and wine would show they are physically still bread and wine; nevertheless the Catholics believe that they are merely the 'accidents' and that the 'substance' has been changed. Aquinas, from whom this doctrine originated, used the example of a sheep IIRC: a live sheep and a dead sheep are, in terms of their constituent elements, the same (and would produce the same chemical analysis), yet a live sheep is 'substantially' different from a dead one, in that the former is an animated living creature whereas the latter is just a hunk of flesh, bone and wool.

Don't you think it was still a violation of the Law prohibiting the drinking of Blood and a kind of Ignorance about the truth that Blood was not offered to human beings to eat, but to God as a Sin offering?

I'm left with the words of Jesus and how Christians have consistently interpreted those words through the centuries - if that's good enough for Him and for them, it's good enough for me

 

[Eliyahu]

To be honest I don't know and I don't particularly care; I leave that up to God. The sort of differentiation between the physical and spiritual, between the natural and supernatural, which your question implies is very much a Modernistic post-Enlightenment Western innovation and one which would have been unknown to the Early Church. See above.[/color][/font]
[/size]

OK, I accept your explanation.

I would say that since both blood and wine are liquids rather than solids, one drinks rather than eats them. The prohibition on 'eating' of blood refers to the eating of meat with blood still in it, which is pretty unhygienic when living in a hot climate.
Quote:
Why does the one exclude the other? Why does He offer us His flesh and blood in John 6? Surely it's both: He offers Himself to God on the Cross as a pure sacrifice, and by partaking in communion we partake in the fruits of that offering and feed on Him in our hearts by faith and thanksgiving.[/color][/size]


It is both[/color][/size]

By the Holy Spirit at the epiclesis during the Eucharistic Prayer

Again, you trust the magic transformation, which can not be proven, but turned to be a delusion or deception if tested.

Your interpretation only; I ask again: show me an interpretation of that Scripture prior to the 1520s which agrees with yours.
[/size][/font]

I don't need to investigate the whole literatures before 1520, because Bible which was apparently written before 1520 prove it correctly, without any prejudice. Bible is very much enough to discern which one is correct.
But I read the artilces which indicate Paulicians didn't accept Transubstantiation, nor did Albigenes, nor Waldensians, though the prime sources are hard to find.

Not at that stage no; the Last Supper was an antitype of communion just as the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 was an antitype of communion[/size][/font]


Since His words entreated the believers to eat His flesh and drink His blood then you can't divorce the one meaning from the other.[/size][/font]

Because they point us to Him, the Living Bread, Who is given to us in communion; His very words entreat us to eat His flesh and drink His blood and that is truly spiritually life-giving.

Not the physical flesh and blood, but the Bread and Wine as Flesh and Blood by Faith and by believing so, so that both Jesus and the believer may have the relationship of flesh and blood, right?

I don't particularly believe in transubstantiation; as I said above, I'm content to be agnostic about exactly how the Real Presence is manifest in communion, about exactly how the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood. But my understanding of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is that they fully accept that a scientific analysis of the bread and wine would show they are physically still bread and wine; nevertheless the Catholics believe that they are merely the 'accidents' and that the 'substance' has been changed. Aquinas, from whom this doctrine originated, used the example of a sheep IIRC: a live sheep and a dead sheep are, in terms of their constituent elements, the same (and would produce the same chemical analysis), yet a live sheep is 'substantially' different from a dead one, in that the former is an animated living creature whereas the latter is just a hunk of flesh, bone and wool.
I'm left with the words of Jesus and how Christians have consistently interpreted those words through the centuries - if that's good enough for Him and for them, it's good enough for me

I know you are not Catholic. Why do you try to advocate what you don believe?

The comparison between dead sheep and living sheep doesn't apply to this case, unless you compare the meat and blood of a sheep to the donuts and German ice eiswein(ice wine).

If Rc believe that Accidents still remain unchanged, they admit that they follow the Memorialism.
( Only their language is different and their accidents means the Substance in chemistry)

If RCC deceived the people for centuries during the Dark Age, would you still follow them?

Matt, I hope you will be more honest and open-minded for your extremely important destiny.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matt Black:

"Yes, at least spiritually"

That is, "as by faith partaking ..." - the Calvinist Reformatist way. Since when are you speaking their language?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You assume incorrectly that I'm Catholic.

So, tell me, how do you know that the Bible in your possession has the correct 27 books of the New Testament? How do you know that Revelation and James should be in there and the Gospel of Peter shouldn't be. Explain the processes and reasoning that lead you to your conclusion.

And, the return to the OP subject, can anyone cite me an authority prior to the Sixteent Century where a purely memorialist interpretation is put pn Scriptures such as Matt 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, John 6:32-59, and I Cor 11:23-29? (Drums fingers on table.)

GE:

I am privileged to have a small library of books that explain just these issues - I could not through a life's span go through them; just too much. And there are millions more and perhaps better books.
One strange characteristic of all these is that they either were written by believers (by far the most and most convincing), or, by unbelievers -- no one of whom, to my knowledge, could ever disprove one single finding of the 'believers' -- they are all just too pathetic. So, if one must decide on strength of human achievement, it's like me betting on the Blue Bulls for winning the Super Fourteen, and MUCH, MUCH more, rock-fast facts evidence on faith's side. So shall I confess with all the simple at heart and in mind, true believers of all times, "I believe the Scriptures". You try live your Christian life without the Word of God, for that matter. I prefer mine inseperably linked up with it.