Which Body Is The Bread?

Hibernian

Well-known member
Where was the body of Jesus when he took the bread and gave it to his disciples and said, "this is my body"?

Was that body bread or flesh or was it bread and flesh at the same time?

In other words, did we have the transubstantiated and the non-transubstantiated body of Jesus in the Upper Room at the same moment?

Please notice that while the real incarnate Jesus was present in the upper room, the real incarnate Jesus is not present at the Roman mass, nor does the real incarnate Jesus perform the distribution of the bread and wine.

Was Jesus dead or alive at The Last Supper in the upper room?

I know that that belongs in the stupid question department, but it needs to be asked anyway.

On that occasion Jesus said : this is my body which IS broken for you. Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive. " This is the blood of the New Testament which IS shed for you". Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive.

Of course we know that Jesus didn't die until the following day.

Did Jesus die in the upper room at The Last Supper?

Another silly enquiry for the stupid question department.

When the Roman priest mumbles the Roman mass, he claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

But the big question is:

WHICH BODY?

Is it the LIVING (33 year old) body that distributed the bread and wine in the upper room?

Is it the dead and crucified body that hung on the cross for 3 hours for the sins of the world?

Is it the resurrected body of Jesus who rose from the Dead 3 days later?

Is it the ascended, glorified body of Jesus, that presently sits at the right hand of God?

Or is it a measly piece of bread on the altar of a fake Roman priest?

Contemporaneity multplied by anachronism equals 0.
 
Last edited:

Septextura

Well-known member
Where was the body of Jesus when he took the bread and gave it to his disciples and said, "this is my body"?

Was that body bread or flesh or was it bread and flesh at the same time?

Roman Catholics do believe transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper. Jesus eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood is explained as a mystery. Gregory of Nyssa came up with this idea and explained it as Christ being dead and absent of the physical body even prior to the crucifixion. Otherwise he couldn't figure out the 3 days and 3 nights prophecy from Jonah filling the period Friday to Sunday.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
Roman Catholics do believe transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper. Jesus eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood is explained as a mystery. Gregory of Nyssa came up with this idea and explained it as Christ being dead and absent of the physical body even prior to the crucifixion. Otherwise he couldn't figure out the 3 days and 3 nights prophecy from Jonah filling the period Friday to Sunday.
So that has to mean, as I pointed out in the OP, that Jesus was both transubstantiated and non-transubtranslated at the same time in the upper room, because he was the bread itself plus the person distributing the bread.

So we would have a Jesus with two different substances.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
Roman Catholics do believe transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper. Jesus eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood is explained as a mystery. Gregory of Nyssa came up with this idea and explained it as Christ being dead and absent of the physical body even prior to the crucifixion. Otherwise he couldn't figure out the 3 days and 3 nights prophecy from Jonah filling the period Friday to Sunday.
As far as the 3 days and 3 nights are concerned, Jesus himself asked the question, "are there not 12 hours in a day"? so we do not understand a day in this case to be 24-hours

See John 11:9
 
Last edited:

Septextura

Well-known member
So that has to mean, as I pointed out in the OP, that Jesus was both transubstantiated and non-transubtranslated at the same time in the upper room, because he was the bread itself plus the person distributing the bread.

So we would have a Jesus with two different substances.

And why would one go with such weird explanation when Gregory of Nyssa could have just said, yeah Jesus was present at the Last Supper when He broke the bread. He will be with us every time we do the same in His remembrance. Christ is present in Spirit with His church at the moment of supping in His honor, seated at the head of the table.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
As far as the 3 days and 3 nights are concerned, Jesus himself asked the question, "are there not 12 hours in a day"? so we do not understand a day in this case to be 24-hours

See John 11:9

He lived in the 4th century, so I presume his knowledge about Jewish OT ways for calculating the days was lacking. Although the Bible is its own dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia and everything, meaning it's sufficient to figure things out. Gregory of Nyssa's error is obvious but Rome will not budge from that dogma. Their sacerdotal system would collapse.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
U
He lived in the 4th century, so I presume his knowledge about Jewish OT ways for calculating the days was lacking. Although the Bible is its own dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia and everything, meaning it's sufficient to figure things out. Gregory of Nyssa's error is obvious but Rome will not budge from that dogma. Their sacerdotal system would collapse.

This is what they get for depending on fallible commentators like the early church fathers, instead of depending exclusively on the scriptures written by the apostles and prophets of Jesus Himself.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
One of the interesting aspects about this whole issue is how Roman Catholics themselves emphasize the word IS, as in this IS my body. Their purpose in doing that is to make it look the same when the Roman priest repeats those words in the Roman mass, but it cannot be the same because Jesus said those words 2000 years ago, and if it is the same then it means that the body of Jesus IS not dead, because it's the same as saying that this IS his body is the same as the body that he had in the upper room at the last supper BEFORE He was crucified, resurrected, and ascended.

Let's try the IS strategy with the rest of what Jesus said.

This is my body which IS broken for you. This is the blood of the New Testament which IS shed for you.

So according to the same ill logic of the Roman Catholics that means that his body was broken in the Upper Room, and that his blood was also shed in the Upper Room.

But everybody knows that Jesus didn't die in the upper room, because he died the following day, and everybody knows that the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice because the sacrifice took place on the cross when he died.
 

PeanutGallery

Well-known member
...

But everybody knows that Jesus didn't die in the upper room, because he died the following day, and everybody knows that the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice because the sacrifice took place on the cross when he died.
Maybe, RCC should come out with a new Bible stating:
This IS my body which SHALL BE broken ...
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
Maybe, RCC should come out with a new Bible stating:
This IS my body which SHALL BE broken ...
That would be the same as admitting that his body was not broken in the upper room, and the same as admitting that The Last Supper was not a sacrifice, like the fake Roman mass claims to be.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
HOC EST CORPUS MEUM?

Magic words or tragic words?

No. That is not the body of the Roman priest.

The lie is based on the fake presupposition that because Jesus could do it the Roman priest can do it also.

And if we follow that logic to it's conclusion then we can have the Roman priest working any kind of Miracle, based on the false premise that because Jesus can do it, the Roman priest can do it also.

Let's try a different set of magic words.

TALITHA CUMI.

With these words we can get the Roman priest to raise the dead, because those are words that Jesus used to raise a little girl from the dead.

And of course the priest can do a lot more than that because he's authorised by Jesus in

Matthew 10:8 - Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons; freely you have received, freely give.

Jesus could do it, so the Roman priest can do it also, and besides, he's authorised by the founder of his church.

Apostolic succession comes with baggage.

But what are the real magic words?

HOC US POCUS MEUM.

Those are the Honest words of a Roman priest.

My hocus pocus.
 

Buzzard

Active member
as when they gathered the Manna in the wilderness,
each gathered to his own,
some gathered little, some gathered much

he was the Word made Flesh,
The words (Truth / Gods Voice) I speak;
they are Life
he was The Word of God (Truth) in the Flesh

And Moses divided the truth amongest all 12 tribes of Israel
each tribe given a piece according to their "Inheritance"
according too the "The Blessings and the Cruses" of Jacob
and he Break the Bread and gave to each Apostle his portion

Septextura said:
He lived in the 4th century, so I presume his knowledge about Jewish OT ways for calculating the days was lacking. Although the Bible is its own dictionary, lexicon, encyclopedia and everything, meaning it's sufficient to figure things out. Gregory of Nyssa's error is obvious but Rome will not budge from that dogma. Their sacerdotal system would collapse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

problem was and still is today
these ECF's were lacking in knowledge about Jewish OT
and being from all the "Ites" of the Gentile Nations
they tried to explain Moses based on their customs,
and philosophy,

as Newman says
That {Roman Catholic } Christianity on its rise was in these circumstances of competition and controversy, is sufficiently evident even from a foregoing Chapter: it was surrounded by rites, sects, and philosophies, which contemplated the same questions, sometimes advocated the same truths, and in no slight degree wore the same external appearance.

sitting in the midst of the doctors,
both hearing them and asking them questions;'
claiming to herself what they said rightly,
correcting their errors, supplying their defects,
completing their beginnings,
expanding their surmises, and thus gradually
by means of them
  • The Doctors of Paganism
by means of them
enlarging the range and
refining the sense of her own teaching.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Where was the body of Jesus when he took the bread and gave it to his disciples and said, "this is my body"?

Was that body bread or flesh or was it bread and flesh at the same time?

In other words, did we have the transubstantiated and the non-transubstantiated body of Jesus in the Upper Room at the same moment?

Please notice that while the real incarnate Jesus was present in the upper room, the real incarnate Jesus is not present at the Roman mass, nor does the real incarnate Jesus perform the distribution of the bread and wine.

Was Jesus dead or alive at The Last Supper in the upper room?

I know that that belongs in the stupid question department, but it needs to be asked anyway.

On that occasion Jesus said : this is my body which IS broken for you. Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive. " This is the blood of the New Testament which IS shed for you". Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive.

Of course we know that Jesus didn't die until the following day.

Did Jesus die in the upper room at The Last Supper?

Another silly enquiry for the stupid question department.

When the Roman priest mumbles the Roman mass, he claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

But the big question is:

WHICH BODY?

Is it the LIVING (33 year old) body that distributed the bread and wine in the upper room?

Is it the dead and crucified body that hung on the cross for 3 hours for the sins of the world?

Is it the resurrected body of Jesus who rose from the Dead 3 days later?

Is it the ascended, glorified body of Jesus, that presently sits at the right hand of God?

Or is it a measly piece of bread on the altar of a fake Roman priest?

Contemporaneity multplied by anachronism equals 0.
Which body? What is the official teaching of the rcc?

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit," preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

Of course its blasphemy as are most if not all rc teachings and dogmas. But its still the official word, the risen christ is eaten which is utterly baseless, senseless and without any biblical foundation. Such is catholicism as a whole.
 

mica

Well-known member
HOC EST CORPUS MEUM?

Magic words or tragic words?

No. That is not the body of the Roman priest.

The lie is based on the fake presupposition that because Jesus could do it the Roman priest can do it also.

And if we follow that logic to it's conclusion then we can have the Roman priest working any kind of Miracle, based on the false premise that because Jesus can do it, the Roman priest can do it also.

Let's try a different set of magic words.

TALITHA CUMI.

With these words we can get the Roman priest to raise the dead, because those are words that Jesus used to raise a little girl from the dead.

And of course the priest can do a lot more than that because he's authorised by Jesus in

Matthew 10:8 - Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons; freely you have received, freely give.

Jesus could do it, so the Roman priest can do it also, and besides, he's authorised by the founder of his church.

Apostolic succession comes with baggage.

But what are the real magic words?

HOC US POCUS MEUM.

Those are the Honest words of a Roman priest.

My hocus pocus.
What RC priest will give up his life, be beaten to a pulp, crucified and resurrected to save the soul of any catholic? What catholic priest is the only begotten Son of the Father?

What catholic priest existed in eternity past and was then born of a virgin here on earth?

What catholic here can answer these questions? Maybe one will step up to the plate and claim it is the priest in their parish.
 

Hibernian

Well-known member
Ù
Which body? What is the official teaching of the rcc?

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit," preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

Of course its blasphemy as are most if not all rc teachings and dogmas. But its still the official word, the risen christ is eaten which is utterly baseless, senseless and without any biblical foundation. Such is catholicism as a whole.
But my question relates to his body as it was at the time when he spoke the words "this is my body" in the upper room before he was dead, and before he was resurrected or ascended.

Which body do Roman Catholics believe it is when the Roman priest claims that the bread in the Roman mass is the body of Jesus?

This IS my body i.e. as his body was AT THE TIME.
 
Last edited:

Hibernian

Well-known member
What RC priest will give up his life, be beaten to a pulp, crucified and resurrected to save the soul of any catholic? What catholic priest is the only begotten Son of the Father?

What catholic priest existed in eternity past and was then born of a virgin here on earth?

What catholic here can answer these questions? Maybe one will step up to the plate and claim it is the priest in their parish.
That's it exactly. You have pinpointed the problem. The problem of course for the Roman priest is that it was Jesus himself who distributed the bread and wine at The Last Supper, whereas Jesus is not physically present in the Roman mass. This is a very important point to remember. In fact Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Where was the body of Jesus when he took the bread and gave it to his disciples and said, "this is my body"?

Was that body bread or flesh or was it bread and flesh at the same time?

In other words, did we have the transubstantiated and the non-transubstantiated body of Jesus in the Upper Room at the same moment?

Please notice that while the real incarnate Jesus was present in the upper room, the real incarnate Jesus is not present at the Roman mass, nor does the real incarnate Jesus perform the distribution of the bread and wine.

Was Jesus dead or alive at The Last Supper in the upper room?

I know that that belongs in the stupid question department, but it needs to be asked anyway.

On that occasion Jesus said : this is my body which IS broken for you. Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive. " This is the blood of the New Testament which IS shed for you". Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive.

Of course we know that Jesus didn't die until the following day.

Did Jesus die in the upper room at The Last Supper?

Another silly enquiry for the stupid question department.

When the Roman priest mumbles the Roman mass, he claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

But the big question is:

WHICH BODY?

Is it the LIVING (33 year old) body that distributed the bread and wine in the upper room?

Is it the dead and crucified body that hung on the cross for 3 hours for the sins of the world?

Is it the resurrected body of Jesus who rose from the Dead 3 days later?

Is it the ascended, glorified body of Jesus, that presently sits at the right hand of God?

Or is it a measly piece of bread on the altar of a fake Roman priest?

Contemporaneity multplied by anachronism equals 0.
It is simple Jesus was not speaking literally. He was not speaking of his literal body and blood.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Where was the body of Jesus when he took the bread and gave it to his disciples and said, "this is my body"?

Was that body bread or flesh or was it bread and flesh at the same time?

In other words, did we have the transubstantiated and the non-transubstantiated body of Jesus in the Upper Room at the same moment?

Please notice that while the real incarnate Jesus was present in the upper room, the real incarnate Jesus is not present at the Roman mass, nor does the real incarnate Jesus perform the distribution of the bread and wine.

Was Jesus dead or alive at The Last Supper in the upper room?

I know that that belongs in the stupid question department, but it needs to be asked anyway.

On that occasion Jesus said : this is my body which IS broken for you. Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive. " This is the blood of the New Testament which IS shed for you". Words spoken AT THE TIME, when he was obviously still alive.

Of course we know that Jesus didn't die until the following day.

Did Jesus die in the upper room at The Last Supper?

Another silly enquiry for the stupid question department.

When the Roman priest mumbles the Roman mass, he claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

But the big question is:

WHICH BODY?

Is it the LIVING (33 year old) body that distributed the bread and wine in the upper room?

Is it the dead and crucified body that hung on the cross for 3 hours for the sins of the world?

Is it the resurrected body of Jesus who rose from the Dead 3 days later?

Is it the ascended, glorified body of Jesus, that presently sits at the right hand of God?

Or is it a measly piece of bread on the altar of a fake Roman priest?

Contemporaneity multplied by anachronism equals 0.
Just a piece of bread, of course. The whole Catholic "Eucharist theology" is false, and ONLY the protestant churches do it as Jesus intended - IN REMEMBRANCE of HIM.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
It is simple Jesus was not speaking literally. He was not speaking of his literal body and blood.

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.

How can anyone after this verse think eating the literal flesh of Christ is how they will get sanctified? Rome's pedophile ring eats the wafer daily yet they are more carnal than the Corinthians at their worst. It profits them nothing. The words Christ spoke are spirit and life.
 
Last edited:
Top