Featured What the RCC endorses

When Jesus said: "I am the door..."
He did not say: Learn therefore this is a metaphor when I tell you: "I am the door." He did not preface his remarks as such. Yet "I am the door," is indeed a metaphor. It is up to the reader to have a knowledge of grammar and understanding of the language that he can distinguish when such literary devices are being used and when they are not.

In context, Jesus had just finished saying:
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 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
--A definite metaphor "I am the bread of life." He didn't look like a loaf of bread just like he didn't look like a door. Both metaphors are connected to faith and salvation.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
--Throughout he refers to "my flesh, my blood," and refers to eating and drinking it.
This is my flesh; this is my blood. Yes, a definite metaphor. It is just as much a metaphor as him saying that he is a door or bread. He isn't any of the above. All are metaphors. All require faith. All are related to salvation.
The flesh and the blood represent to what was done on Calvary where he shed his blood for us. When one believes in that sacrifice He gives to him eternal life. When one believes in him he comes and dwells in him. It is a metaphor.

I have a driver's license. It has my picture on it. If I can show it to you, and tell you, this is me, DHK, would I by lying? Perhaps. It is not me, it is my likeness, an image or symbol. The real "me" is the one holding the license. So it was with Christ. He was near the bread that he was referring to previously when he said "I am the bread of life." He wasn't the real bread. His flesh was symbolic of that bread which in turn was symbolic of eternal life.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
"This is my body...This is my blood." These are obvious metaphors just like the others mentioned. You need to learn more about metaphors.
They were symbolic representations of the real thing which was Jesus. Take part of Jesus, believe on him, and you will have remission of sins. That is the only way.
Your interpretation is simply a superstition.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
--Same passages over and over again. Nothing is different.
"This is my body" is a metaphor, and that is all.

Sarcasm noted.
Every gospel writer used metaphors; every single one of them. Not a single one of them would have suggested that we understand Jesus as a door or a piece of bread, why would they think they we should understand Jesus is a hunk of flesh or a puddle of blood? Honestly, how can you be steeped in such superstition! It is beyond me.

Transubstantiation is one of the most superstitious practices ever believed on.
What does Paul say here:

1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
--He is contrasting the present practices of the Corinthian church with the pagan practices around them. The pagans practiced idolatry, which they were to flee from. Their Communion Service ought to be a blessing but it wasn't. It was being infiltrated with idolatrous practices.
Ignorance of context allows you to teach any old superstition you want to teach.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
--In fact he teaches quite plainly that the cup and the bread are not literally the blood and body of the Lord Jesus. He even quotes the very words of Jesus. He uses the same metaphors.
"This is my body; this is my blood." Those are plain metaphors.
Then he says that we must do this often, and as often as we do it we remember the Lord's death until he comes again. It is plainly done in remembrance, a stern reminder that it is a symbolic practice to remember his death and resurrection.

All you have done is shown me superstition. You have not proved your case at all. Faith is based on reality, on evidence. For example, faith in the gospel is based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection is a historical reality which has never been disproven.
There is no reality in transubstantiation. Faith in it is based on blind faith.

The Muslim blows himself up thinking he will go to paradise. That is blind faith. There is no basis for that belief.
Likewise there is no basis for the belief in transubstantiation. It is blind faith. Its faith or belief rests on nothing; no evidence or reason to base it on.

 

Whenever Christ spoke his "tone" was as one who had authority. He spoke with authority.

I think you live in a squeamish culture compared to back then. Seriously, one cannot compare the two cultures. It is obvious that Christ was not speaking of transubstantiation. He was not cannibalistic. The fact that they left is absolute proof that they understood what he meant. They were not ready to accept him as their Messiah, to believe on Him as their Lord. That is why they left. The entire discussion revolved around "belief" and "faith," as did every single metaphor that he used in that chapter.
For example,
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 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
--It is always connected to belief.

Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
--Not die; Why? because of believing on him.

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.
--He still has not left the theme of believing on him. Faith in him is still the key. That is the context throughout the passage.
Just as he is the bread of life, the sustenance of life, so is his flesh the sustenance of spiritual life. He is life, as John already explained in the first chapter.

Yes, they were. They were coming to the Lord's Table in the wrong attitude, being gluttonous and drunk. That is not a spiritual attitude; it is a sinful one. It is showing disrespect to the Lord God Almighty.
What did Paul say?
1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
--This is exactly what they were condemned for. If they wanted to get drunk and overeat they should have stayed home and not come to church at all. They shamed the name of Christ and made a mockery of the Lord's Table.
"I praise you not," he says rebukingly.

Absolute nonsense. They were to approach the Lord's table with reverence, and not to partake of it if they still had unconfessed sin.
Therefore Paul says:
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--A self-examination first. Make sure your heart is right with God.
Many of them were sick, weak, and many had died, because they thought they could partake of the Lord's Table with an indifferent and sinful attitude God judged them.

Read again 1Cor.11. There is nothing about the passover in there. They were not celebrating the Passover. It is a church not the Temple, not a synagogue. Paul was writing in 55 A.D., more than 25 years after the death of Christ and more than that after what was considered the "Last Supper," being called The Last Supper, for a reason. And that was more than 25 years previous to his letter! They were not Jews. They were Christians. The church at Corinth was primarily made up of Gentile believers who probably were not even acquainted with Jewish customs as the Passover. Your argument here holds no weight whatsoever. The Lord's Table has nothing to do with the Jewish Passover.

I gave you plenty of examples of what was a metaphor or figure of speech. This is a matter of hermeneutics, proper interpretation, and not being deceived by a man's erroneous method of interpreting the Bible.

They didn't have to. They spoke in a language that made sense. The picture on my license isn't me. It is only my picture. And I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Neither should anyone have to explain to you that when Christ said: "This is my flesh" it is a metaphor, or it is symbolic (like the picture on my license). Just a few verses before, he had just said: "I am the bread of life." They weren't looking at a loaf of bread.

I don't accept this last portion as an accurate portrayal of Christianity but rather a regurgitation of Roman Catholic propaganda. I am not going down the history road now. I will just declare you wrong, and ask you not to propagate the RCC in such a way.

 

This is the default position of the RCC, and the one that always leads them astray.
Our authority is the Word of God. From the ECF and other histories have come wide and varied heresies. They were the ones that introduced baptismal regeneration, the worship of Mary, transubstantiation, praying to the saints, idolatry, purgatory, and many heresies into the church.

Paul warned about this.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.[/FONT]

Who came after Paul? The ECF did. What did Paul say of them?
They were grievous wolves speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

Our authority is always the Word of God. It is sola scriptura.

 

It is nothing but superstition.
Let's consider what the Catechism itself says:

From: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM

#1237 infers that the candidate is demon-possessed since one or more exorcisms are pronounced over him! Is this true Walter? Is that what happened? Then you renounced Satan?

#1238 Though the entire quote is heresy the greatest of all heresies is quoted here, which equates baptism with being born of water and of the Spirit." There is no more damnable doctrine than baptismal regeneration, a false interpretation of John 3:5.

Again, RCC baptism is a superstition. The water of baptism does nothing more than get you wet. It is purely symbolic.

 

If that statement by true then you are saying Jesus was a sinner that needed to be saved. That in and of itself is blasphemy.