This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

You must be busy with finding which verse applies to which situation, which teachings to which heresies, which I am not.


Ephesians 6:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


1 John 4
13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Does the Holy Spirit in you teach you always and every moment? or is He sleeping mostly? check that out! otherwise, you may have been deserted ( 2 Cor 13:5)

As for the rest, the questions were about Transubstantiation related to this subject - This do in remembrance of me.

If you cannot answer on Medical Lab Test or about the Law prohibiting Blood drinking, are they irrelevant? No, you cannot answer but you may want to stop it, but the Truth still works there!

Jesus offered Himself to God, based on that Truth that no human being can EAT Blood, but it should be offered to God!, which is the main core Truth of Redemption, which most of RC do not know even now.

 

I would rather return to the original theme, though someone's catchphrase is just provocative against Biblical Truth.

I was and am quite sure that Nooobody who holds Transubstatiation could answer the basic questions about the Lord's Supper:

1) Medical Lab Test
What is left unchanged and what is changed substantially should be answered. If they say that the Substance is not changed, then they are admitting that they don't follow the Transubstantiation, but they also accept them by Faith, which is the fundamental point of Memorialism.
If they still insist that the Substances of the Bread and Wine are changed to the Human Flesh and Human Blood, then they must prove it, which could never be done so far.
If they claim none of the above, they may be claiming either Illusion, or Delusion, or Deception. Please prove it!

2) Biblical Trespassing.
If they drink Blood, it is a violation of the Law given by God in Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 12:16, 15:23
They are confessing that they are ignorant about the Law of God and they are cut off from the people of God.
None of the ECF's exegeses could be presented on this question. None of the Catholic sites provides the explanation on this issue, as far as I know. Therefore, RCC who are usually bringing the ready-made Catholic interpretation like parrots, rather than their own thinking and interpretation, cannot find the answer to this question again.
If they are honest, they must try to answer to this.
Was Jesus violating the Law when He gave the cup? Did He indeed distribute the human Blood to the disciples to drink?

3) Ignorance of the Bible
The Blood was to be offered to God, not to the human beings to eat. This is the fundamental Tru!th, for which Jesus came to this world. But RCC doesn't know this truth! How miserably foolish they are!
The whole Redemption Truth is based on this Truth and Jesus offered Himself at the Cross by shedding the precious Blood there, based on this Truth!
Did disciples suck the Blood shed at the Cross?


As for John 6:63, RCC made some childish interpretation on it., but don't understand why the Jews left Jesus.
The Jews came to Jesus to get some physical food like Manna after eating miraculous food from 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes.
They still pursued the physical food to eat.
So they said this:
John 6:
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Then Jesus said
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

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

Then the Jews were disappointed and departed from Jesus


66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

RC people are confessing that they are the descendants of those Jews who pursued the physical food instead of Words of God, then were disappointed with Jesus and departed from Him.

The Words of God are the real food for the life of the believers, which is not understood by many natural or carnal churchmen ( 1 Cor 2:14, 3:1, 3:3)

 

Then it is high time for you to answer my questions biblically.

Should I reiterate my questions again here? Read above !

People standing on the Transubstantiation seems to be standing on the sinking sand as do the people believing in the Purgatory.

 

Matt, first of all I want to thank and praise you for the answers.
I feel we can narrow the gap between my belief and your understanding, at least.

Matt said: : I presume you mean the following?:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
If I need to define the issues more, I would add as follows:

1) Are the Believers eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the Blood of Jesus at the Lord's Supper?

Matt said : Yes, at least spiritually


Eliyahu answers: so, you mean that it is not Physically, right?
Then you are admittting that Bread and Wine are the Spritual Symbols, not the physical change in substances.

What I asked you was if the Substances of Bread and Wine are changed to Flesh and Blood physically. Would you be honest once more to reiterate whether the Believers are eating Flesh and drinking Blood physically?



Quote:
2) Is the Blood shed by Jesus for the people to eat? Did Jesus shed His Blood for eating?
Matt said : Er...I think you'll find it's for drinking not for eating


Eliyahu answers:

So, you believe that Blood was for the people to Drink, don't you? You believe that Drinking Blood is OK, though Eating Blood was prohibited, don't you?

You better ask any high school students whether you may drink Human Blood when God prohibited Eating of Blood.

Can you drink Blood without Eating?


Quote:
3) Or did Jesus offer His Blood as Sin Offering to God?
Matt said : Jesus offered Himself as a sin offering to God in our place

Eliyahu answers : Then Jesus didn't offer Himself for the human bneings to eat and drink, right?



Quote:
4) When we read John 6, Jesus said " Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Does this mean that we should eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?
Matt said : We should eat the Bread and drink the Wine which become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus

Eliyahu answers:
Now you are admitting that we should eat the Bread and drink Wine, not the Flesh and Blood, right?

where do the Bread and Drink become Flesh and Blood of Jesus? Is it in the intestine, in the belly? or just by believing so or reckoning so?


Quote:
This was said before the Crucifixion, during OT times when the people had do keep the Commandments of God that one should not eat Blood.
Did Jesus say to the people that they should eat and drink His Blood despite the Commandments of the Law in Leviticus 17:10-14 and Genesis 9:4?
Matt said : Er...that's what He said, yes - re-read John 6:32-59, If you have a problem with that and think He's breaking the Law, I suggest you take it up with Him!

Eliyahu answers:

Jesus didn't break the Law and what He meant by Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood was indicating the acceptance of His Words as you read the verse 63. People who had no faith could not understand what Jesus said, because they just pursued only the physical things, not the spiritual words.



Quote:
5) When Jesus instituted the Lord Supper, the time was before the Crucifixion, and therefore it was still during the OT times. Then did the Disciples eat Blood of Jesus at the Last Supper? Did they eat Human Flesh and Human Blood?
Matt said : No; the Body and Blood of Jesus had not then been sacrificed on the Cross

Eliyahu answers:

So, now you are admitting that Disciples ate neither the human flesh nor human blood, right?


Quote:
6) Jesus said this word:
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.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words by Flesh and Blood ?
Matt said : Sorry, I don't understand your question here

Eliyahu answers :
Sorry, it was not clear there.

Didn't Jesus mean His Words for the Relationship between Him and the Believers by saying " Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood" ? neither eating the physical Flesh nor drinking the physical blood?

Why does Jesus say His Words are Spirit and they are Life?


Quote:
7) Some say that the Flesh of Jesus is not applied to " Flesh profits nothing"
But IMO, they see the Words of Jesus by flesh:

2 Cor 5:
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

These are the main issues.
Matt said : I would see that Johannine verse as referring to the fleshly understanding of the Jews who deserted Him


Eliyahu answers:

Excellent understanding! You are correct.

That's why you and Roman Cahtolic should not follow the fleshly understanding of the Jews about the Words of Jesus in John 6, right?


Conclusion:

Don't you think that Transubstantiation could work only during the Dark Age when the science was not developed to prove it's wrong?
Don't you think it was still a violation of the Law prohibiting the drinking of Blood and a kind of Ignorance about the truth that Blood was not offered to human beings to eat, but to God as a Sin offering?

 

Amen! May God bless you throughout the life in Jesus Christ.

 

OK, I accept your explanation.

Again, you trust the magic transformation, which can not be proven, but turned to be a delusion or deception if tested.

I don't need to investigate the whole literatures before 1520, because Bible which was apparently written before 1520 prove it correctly, without any prejudice. Bible is very much enough to discern which one is correct.
But I read the artilces which indicate Paulicians didn't accept Transubstantiation, nor did Albigenes, nor Waldensians, though the prime sources are hard to find.

Not the physical flesh and blood, but the Bread and Wine as Flesh and Blood by Faith and by believing so, so that both Jesus and the believer may have the relationship of flesh and blood, right?

I know you are not Catholic. Why do you try to advocate what you don believe?

The comparison between dead sheep and living sheep doesn't apply to this case, unless you compare the meat and blood of a sheep to the donuts and German ice eiswein(ice wine).

If Rc believe that Accidents still remain unchanged, they admit that they follow the Memorialism.
( Only their language is different and their accidents means the Substance in chemistry)

If RCC deceived the people for centuries during the Dark Age, would you still follow them?

Matt, I hope you will be more honest and open-minded for your extremely important destiny.