Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine

Hold on to your bungie cord ding, don't jump yet...... here is how the Roman Catholic Catechism explains it:

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation
for the sin of the living and the dead and to obtain
spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of
our redemption is carried on."

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents

(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross."

Catechism of the Catholic Church, op,cit., para.1414, p. 395

In case you haven't noticed, the "official" Roman Catholic teaching, right from their own "Catechism" directly contradicts the Word of God. When Jesus died on the Cross, ding, He proclaimed: "It is finished" (John 19:30). Furthermore ding, the Greek word used is 'tetelestai'. It was a Greek accounting term that meant "paid in full."
The work of our salvation is complete, ding!!! It was Jesus Christ, not the Roman Catholic Church, that purchased our redemption once and for all on the Cross. Jesus is NOT being perpetually sacrificed in the Eucharist as the RCC falsely teaches. Partaking in the Eucharist does NOT appease God, nor does it atone for sin, ding!
Spot on.
 
Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus uses figurative language here to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The literal interpretation, literally eating flesh and literally drinking blood (cannibalism) is absurd. Eating and drinking is not literally with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies here, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes it clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" because the result is the same, eternal life. John 6 does not afford any support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him unto salvation.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life. The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
 
John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
Then why didn't Jesus say just that ^ and nothing more? Why does that sentence above need bizarre and offensive "imagery" to go with it? Symbolism should enhance understanding, right?

The people directly receiving Jesus' teaching called it "hard". You make it sound "easy". How, then can you be so sure you have the right understanding?
 
- 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.
And the Jews took Jesus' words literally. They took him as literally saying, take my flesh and eat it. They were like, no way. This is crazy. lol. Yet nc's do the same thing. They do not recognize themselves as the being like Jews who first rejected Jesus' teaching about His flesh being true food.
 
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.
This is a hard teaching, who can accept it? jn 6:60

Did those saying this to Jesus think he meant symbolically?
 
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.
Those listening to Jesus did think he was being literal. For why would they all leave him but those who having faith in His words stayed? You have to have faith in His words.
 
This is a hard teaching, who can accept it? jn 6:60

Did those saying this to Jesus think he meant symbolically?
Jesus was often referring to Himself as God, every I am statement was telling them that who He was. That is what they found hard. I mean context is important. It is not about the bread at all, bread always had a spiritual meaning, so that was not hard for them to understand at all.

John 6
. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
There is so much more in that passage than eating of bread. Jesus is saying He is the Messiah. He is divine. It is clear He is talking symbolically about who he is and was. Read on. Pulling a verse out of nowhere without context is pointless.


? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 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.
 
Those listening to Jesus did think he was being literal. For why would they all leave him but those who having faith in His words stayed? You have to have faith in His words.
No it was much more than that. They were leaving not because they thought He was literally bread and wine at all. I have faith in His words in context. But RCs love to not read the whole context of what He is saying. He is clearly starting to tell them that He is God, He is the promised Messiah.
 
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 spee

You still have avoided all the points in the op, no surprise every RC does. Brought in another verse trying to content the two and doing so with the wrong understanding of what is happening in both passages.
Actually I reminded you all of what scripture states. Not my opinions.
 
Those listening to Jesus did think he was being literal. For why would they all leave him but those who having faith in His words stayed? You have to have faith in His words.
balshan replies
Jesus was often referring to Himself as God, every I am statement was telling them that who He was. That is what they found hard. I mean context is important. It is not about the bread at all, bread always had a spiritual meaning, so that was not hard for them to understand at all.

and

No it was much more than that. They were leaving not because they thought He was literally bread and wine at all. I have faith in His words in context. But RCs love to not read the whole context of what He is saying. He is clearly starting to tell them that He is God, He is the promised Messiah.

Jesus was often referring to Himself as God, every I am statement was telling them that who He was
====================end of balshan post


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 Peter said
Then said Jesus unto the twelve,
Will ye also go away?

and Peter says:
68 Then Simon Peter answered him,
Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.


But there are some of you that believe not.
 
Another posted this, in this forum. I bears repeating and goes to the topic very well

post by MMDAN

Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus uses figurative language here to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The literal interpretation, literally eating flesh and literally drinking blood (cannibalism) is absurd. Eating and drinking is not literally with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies here, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes it clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" because the result is the same, eternal life. John 6 does not afford any support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him unto salvation.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life. The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
 
Kirby, if Transubstantiation is really true then why does it contradict the Bible's teaching concerning the Second Coming of Christ? Could you explain the RCC's teaching on that please.
Does the indwelling of Christ in the believer contradict the Bible's teaching concerning the Second Coming of Christ? Then neither does the Eucharist.

Acts 1: 9 After Jesus said these things, as they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 While he was going away and as they were staring toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood next to them. 11 They said, “Galileans, why are you standing here, looking toward heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way that you saw him go into heaven.”
 
Kirby, if Transubstantiation is really true then why does it contradict the Bible's teaching concerning the Second Coming of Christ? Could you explain the RCC's teaching on that please.
You'll have to show how it contradicts the second coming first. I have a feeling you're not understanding that the Eucharist is the substantial presence of Jesus. He really and truly is there but He's not there with His physical attributes. They Eucharist is not the physical presence of Jesus.
 
Another posted this, in this forum. I bears repeating and goes to the topic very well

post by MMDAN

Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus uses figurative language here to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The literal interpretation, literally eating flesh and literally drinking blood (cannibalism) is absurd. Eating and drinking is not literally with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies here, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes it clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" because the result is the same, eternal life. John 6 does not afford any support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him unto salvation.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life. The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
The flesh profits nothing
I've never understood why Protestants use this against Jesus being present in the Eucharist. Jesus came and died in the flesh and you imply that it profits us nothing.
 
You'll have to show how it contradicts the second coming first. I have a feeling you're not understanding that the Eucharist is the substantial presence of Jesus. He really and truly is there but He's not there with His physical attributes. They Eucharist is not the physical presence of Jesus.
Oh every one understands the false claims of the RCC concerning the eucharist. Please explain if you believe it is the real presence how could the institution allow priests with filthy hands touch it? I mean if your claim is right that is blasphemous, ireverent and gross. I mean if RCs loved Jesus as they claim, how could they let Him be contaminated in such a way.

So you actually don't accept that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Not what the nuns taught us.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top