Oh goodness. The lies your men have taught you.
LOL!
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The Lord's Supper is a sacrament in which the bread and the wine that we partake of are temporal elements pointing to a greater reality ~ which... just those words I think you'll agree with, but... The word
sacrament can be understood in a narrow sense and also a broad sense, and both at the same time. In the narrow sense, the term means the specific rites or ordinances that are observed in the church, and in the broader sense, it refers to the many ways that God communicates to His people through
object lessons, signs, or ordinary symbols that take on extraordinary meaning... but are still what they are. We can liken communion in this way to baptism, which is an outward sign and seal... an object lesson, sign, an ordinary symbol that takes on extraordinary meaning, which is namely that, in the case of an infant, the parents are dedicating their child to God and trusting by faith that God will, in His time, draw that child unto Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit. I know Catholics baptize infants, but I'm not quite sure if they really agree with this, but it is what it is. So these sacraments (communion and baptism) are through
ordinary elements and indicative of our trust, faith, and belief in God's promises, which... have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus.
At no point in Scripture did any of the Apostles that were present for the Last Supper call Him a liar after He said that the bread/wine was His body/blood.
Of course not. But the issue between folks like you and folks like me is... well, kind of like Bill Clinton once said "it depends on what you say the definition of 'is' is..." <chuckle>... it depends on what is really meant when you say here "
was His body/blood." It
could mean that the bread and wine actually were His body and blood, or it could mean that the bread and wine were ~ in a very real way, but spiritually ~ indicative of His body and blood... His life... that they were (and we today) proclaiming belief in, identification with, reliance on, even a
taking on of Christ and His righteousness ~ an acknowledgement both to ourselves and to others of our life in Christ, Who, as you will remember, I'm sure, said to His disciples (and us by extension, as recorded in all four gospels:
- "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39)... "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25).
- "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:35).
- "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it" (Luke 9:24).
- "Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life" (John 12:25).
Furthermore, Jesus never took back or explained away those words/actions as being a symbol like your Protestant men do today.
The words themselves were not the symbol/element. But even referring to your own words above ~ which are accurate; I'm not suggesting otherwise; they were the words of Christ Himself: yes, the bread/wine
was/were His body/blood ~ it can be understood in two very different senses, one being that they actually, were/are, in the wooden literal sense, or it can be understood that they were/are symbolic and indicative in the object lesson sense of being in Christ. Catholics, of course, have chosen the former, and Protestants have chosen the latter. And the reason they chose the latter is because virtually everything in Scripture points to it regarding other things; the Catholic position on this makes it the exception in comparison to virtually everything in Scripture... most notably, as I said, outward baptism by men with water (either by sprinkling or total immersion), which ~ I think even Catholics are on board with this; if not, that's another misconception on their part ~ does not save, only baptism by "water and the Spirit," by the Spirit and therefore spiritual, is effectual in conferring salvation upon individuals.
Paul doubled down on what Jesus said and wrote this 30 years after The Last Supper: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? What is your answer to Paul Pinseeker?
Precisely the same as directly above.
But wait!! There is more!!!
LOL!!!
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. A symbol can't bring damnation PinSeeker.
The issue here, Marymog, is
unworthiness. If one eats and drinks
in an unworthy manner ~ meaning he or she is
still of the devil; his or her
father is still the devil and not God; he or she is
not really in Christ at all ~ then
that can bring damnation.
Now to debunk your other lie.
<
eye roll>
Transubstantiation is not a "exclusively Catholic doctrine".
I'll take your word for that; it matters not. If there is any other group that believes in transubstantiation, that group is just as wrong. Now, this does not then mean that they are "stupid," or "dumb," ~ or "lying" ~ or even "worse" or "lesser Christians," but just... mistaken.
You don't need to "get a better idea" on who I think the early fathers are. It's very simple...
Yes, I'm well aware. <
smile> And also why... <
smile>
Grace and peace to you, Curious Mary...
<
smile> Grace and peace to you.
