Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine

I will give Dingoling credit for at least trying to respond. But would appreciate a focus by her/him on the op and not diverting. Just a reminder the op was:

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 speech.
 
1Thess521 said:
YOU claimed that Jesus effectively died at the Last Supper
YOU claimed the new covenant obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

prove it
Click to expand...
One of the questions you asked was when was the penalty of sins paid for? But we know in the Gospels that Jesus said several times to people that their sins were forgiven. So if the penalty of sins wasn't paid for until Jesus died on the cross then those peoples sins would not have been really forgiven when Jesus told them.
 
dingoling. said:
One of the questions you asked was when was the penalty of sins paid for? But we know in the Gospels that Jesus said several times to people that their sins were forgiven. So if the penalty of sins wasn't paid for until Jesus died on the cross then those peoples sins would not have been really forgiven when Jesus told them.
Click to expand...
But one could be saved by faith before the cross, however, most didn't get saved under the law. I mean scripture is clear on that point. It was normally for the Jewish people who were meant to show God to the world. This they failed to do. God always knew that there would be the need for the death on the cross. It was implied in Genesis.

But Jesus came first to the Jewish people and then to the nations. He really opened up the understanding that salvation was for all sinners. You are just trying to cover up the importance of the cross to justify your false understanding of the bread and wine.
 
balshan said:
But one could be saved by faith before the cross, however, most didn't get saved under the law. I mean scripture is clear on that point. It was normally for the Jewish people who were meant to show God to the world. This they failed to do. God always knew that there would be the need for the death on the cross. It was implied in Genesis.

But Jesus came first to the Jewish people and then to the nations. He really opened up the understanding that salvation was for all sinners. You are just trying to cover up the importance of the cross to justify your false understanding of the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
And you are just trying to convince us that the bread and wine are symbolic.
 
dingoling. said:
One of the questions you asked was when was the penalty of sins paid for? But we know in the Gospels that Jesus said several times to people that their sins were forgiven. So if the penalty of sins wasn't paid for until Jesus died on the cross then those peoples sins would not have been really forgiven when Jesus told them.
Click to expand...
Then tells us, when ?
 
dingoling. said:
And you are just trying to convince us that the bread and wine are symbolic.
Click to expand...
I unlike you have provided several reasons for supporting the fact that it is symbolic. I mean everytime it is mentioned so is the word commemorative which means it is a remembrance, symbolic remembrance. NO where does it ever say this is a literal change. NO where.

You have provided a whole of nothing to support your claim. If you choose the false belief of your false institution that is your choice, after all, you have free will. I am not like RCs in the past who believe in forced conversions.

I am just wanting some evidence for your literal version.
 
1Thess521 said:
Then tells us, when ?
Click to expand...
I am not the final authority. Scripture is not explicit. I know that Jesus death on the cross is not the end because in the OT when the high priest slaughtered the bull he had to enter the Holy of Holies for the sacrifice to be complete and we see in Hebrews that it says:

Hebrews 9:11-12, "But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

What Jesus did on the cross was completed when he entered the Holy Place with his own blood. It was at that time scripture says that eternal redemption was obtained.
 
dingoling. said:
I am not the final authority. Scripture is not explicit. I know that Jesus death on the cross is not the end because in the OT when the high priest slaughtered the bull he had to enter the Holy of Holies for the sacrifice to be complete and we see in Hebrews that it says:

Hebrews 9:11-12, "But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

What Jesus did on the cross was completed when he entered the Holy Place with his own blood. It was at that time scripture says that eternal redemption was obtained.
Click to expand...
Is there any thing you posted that would leave any one to conclude sins were paid at the last supper( prior to His death)
 
Last edited:
1Thess521 said:
Is there any thing you posted that would leave any one to conclude sins were paid at the last supper( prior to His death)
Click to expand...

No. Jesus words at the Last Supper would. Jesus said:

Matthew 26:27-28, "Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:20, "And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

How could the contents of the cup been the blood of the covenant if Jesus hadn't died yet?
 
dingoling. said:
No. Jesus words at the Last Supper would. Jesus said:

Matthew 26:27-28, "Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:20, "And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

How could the contents of the cup been the blood of the covenant if Jesus hadn't died yet?
Click to expand...
your question"How could the contents of the cup been the blood of the covenant if Jesus hadn't died yet?"
BECAUSE it was symbolic.
and surprise, surprise, surprise, that answer is compatible with the rest of Scripture.
whereas YOUR claim is not compatible with the rest of Scripture.

"the new covenant and obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper." -ding
vs.
Hebrews 9:
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."


When a passage can be interpreted in different ways: (i.e. figurative of literal)
the interpretation that contradicts other Scriptures; must be in error.

NOW IS THE TIME
for you to offer an interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-17 that has the NC going into effect prior to the death of Christ
QUESTION---->Is Hebrews 9:15-17 referring to a symbolic death of Chrsit?
 
1Thess521 said:
your question"How could the contents of the cup been the blood of the covenant if Jesus hadn't died yet?"
BECAUSE it was symbolic.
and surprise, surprise, surprise, that answer is compatible with the rest of Scripture.
whereas YOUR claim is not compatible with the rest of Scripture.
Click to expand...

That answer is not compatible with the rest of scripture. It is not compatible with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

1Thess521 said:
"the new covenant and obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper." -ding
vs.
Hebrews 9:
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."


When a passage can be interpreted in different ways: (i.e. figurative of literal)
the interpretation that contradicts other Scriptures; must be in error.

NOW IS THE TIME
for you to offer an interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-17 that has the NC going into effect prior to the death of Christ
QUESTION---->Is Hebrews 9:15-17 referring to a symbolic death of Chrsit?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say.
 
dingoling. said:
That answer is not compatible with the rest of scripture. It is not compatible with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.



It doesn't say.
Click to expand...
Allow the Vatican website to assist

Pope Dingoling
"the new covenant obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper"
vs
The Vatican
13 [15-22] Jesus' role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death (cf ⇒ Hebrews 8:6). His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained (⇒ Hebrews 9:15). This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator (⇒ Hebrews 9:16-17). The Mosaic covenant was also associated with death, for Moses made use of blood to seal the pact between God and the people (⇒ Hebrews 9:18-21). In Old Testament tradition, guilt could normally not be remitted without the use of blood (⇒ Hebrews 9:22; cf ⇒ Lev 17:11).

"14 [16-17] A will . . . death of the testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in ⇒ Hebrews 9:15, ⇒ 18, is used here with the meaning will.
The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same time a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who established the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants;
at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."
---------------------
NOW IS THE TIME
for you to offer an interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-17 that has the NC going into effect prior to the death of Christ
 
Last edited:
1Thess521 said:
Allow the Vatican website to assist

Pope Dingoling
"the new covenant obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper"
vs
The Vatican
13 [15-22] Jesus' role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death (cf ⇒ Hebrews 8:6). His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained (⇒ Hebrews 9:15). This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator (⇒ Hebrews 9:16-17). The Mosaic covenant was also associated with death, for Moses made use of blood to seal the pact between God and the people (⇒ Hebrews 9:18-21). In Old Testament tradition, guilt could normally not be remitted without the use of blood (⇒ Hebrews 9:22; cf ⇒ Lev 17:11).

"14 [16-17] A will . . . death of the testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in ⇒ Hebrews 9:15, ⇒ 18, is used here with the meaning will.
The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same time a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who established the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants;
at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."
---------------------
NOW IS THE TIME
for you to offer an interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-17 that has the NC going into effect prior to the death of Christ
Click to expand...
This thread is about the bread and wine.
 
dingoling. said:
That answer is not compatible with the rest of scripture. It is not compatible with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.



It doesn't say.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. Still waiting for you to interact with the op. It is compatible with the symbolic words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

Luke 22:19-20

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

No where does he say it is literal transformation into His body and blood. Also there was no evidence of a physical change as it other transformation miracles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top