Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine

balshan

Well-known member
Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

Another poster has shown that Jesus did state He was being symbolic:

after the Last Supper
before the Garden

John 16:25
“I have said these things to you in figures of speec
h.
 
Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

Another poster has shown that Jesus did state He was being symbolic:

after the Last Supper
before the Garden

John 16:25
“I have said these things to you in figures of speec
h.

- Scripture says that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
- Catholics believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
- The nCCs believe that it is not the body and blood of Christ but that it is symbolic.
- Scripture doesn't say that it is symbolic.
- The nCCs say that scripture is their final/sole authority for the Christian faith.

It is that simple. The nCCs don't have the authority to declare the bread and wine to be symbolic.
 
- Scripture says that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
- Catholics believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
- The nCCs believe that it is not the body and blood of Christ but that it is symbolic.
- Scripture doesn't say that it is symbolic.
- The nCCs say that scripture is their final/sole authority for the Christian faith.

It is that simple. The nCCs don't have the authority to declare the bread and wine to be symbolic.
Meaningless. It is not that simple as my op points out and you have nothing. You also prove you have nothing when you misrepresent what scripture being a final authority means but that is no surprise at all. John 16:25 shows it is figurative speech.

The bible is full of figures of speech - symbolic, personification, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, parable, allegory, literal and analogy.

I mean we are told to discern the fruit, it does not mean literal fruit. Galatian 5

Jesus says he is the door. John 10

The Holy Spirit is a dove. Mark 1

The church is the Body of Christ. Rom 12

Jesus as the bread of Life. John 6

We know these are not literal meanings, then why is it so hard for the RCC to understand the Last Supper as symbolic.
 
We have scripture. You have your own personal interpretation of scripture. Now which one is the highest authority?
I clearly said none of this authority rubbish from posters. It is clear in the op.

It was the first point 2 in my op:

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all

You have provided no evidence for your false belief whereas I provided many points for my belief.

Stop diverting. You have nothing just be honest.
 
I clearly said none of this authority rubbish from posters. It is clear in the op.

It was the first point 2 in my op:

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all

You have provided no evidence for your false belief whereas I provided many points for my belief.

Stop diverting. You have nothing just be honest.

We don't have nothing? Really. The words of Jesus you are considering nothing? Wow.

We can conclude that if you want to insist that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ, contrary to what Jesus said, then scripture is not your final/sole authority like the nCCs claim that it is.
 
We don't have nothing? Really. The words of Jesus you are considering nothing? Wow.

We can conclude that if you want to insist that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ, contrary to what Jesus said, then scripture is not your final/sole authority like the nCCs claim that it is.
No you have nothing, you have not show Jesus was being literal. You have nothing. The words of Jesus are more than nothing. Once again you are misrepresenting my post no surprise at all. It is the RCC way.

I am not speaking contrary to what Jesus said you are. I have said do not divert to your false no authority rubbish thing.

I gave 13 points to support it being symbolic and you gave me nothing to support it being literal. If literal please do things like cut off a body part that offends, if literal you are telling us Peter is Satan.

Try providing evidence for it being literal. Just make an attempt to do so. Please it would at least show some attempt at apologetics.
 
No you have nothing, you have not show Jesus was being literal. You have nothing. The words of Jesus are more than nothing. Once again you are misrepresenting my post no surprise at all. It is the RCC way.

I am not speaking contrary to what Jesus said you are. I have said do not divert to your false no authority rubbish thing.

I gave 13 points to support it being symbolic and you gave me nothing to support it being literal. If literal please do things like cut off a body part that offends, if literal you are telling us Peter is Satan.

Try providing evidence for it being literal. Just make an attempt to do so. Please it would at least show some attempt at apologetics.
There is nothing in scripture that says that it is symbolic. So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.
 
There is nothing in scripture that says that it is symbolic. So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.

Like you, travis clark a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST every mass took the wafer and wine, every mass. But it didn't make him better did it? If a person is as you say "infused", with Jesus and becomes like like Jesus, then you can explain to us why this priest defiled a ROMAN CATHOLIC alter. In spite of him .....

a) being a rc priest
b) has been ingesting a lot of wafers his entire lifetime.
c) being a member of the one true church.
d) priests are infallible

The rcc teaches you, that you become more like Jesus with every mass, and yet, you still need confession booths, scapular's, relics, indulgences, because you can't attain perfection, that your trying so hard to get. So was travis clark. He never attained it, why was that?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252888/louisiana-ex-priest-pleads-guilty-to-filming-pornographic-material-on-parish-altar
 
There is nothing in scripture that says that it is symbolic. So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.
There is nothing in scripture which says it is symbolic. You have avoided the points made in the op. I know that is because you cannot face the questions raised in the op.
 
Like you, travis clark a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST every mass took the wafer and wine, every mass. But it didn't make him better did it? If a person is as you say "infused", with Jesus and becomes like like Jesus, then you can explain to us why this priest defiled a ROMAN CATHOLIC alter. In spite of him .....

a) being a rc priest
b) has been ingesting a lot of wafers his entire lifetime.
c) being a member of the one true church.
d) priests are infallible

The rcc teaches you, that you become more like Jesus with every mass, and yet, you still need confession booths, scapular's, relics, indulgences, because you can't attain perfection, that your trying so hard to get. So was travis clark. He never attained it, why was that?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252888/louisiana-ex-priest-pleads-guilty-to-filming-pornographic-material-on-parish-altar
Have you noticed a completed avoidance of the ten plus points made in the op. Yep well they like their false doctrines.
 
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me;
and they have received them,
and have known surely that I came out from thee,
and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth
.

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
.

These things said he in the synagogue,
as he taught in Capernaum.
and there is the Key


the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and
they are life.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me;

But there are some of you that believe not.

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you,
that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.
Thou art the Christ;
the Son of the Living God
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven.

and Peter says
Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.
=============================================
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,
God hath said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Isaiah 66:
he that offereth an oblation,
as if he offered swine's blood;
he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.

Yea, they have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
I also will choose their delusions,
and will bring their fears upon them;
because when I called, none did answer;
when I spake, they did not hear:
but they did evil before mine eyes,
and chose that in which I delighted not.

Paul says​
strong delusion; for they received not the love of the truth​
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.​
----------<vs>------------
Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god).

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,
God hath said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.​
---------------<vs>------------
They that sanctify themselves,
and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst,
eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse,
he that offereth an oblation,​
as if he offered swine's blood;​
he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.​
shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.​

so ;
eat that """ :devilish: Flesh of Swine :devilish: """
light those candles and burn that incense to all those idols
 
Last edited:
So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.

A few verses later Jesus corrected their misunderstanding Him.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.


The disciples were NOT scholars or educated men, and yet they understood the above, because they responded with

John 6:68-69
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”


If Jesus was speaking literally, He would not of corrected their misunderstanding. The audience was only interested in having their physical bellies filled as happened the day before when Jesus fed them physically. They weren't interested in trusting God or getting to know Him personally

We don't need a scholar to tell us the meaning of the verses above, they are self explanatory.
 
There is nothing in scripture that says that it is symbolic. So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.
dingoling. said:
There is nothing in scripture that says that it is symbolic. So you have nothing but your own personal interpretation.
=========================


So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly,
and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading
how many times did you say you have read the Bible ???
40-50-60- or is it up to 70 by now
🤔

ah, ding;
the :devilish: CCC :devilish: The flesh of Swine; is not 'The Bible"
 
Last edited:
Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

Another poster has shown that Jesus did state He was being symbolic:

after the Last Supper
before the Garden

John 16:25
“I have said these things to you in figures of speec
h.
You shouldn't believe that Jesus is in the bread and wine. That's not Catholic teaching.
 
I don't believe it and I never said Jesus was in the bread and wine. What is the problem with RCs and reading comprehension?
I know you don't. And I know you didn't. I was answering this statement of yours in reference to the title of the OP:
Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.
I'm glad we're in agreement that this isn't Biblical teaching.
 
I know you don't. And I know you didn't. I was answering this statement of yours in reference to the title of the OP:

I'm glad we're in agreement that this isn't Biblical teaching.
Okay you do not sound like you are united with your other RCs on this topic.
 
Back
Top