First Things

[LDSMusic483]

i edited that to fully explain but here it is again:your comment just like the Romans is a misunderstanding that led the unbelieving jews and disiples in John 6 to reject Jesus when he said they must eat his body and drink his blood. they thought jesus was commanding them to consume him in a bloody, cannibalistic way...however, the believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper...Jesus revealed that they would receive his true body and blood sacramentally (present in a hidden way).in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but not with their normal physical properties. Jesus' body inst spread out in space; its normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. while the apostles truly consumed Christ's real body and blood, it wasnt cannibalism, because Christ wasnt in his natural condition. they didnt bite off pieces of Christ's arm for example, or swallow quantities of his blood; instead they recieved Christ whole and entire- body, blood, soul and divinity- under the appearance of bread and wine. receiving Christ's real, but sacramental presence in the Eucharist has nothing to do with cannibalism or drinking blood...you were trying to prove that it is symbol by him saying do this in rememberence...that has nothing to do with being symbolic....because we do that too...we do what he has taught in ever service....but i do appreciate you trying though...

Christ was resurrected, and His body and spirit were reunited to never be separated again. So how does His flesh get separated from Him every time you partake of it?

[Servant]

flyonthewall (dont know why but i like your name not that i like flies or anything)...here maybe i can explain the view about the "rememberence of me"...St. Paul celebrates the Eucharist in obedience to Christ's command, "do this in memory of me." Did the early Christians believe in the literal flesh and blood presence of Christ in the Eucharist? did the Apostles believe that they:a) distributed mere bread and wine as a symbol of Christ; orB) consecrated the actual body and blood of Christ?Consider the witness of St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread that we break, is it not a partiicpation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10;16). St. Paul says that in the eucharist we participate in Christ's own body and blood, not in a mere symbol or memory of Christ. Symbolic bread and wine cannot unite us to Christ's real body and blood. the only way to participate in Jesus' body and blood through the Eucharist is if his body and blood are really present in the Eucharist.St. Paul warns Christians not to receive the Eucharist unworthily: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11;27). In St. Paul's time the expression "to answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of murder, of shedding that person's blood. if we receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, we are guilty of a sacrilege comparable to shedding Christ's blood. we cannot be guilty of murder if we only violate someone's symbolic presence. For example, if a man beheads a statue of the pope or stomps on a picture of his wife, he might be guilty of disrespect, but certainly not assault, much less murder. Damaging a symbol doesnt damage the person. how can we be held to "answer for the body and blood of the Lord" if his body and blood arent really there in the Eucharist? Paul's words are meaningless without the Real Presence.st. Paul continues: "A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment [damnation] on himself" (1 Cor. 11;28-29). St. Paul says we are condemned for not recgnizing and acknowledging the body of the Lord. How can we be held accountable for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Eucharist if it is only a bit of bread and wine? the possibility of not recognizing Jesus in the Eucharist implies that he is actually there to recognize.

Christ was resurrected, and His body and spirit were reunited to never be separated again. So how does His flesh get separated from Him every time you partake of it?

if you go read everything I said you may get it...hint....Trinity

[LDSMusic483]

flyonthewall (dont know why but i like your name not that i like flies or anything)...here maybe i can explain the view about the "rememberence of me"...St. Paul celebrates the Eucharist in obedience to Christ's command, "do this in memory of me." Did the early Christians believe in the literal flesh and blood presence of Christ in the Eucharist? did the Apostles believe that they:a) distributed mere bread and wine as a symbol of Christ; orB) consecrated the actual body and blood of Christ?Consider the witness of St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread that we break, is it not a partiicpation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10;16). St. Paul says that in the eucharist we participate in Christ's own body and blood, not in a mere symbol or memory of Christ. Symbolic bread and wine cannot unite us to Christ's real body and blood. the only way to participate in Jesus' body and blood through the Eucharist is if his body and blood are really present in the Eucharist.St. Paul warns Christians not to receive the Eucharist unworthily: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11;27). In St. Paul's time the expression "to answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of murder, of shedding that person's blood. if we receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, we are guilty of a sacrilege comparable to shedding Christ's blood. we cannot be guilty of murder if we only violate someone's symbolic presence. For example, if a man beheads a statue of the pope or stomps on a picture of his wife, he might be guilty of disrespect, but certainly not assault, much less murder. Damaging a symbol doesnt damage the person. how can we be held to "answer for the body and blood of the Lord" if his body and blood arent really there in the Eucharist? Paul's words are meaningless without the Real Presence.st. Paul continues: "A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment [damnation] on himself" (1 Cor. 11;28-29). St. Paul says we are condemned for not recgnizing and acknowledging the body of the Lord. How can we be held accountable for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Eucharist if it is only a bit of bread and wine? the possibility of not recognizing Jesus in the Eucharist implies that he is actually there to recognize.if you go read everything I said you may get it...hint....Trinity

This is how the scripture reads in the King James version, which renders a different undrestanding than yours.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this abread, and drink this cup of the Lord, bunworthily, shall cbe dguilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man aexamine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

[Servant]

Okay. Now explain to me where this is outlined in Scripture and why we must interpret it to be a literal transformation rather than a symbolic representation.

Because no matter how you slice it (ooohhh, I'm going to Hell for that pun alone), if you're consuming Christ's blood and flesh, it's still- by definition- cannibalism.

Again, I'd like to see an unequivocal Scriptural reference for this.

But whatever the appearance- it's still human flesh.

If you were to grind human flesh down into hamburger, it's still human flesh, despite the change in appearance.

How do you know? What's your scriptural reference for this, and why can't we take those references to be symbolic rather than literal?

I don't think you've proven that, Servant. Now, for the record, I agree with you that it's not cannibalism(but obviously for very different reasons).

Believe it or not, I have a great deal of reverence for Catholic belief- were I not Mormon, I suspect I would be Catholic by now- but I want to look at this issue logically.

then you are no different from the ones that left Jesus and no different from the roman pagans...

doesnt bother me any...

Psalm 27;2, Isaiah 9;18-20, Isiah 49;26, Micah 3;3, 2 Samuel 23;15-17, and Revelation 17;6, 16.

If Jesus was speaking only figurartively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as non catholics claim, then what he really means is "whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life." this makes nonsense of the passage

[Servant]

This is how the scripture reads in the King James version, which renders a different undrestanding than yours.

the meaning is the same my friend...

so can YOU answer my first question?

could you prove that it is just a symbol?

this is actually a yes or no question....although if yes...plelase give it a shot...

but please dont distract...

lets move on by answering my first question...

if the answer is no then lets move on...if the answer is yes then please show me...and then we can move on...and I will learn how to be an atheist...

[LDSMusic483]

then you are no different from the ones that left Jesus and no different from the roman pagans...

doesnt bother me any...

Psalm 27;2, Isaiah 9;18-20, Isiah 49;26, Micah 3;3, 2 Samuel 23;15-17, and Revelation 17;6, 16.

If Jesus was speaking only figurartively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as non catholics claim, then what he really means is "whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life." this makes nonsense of the passage

1+1=10 Somehow? So if Christ was saying...remember me through this sacrament. Remember my blood being spilt and my flesh being torn. Remember my sacrifice for you. Take up your cross daily (no physical crosses here) and remember that even though I was perfect, I suffered all the sins of the imperfect. What He is saying is, if you remember and accept my sacrifice by what I have taught you to do...then you will have eternal life. Your reasoning is nonsense, and we are much better than the roman pagans. Christ rarely spoke literally, even though individuals may have understood it that way. He only explained Himself to those who were spiritually ready. He would not run after people because that takes away the element of them receiving a testimony for themselves as Peter did. The apostles were not offended of Christ because they knew He had the words of Eternal Life. Why did the others not understand the same thing? If someone truly had a testimony, they would more likely have said...this is something difficult for me to understand...but I know He is the Son of God, so why should I be offended of Him?

[Servant]

1+1=10 Somehow? So if Christ was saying...remember me through this sacrament. Remember my blood being spilt and my flesh being torn. Remember my sacrifice for you. Take up your cross daily (no physical crosses here) and remember that even though I was perfect, I suffered all the sins of the imperfect. What He is saying is, if you remember and accept my sacrifice by what I have taught you to do...then you will have eternal life. Your reasoning is nonsense, and we are much better than the roman pagans. Christ rarely spoke literally, even though individuals may have understood it that way. He only explained Himself to those who were spiritually ready. He would not run after people because that takes away the element of them receiving a testimony for themselves as Peter did. The apostles were not offended of Christ because they knew He had the words of Eternal Life. Why did the others not understand the same thing? If someone truly had a testimony, they would more likely have said...this is something difficult for me to understand...but I know He is the Son of God, so why should I be offended of Him?

I will be gladly to answer this as soon as you can answer mine...

[LDSMusic483]

the meaning is the same my friend...so can YOU answer my first question?could you prove that it is just a symbol?this is actually a yes or no question....although if yes...plelase give it a shot...but please dont distract...lets move on by answering my first question...if the answer is no then lets move on...if the answer is yes then please show me...and then we can move on...and I will learn how to be an atheist...

Before I do that, I want to point something out. You said earlier that the people weren't following Christ because of miracles? John 6:30-3630 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. I have bolded two parts.First...they were looking for a sign. What did Christ teach about sign seakers?Second...Christ said that they had seen Him (not to mention all of the "signs" He had already done) and then He said they "believe[d] not."As I said earlier, those who left Him were not true disciples. They did NOT believe (as spoken by first themselves "that we may see, and believe thee", and by Christ "Ye have seen me, and believe not") in Him, and as is wont to happen, they take something they can cause to be offensive because they didn't have "ears to hear" and left. Now, you made the statement that Christ was clearly being literal because "believing disciples" left because of the hard teaching. I have shown they did not already believe in Him, but those who did ("though hast the words of Eternal Life") stayed. So you must still prove that it is literal, which you have not done.

I will be gladly to answer this as soon as you can answer mine...

I have just shown that it was not believing disciples who left Him. Those who are not spiritually in tune with faith as their anchor shall not understand Christ when He speaks in symbols, parables, and allegories. Those who did not believe, could not understand more than literally,...and they left. They were not prepared to understand the deaper meaning and receive the "words of eternal life."

[Servant]

Before I do that, I want to point something out. You said earlier that the people weren't following Christ because of miracles? John 6:30-3630 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. I have bolded two parts.First...they were looking for a sign. What did Christ teach about sign seakers?Second...Christ said that they had seen Him (not to mention all of the "signs" He had already done) and then He said they "believe[d] not."As I said earlier, those who left Him were not true disciples. They did NOT believe (as spoken by first themselves "that we may see, and believe thee", and by Christ "Ye have seen me, and believe not") in Him, and as is wont to happen, they take something they can cause to be offensive because they didn't have "ears to hear" and left. Now, you made the statement that Christ was clearly being literal because "believing disciples" left because of the hard teaching. I have shown they did not already believe in Him, but those who did ("though hast the words of Eternal Life") stayed. So you must still prove that it is literal, which you have not done.

only one thing you are missing...there were people who wouldnt get or see or just following him just because...like the Pharasees....and scribes...to catch him in their trap...yeah i agree there...but they were NOT Jesus' disciples...the disciples didnt follow Jesus just for the miracles...

there were followers as you claim but then there were the disciples...it says many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him...and it was because they took him literally...not because of no miracles...like some were...so please...dont say stuff that really isnt there...

we are talking about jesus disciples...

please one more time...could you prove that the Eucharist is just a symbol? it seems that nobody can...because they keep going either in circles or trying to distract my question from answering...why is that? is it because you cant? if you cant then that too will be fine...i can deal with you saying that I cant prove that it is used symbolic...

lets stay focus...

[Servant]

I have just shown that it was not believing disciples who left Him. Those who are not spiritually in tune with faith as their anchor shall not understand Christ when He speaks in symbols, parables, and allegories. Those who did not believe, could not understand more than literally,...and they left. They were not prepared to understand the deaper meaning and receive the "words of eternal life."

uhm..nice try...the only problem is.....John chapter 6 is not a parable...

[LDSMusic483]

only one thing you are missing...there were people who wouldnt get or see or just following him just because...like the Pharasees....and scribes...to catch him in their trap...yeah i agree there...but they were NOT Jesus' disciples...the disciples didnt follow Jesus just for the miracles...

there were followers as you claim but then there were the disciples...it says many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him...and it was because they took him literally...not because of no miracles...like some were...so please...dont say stuff that really isnt there...

we are talking about jesus disciples...

please one more time...could you prove that the Eucharist is just a symbol? it seems that nobody can...because they keep going either in circles or trying to distract my question from answering...why is that? is it because you cant? if you cant then that too will be fine...i can deal with you saying that I cant prove that it is used symbolic...

lets stay focus...

You have yet to prove that it's literal. In v.60-64 He was addressing His disciples when He said some didn't believe. Not Pharisees, not scribes...He specifically says disciples. Here, let me quote it for you:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus aknew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this boffend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the aSon of man bascend up where he was before?

63 It is the aspirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should abetray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, aexcept it were given unto him of my Father.

He was addressing His disciples and said that there were some who believed not. These were those who murmured and subsequently left. So, once again. Prove it is literal.

I never said that John 6 WAS a parable, only implied Christ rarely gave His direct meaning. Even His apostles had to have Him clarify when He said Lazarus was sleeping. The clarifications were normally reserved for the few whom Christ knew to believe in Him.

[selek]

then you are no different from the ones that left Jesus and no different from the roman pagans...

That really isn't very Christian of you, Servant.

I am a disciple of Christ, however imperfect.

More to the point, despite my infirmities and imperfections, I have not left Christ, nor he me.

You might wish to check your scriptural references a bit more carefully, Servant. None of these verses do what you claim they will.

Psalm 27 is a song of David where he rejoiced that the Lord delivered and preserved him. None of his foes were cannibals, so he was most assuredly speaking symbolically when he said:

Psalm 27:2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

Isaiah- a book noted for its use of symbolism- does talk about Christ being born. But the verses you cited (18-20) are a prophecy (still extremely heavy in symbolism) regarding the wicked eating their own flesh in an attempt to satisfy their hunger. There is no mention of the Sacrament nor of Christ's atonement in these verses.

Isaiah 9 18-20 18

[LDSMusic483]

You, Servant, like the Jews of that day are mistorting the beautiful symbology of the words of Christ. He is the bread of life. He's not literally a loaf of bread, but the Jews understood the symbology behind that and either were so spiritually unatuned that they couldn't understand, or wouldn't. Eating of is flesh and drinking of His blood is accepting Him as the literal Son of God and Messiah. The Jews who left could not accept this, Him being different than what they were thiking that they were waiting for all ther lives.

[Flyonthewall]

flyonthewall (dont know why but i like your name not that i like flies or anything)...here maybe i can explain the view about the "rememberence of me"...St. Paul celebrates the Eucharist in obedience to Christ's command, "do this in memory of me." Did the early Christians believe in the literal flesh and blood presence of Christ in the Eucharist? did the Apostles believe that they:a) distributed mere bread and wine as a symbol of Christ; orB) consecrated the actual body and blood of Christ?Consider the witness of St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread that we break, is it not a partiicpation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10;16). St. Paul says that in the eucharist we participate in Christ's own body and blood, not in a mere symbol or memory of Christ. Symbolic bread and wine cannot unite us to Christ's real body and blood. the only way to participate in Jesus' body and blood through the Eucharist is if his body and blood are really present in the Eucharist.St. Paul warns Christians not to receive the Eucharist unworthily: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11;27). In St. Paul's time the expression "to answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of murder, of shedding that person's blood. if we receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, we are guilty of a sacrilege comparable to shedding Christ's blood. we cannot be guilty of murder if we only violate someone's symbolic presence. For example, if a man beheads a statue of the pope or stomps on a picture of his wife, he might be guilty of disrespect, but certainly not assault, much less murder. Damaging a symbol doesnt damage the person. how can we be held to "answer for the body and blood of the Lord" if his body and blood arent really there in the Eucharist? Paul's words are meaningless without the Real Presence.st. Paul continues: "A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment [damnation] on himself" (1 Cor. 11;28-29). St. Paul says we are condemned for not recgnizing and acknowledging the body of the Lord. How can we be held accountable for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Eucharist if it is only a bit of bread and wine? the possibility of not recognizing Jesus in the Eucharist implies that he is actually there to recognize.

I understand that you read a very literal meaning to this concept. If the scriptures are looked to in their entirety, then you will notice that it is full of symbolism.

We are held accountable for "discerning" the body of the Lord, by understanding what the bread and water/wine symbolize. Symbolism represents a much larger concept than the symbols themselves. The bread and water I partake of represent something much larger than just a piece of bread, and a sip of water.

When I see someone burning an American Flag, I understand that they did not literally set the entire nation of fire, but I also realize that that piece of cloth with those colors in that design represents the nation, and as such, means a lot more than just a piece of cloth with various colors on it.

I have already laid out why I believe the the last supper was symbolic. Jesus laid out a concept initially, and then explained what he meant during the last supper, and Paul further explained it afterwards.

Since the bread and wine/water are symbols of the Atonement, those that partake of them unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, because that is the offering Christ made for sin. When one partakes unworthily, it is like we add another stripe to His back, shed one more drop of His blood, or another way of looking at it, and probably more accurate, we waste a portion of His flesh and blood that was offered.

[Servant]

You, Servant, like the Jews of that day are mistorting the beautiful symbology of the words of Christ. He is the bread of life. He's not literally a loaf of bread, but the Jews understood the symbology behind that and either were so spiritually unatuned that they couldn't understand, or wouldn't. Eating of is flesh and drinking of His blood is accepting Him as the literal Son of God and Messiah. The Jews who left could not accept this, Him being different than what they were thiking that they were waiting for all ther lives.

Jesus was a jew....but we are talking about Jesus diciples who left...lets focus what scripture says and not add to them or change them...

of course Jesus is the bread o f life it says that in John 6;35...it says "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger; whoever believes in me will never thirst." when Jesus calls himself the "bread of life" he is simply saying that if we believe in him, he will nourish us spiritually...we "eat" and "drink" Jesus, our spiritual food, by coming to and believing in him....if Jesus had said no more than that, Catholics wouldnt believe in the Real Presence. But Jesus doesnt stop at verse 35. Remember, the "bread of life" discourse has two parts. In the first (verses 22-47), Jesus primarily stresses the necessity of believeing in him. In the second (verses 48-59), Jesus goes on to tell us exactly what he means by calling himself "bread." The bread Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us plainly that the bread is his own flesh, the very same flesh that he is going to offer for the life of the world (verse 51). Think about this....Jesus equates the flesh we must eat for eternal life with the flesh offered on the cross! Either they are both literal or they are both figuative. No Christian doubts that Christ offered his real flesh on the cross. Theorfore, we cannot doubt that Christ wants us to eat his real flesh (remember sacrament read what i wrote before) for our salvation.

when Jesus explains that the bread of life is literally his flesh we must accept his clear words. we cannot prefer a different explanation (like what you are trying to do) to the one Jesus himself provides. Believeing in Jesus (the teaching of the first part of the discourse) means also beleiving that he will give us his actual flesh and blood to eat (the teaching of the second part)

[LDSMusic483]

Jesus was a jew....but we are talking about Jesus diciples who left...lets focus what scripture says and not add to them or change them...

of course Jesus is the bread o f life it says that in John 6;35...it says "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger; whoever believes in me will never thirst." when Jesus calls himself the "bread of life" he is simply saying that if we believe in him, he will nourish us spiritually...we "eat" and "drink" Jesus, our spiritual food, by coming to and believing in him....if Jesus had said no more than that, Catholics wouldnt believe in the Real Presence. But Jesus doesnt stop at verse 35. Remember, the "bread of life" discourse has two parts. In the first (verses 22-47), Jesus primarily stresses the necessity of believeing in him. In the second (verses 48-59), Jesus goes on to tell us exactly what he means by calling himself "bread." The bread Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us plainly that the bread is his own flesh, the very same flesh that he is going to offer for the life of the world (verse 51). Think about this....Jesus equates the flesh we must eat for eternal life with the flesh offered on the cross! Either they are both literal or they are both figuative. No Christian doubts that Christ offered his real flesh on the cross. Theorfore, we cannot doubt that Christ wants us to eat his real flesh (remember sacrament read what i wrote before) for our salvation.

when Jesus explains that the bread of life is literally his flesh we must accept his clear words. we cannot prefer a different explanation (like what you are trying to do) to the one Jesus himself provides. Believeing in Jesus (the teaching of the first part of the discourse) means also beleiving that he will give us his actual flesh and blood to eat (the teaching of the second part)

I feel so bad for all of those individuals in the Old Testament who were righteous, but didn't eat Christs flesh, because the sacrament hadn't been instituted yet. That would be what a literal reading would mean. Christ plainly said they had no life in them. He also said they wouldn't raise up at the last day either. But you know...figuratively speaking...they did look forward to Christs sacrifice. They utilized His sacrifice in their very lives. Not eating flesh and drinking blood, but by accepting Him as who He was and accepting His gospel.

[Servant]

That really isn't very Christian of you, Servant.I am a disciple of Christ, however imperfect.More to the point, despite my infirmities and imperfections, I have not left Christ, nor he me.You might wish to check your scriptural references a bit more carefully, Servant. None of these verses do what you claim they will.Psalm 27 is a song of David where he rejoiced that the Lord delivered and preserved him. None of his foes were cannibals, so he was most assuredly speaking symbolically when he said:Isaiah- a book noted for its use of symbolism- does talk about Christ being born. But the verses you cited (18-20) are a prophecy (still extremely heavy in symbolism) regarding the wicked eating their own flesh in an attempt to satisfy their hunger. There is no mention of the Sacrament nor of Christ's atonement in these verses.The very next verse, verse 21, speaks of Ephraim and Manasseh standing against Judah- yet these men had been dead for hundreds of years at that point. Clearly, it is not the men in question- but they are being named symbolically to represent the tribes descended from them. The next verse you cite, still in Isaiah, is again a threatening and a prophecy about the fate of the wicked. Again, no mention of Christ, the Sacrament or his atonement- only a warning that the wicked will dine on their own flesh.Your next citation- in Micah- is also heavily symbolic, and talks about priests who teach and prophesy for money:Again, no mention of Christ, the Sacrament or his atonement.Did you bother to check the Samuel reference before you posted it? The verses have nothing at all to do with Christ or the Sacrament. The verses you cited talk about David speaking symbolically about a cup of water.Revelation is yet another book replete with heavy symbolism and these verses are absolutely drunken with it:Are you really going to suggest that the Apostle John looked upon the Whore of Babylon with genuine admiration, or do you think it means something else? This entire passage is symbolism and metaphor- which does no credit to your argument.Again- rampant symbolism, and absolutely nothing to do with Christ, his sacrifice, or the Sacrament.All those references- and those accusations that I've abandoned Christ- and not one verse showing why we should take the Sacrament as literally the body and blood of Christ instead of as acknowledging them as symbols of the same.This is a complete nonsequitor, Servant. That the bread and wine are symbols of his flesh and blood does not in any way make Christ a liar.It does, however, raise questions about your credulousness.

your first comment in this post says it wasnt very christian of me...well the same goes when you threw that cheap shot anti chatholic remark...i apologize on my part but you wree not very christian yourself...then you go on and not address anything but call it symbolic without making sense of the scripture that I put out...for example I gave you scripture....where it shows to take communion symbolic is an assault...and if you believe it to be symbol it is the same as saying this:If Jesus was speaking only figurartively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as non catholics claim, then what he really means is "whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life."your reply was: "This is a complete nonsequitor, Servant. That the bread and wine are symbols of his flesh and blood does not in any way make Christ a liar.It does, however, raise questions about your credulousness."but yet you havent address or made sense of the scripture that I have used...but you want to call them symbolic you want to ignore what the scripture says...I bet you anything you didnt even read the scriptures I gave out, did you?last time...im being fair....can you or cant you prove that the Eucharist is symbolic....Jesus said MY flesh not THE flesh...but MY flesh...see there is a big difference...I will believe what Jesus said...and what the Early Church said...unless you can show me where it says the Eucharist is only symbolically...but then alot of stuff wouldnt make sense at all...like the stuff that I showed you...please just answer my first question....either you can or you cant...

I feel so bad for all of those individuals in the Old Testament who were righteous, but didn't eat Christs flesh, because the sacrament hadn't been instituted yet. That would be what a literal reading would mean. Christ plainly said they had no life in them. He also said they wouldn't raise up at the last day either. But you know...figuratively speaking...they did look forward to Christs sacrifice. They utilized His sacrifice in their very lives. Not eating flesh and drinking blood, but by accepting Him as who He was and accepting His gospel.

the old testament are not doomed if that is what you are trying to imply...they were saved by the law of moses...Jesus is in the NEW testament...as the new covenant...lets not play games...just answer my question i will just take it that you have no clue...because you have not once demonstrated closely what im asking you are back peddaling....

[LDSMusic483]

the old testament are not doomed if that is what you are trying to imply...they were saved by the law of moses...Jesus is in the NEW testament...as the new covenant...lets not play games...just answer my question i will just take it that you have no clue...because you have not once demonstrated closely what im asking you are back peddaling....

You really are another Johnny aren't you? Female version anyway.

[Servant]

You really are another Johnny aren't you? Female version anyway.

nice....a nice way to blow it off...ok...whatever

no but you seem to keep going in circles...you are not even answering a simple question...instead you go on over the same thing...basically...

i will just take it that you cant prove that the Eucharist is only symbolic....

this could of been cleared along time ago...but you decide to respond and avoid the main question....but you go around and ask questions this and that...which has NOTHING to do with what im asking....

you can say what you wish...that is fine with me....just because im making you keep focus and not allowing you to distract from the main question....but im the one who is keeping focus here it seems...

most of the time people who cant answer a question tends to move the main question or subject to something else because they either dont know or cant prove or dont want to say because they would have to admit they were wrong...

I get that...

so to save you from answering a simple question (which nobody has done yet so far) we will just agree to disagree...

you believe it to be....symbolic....

and I will believe in the Real Presence...

ok?

[LDSMusic483]

nice....a nice way to blow it off...ok...whatever

no but you seem to keep going in circles...you are not even answering a simple question...instead you go on over the same thing...basically...

i will just take it that you cant prove that the Eucharist is only symbolic....

this could of been cleared along time ago...but you decide to respond and avoid the main question....but you go around and ask questions this and that...which has NOTHING to do with what im asking....

you can say what you wish...that is fine with me....just because im making you keep focus and not allowing you to distract from the main question....but im the one who is keeping focus here it seems...

Yes I can prove it.

D&C 20:77-79

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this abread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and bwitness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his ccommandments which he has given them; that they may always have his dSpirit to be with them. Amen.

78 The amanner of administering the wineâ??he shall take the bcup also, and say:

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this awine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

In both of those verses, Christ states that we partake in remembrance. Obviously modern revelation was needed by some for clarification. Prove that the quoted section wasn't a revelation from God.

[Servant]

Yes I can prove it.

D&C 20:77-79

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this abread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and bwitness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his ccommandments which he has given them; that they may always have his dSpirit to be with them. Amen.

78 The amanner of administering the wineâ??he shall take the bcup also, and say:

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this awine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

In both of those verses, Christ states that we partake in remembrance. Obviously modern revelation was needed by some for clarification. Prove that the quoted section wasn't a revelation from God.

this is like telling an atheist that God exist because the bible says so...

the only people that holds D&C as scripture is Mormons...

sorry...

you didnt prove a thing to me...

maybe you would do a better job if I didnt say I would become an atheist...maybe you are worried about my salvation...so I will tell you what...

if you can without going in circles like you have been and get to the point of my MAIN question which prove to me that the Eucharist is symbolic and I will become a mormon is that better? instead of an atheist I would be a mormon...

rules...cant bring up what has already been brought up...I dont feel like recopying and pasting the same thing...

show me in the bible...where God says that the Eucharist is only symbolism...

[Servant]

but on a good note...at least you can prove it to Mormons....

so I guess you did...but that wasnt what I was asking I asked prove to me

[LDSMusic483]

this is like telling an atheist that God exist because the bible says so...

the only people that holds D&C as scripture is Mormons...

sorry...

you didnt prove a thing to me...

maybe you would do a better job if I didnt say I would become an atheist...maybe you are worried about my salvation...so I will tell you what...

if you can without going in circles like you have been and get to the point of my MAIN question which prove to me that the Eucharist is symbolic and I will become a mormon is that better? instead of an atheist I would be a mormon...

rules...cant bring up what has already been brought up...I dont feel like recopying and pasting the same thing...

show me in the bible...where God says that the Eucharist is only symbolism...

So you don't think the sacrament is meant to show (symbolically) the death of Christ?

[Servant]

So you don't think the sacrament is meant to show (symbolically) the death of Christ?

you showed me something that JS wrote...sorry the D&C is not scripture to me...

as I said all you could show by using the D&C is proving it to other Mormons...when I asked you to prove it to me...obviously im not a Mormon

I talked about the death on the cross....already btw...

so.....do you have anything else....like what it says in the bible?

[LDSMusic483]

you showed me something that JS wrote...sorry the D&C is not scripture to me...

as I said all you could show by using the D&C is proving it to other Mormons...when I asked you to prove it to me...obviously im not a Mormon

I talked about the death on the cross....already btw...

so.....do you have anything else....like what it says in the bible?

Could you just repeat a brief summary of it for me? I don't really feel like re-looking through this entire post. Are you saying that you do not believe that the sacrament is meant to symbolically show the death of Christ? You can even cut and paste if you know where you addressed it. Also, do you believe if any part of the sacrament is symbol?