First Things

[Servant]

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?

any sacrament as a symbol?

did I just waste hours on explaining my point...my main question?

so you want me to go and search for the post for you?

well my child is home and im about to fix supper...maybe this evening i will....

[LDSMusic483]

any sacrament as a symbol?

did I just waste hours on explaining my point...my main question?

so you want me to go and search for the post for you?

well my child is home and im about to fix supper...maybe this evening i will....

Not any sacrament...but any part of the sacrament (Eucharist to you) is meant for symbolic purposes.

[Flyonthewall]

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...

I have already shown that Paul said the same thing:

1 Cor 11

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Paul stated that Christ said: "this do in remembrance of me". Notice that He did not say "this do to my body".

The broken bread is symbolic of Christ's broken body, and the wine was symbolic of the new testament, the blood of Christ. It is symbolic in the same way Jewish tradition before that time was all symbolic.

Again, I understand you put a more literal reading on this, but I see it as very out of line with everything else that was taught.

[LDSMusic483]

I have already shown that Paul said the same thing:Paul stated that Christ said: "this do in remembrance of me". Notice that He did not say "this do to my body".

The broken bread is symbolic of Christ's broken body, and the wine was symbolic of the new testament, the blood of Christ. It is symbolic in the same way Jewish tradition before that time was all symbolic.

Again, I understand you put a more literal reading on this, but I see it as very out of line with everything else that was taught.

Does this mean you'll convert to Mormonism Servant?

[Servant]

I have already shown that Paul said the same thing:Paul stated that Christ said: "this do in remembrance of me". Notice that He did not say "this do to my body". The broken bread is symbolic of Christ's broken body, and the wine was symbolic of the new testament, the blood of Christ. It is symbolic in the same way Jewish tradition before that time was all symbolic.Again, I understand you put a more literal reading on this, but I see it as very out of line with everything else that was taught.

just like I showed you what Paul really taught..did you happen to read it by any chance?

Does this mean you'll convert to Mormonism Servant?

no because he addressed this already and I replied to him...

the "do this in rememberence of me" is a command for him to celebrate the Eucharist...

I copied and pasted what I said before...see he already brought that up and I replied it seems that both of you didnt read it thoroughly...

[Servant]

I have already shown that Paul said the same thing:Paul stated that Christ said: "this do in remembrance of me". Notice that He did not say "this do to my body".

The broken bread is symbolic of Christ's broken body, and the wine was symbolic of the new testament, the blood of Christ. It is symbolic in the same way Jewish tradition before that time was all symbolic.

Again, I understand you put a more literal reading on this, but I see it as very out of line with everything else that was taught.

you already address this...but i will copy and paste what i said to you

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.

lets not keep going in circles ok?

do you have anything else that states in the bible that it is just symbolic?

do you have jesus saying "wait i didnt mean it that way let me explain"

or do you have maybe more direct "the Eucharist is not literal speaking it is only symbolic"...

or do you have "the Eucharist is not really the flesh and blood but ONLY a saying that has another meaning to it" or do you have something else?

[Servant]

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?

does this answer your question?

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)

[Servant]

you also might find interest to know that the Catholics are not the only one who believes in the real presence...

the Orthodox do...

Lutheran does (for sure)

and others too...

just so you know that it isnt only the Catholics who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

[selek]

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?

You are a liar-

Not only did I read each of the Scriptures you offered, I QUOTED THEM IN FULL and showed point by point that none of them said what you claimed.

Now you come up with this?

No- I disagree with an earlier poster- You're not a female Johnny.

Johnny at least has some integrity....

Given your continued evasions, distortions, misrepresentations of the Scriptures, and now outright lying it is quite clear that you are no witness of Christ and are not interested in the truth.....

......I dust my feet of you.

[cksalmon]

You are a liar-

Goodness, that's a bit harsh, selek.

A Catholic version of "Obiwan?" Perhaps. But, I'm loath to attribute conscious deception to the merely unreflective.

Just sayin'.

cks

[selek]

Goodness, that's a bit harsh, selek.

A Catholic version of "Obiwan?" Perhaps. But, I'm loath to attribute conscious deception to the merely unreflective.

Just sayin'.

cks

Perhaps.

But it also happens to be true.

She quoted the post in which I answered her point-by-point even while accusing me of failing to answer- or even read- the Scriptures she proposed.

That goes beyond "unreflective" or "willfully obtuse" to deliberately deceptive.

[Servant]

You are a liar-

yeah right back at ya...

Not only did I read each of the Scriptures you offered, I QUOTED THEM IN FULL and showed point by point that none of them said what you claimed.

yes but it doesnt show that it was symbolic....which I have pointed it out....you give me scripture what YOU think it is but nowhere does it say that it is a symbol...now does it?

No- I disagree with an earlier poster- You're not a female Johnny.

Johnny at least has some integrity....

so you think insults will make you right? ok...whatever...

Given your continued evasions, distortions, misrepresentations of the Scriptures, and now outright lying it is quite clear that you are no witness of Christ and are not interested in the truth.....

misrepresentation of the Scriptures? are you for real? the Bible after all is a Catholic Book...if it wasnt for the Catholics who gathered the books to make the bible and called it the Word of God you wouldnt have a bible at all...are you telling me after 2000 years of theologians and people who studied the bible...who am I going to believe? you...or them? I think it is funny to see you write this...misrepresentation of the Scripture and one of the LDS here says that John chapter 6 is a parable (dont remember who said that...but im guess that is the LDS belief?)...yeah ok...lol....seriously...

by you calling me a liar and saying that Im not a witness of Christ and not interest in the truth.....you tell me that im not interest in the truth? but yet you cant prove that the Eucharist is a symbol....show me where it says this: "the Eucharist is symoblic" or "The Eucharist is not meant to be taken literally just pretend"....

you are a poor example of a "christian"

......I dust my feet of you.

so i take it that you are going to put me on ignore?

that would be nice since I dont have to take your insult...

you called me a liar...you did bring out some things you did not address all though like you claim...but when you addressed the ones you did...you didnt make sense of the scriptures I brought out...just little remarks like this:

I guess the roman pagans got it right about canniblism....Im just giving you an example of your "replies"

that is not addressing the scriptures that was brought up...you felt the need to make a cheap shot...so....

i think it would be good if you dust your feet of me...because frankly I rather deal with someone who can control themselves better...

you felt the need to insult me on more than one time....but that is ok...you are human...so am i...

have a good life...

[cksalmon]

Perhaps.

But it also happens to be true.

She quoted the post in which I answered her point-by-point even while accusing me of failing to answer- or even read- the Scriptures she proposed.

That goes beyond "unreflective" or "willfully obtuse" to deliberately deceptive.

i have already dont that with you....

Your target.

cks

[Servant]

Perhaps.

But it also happens to be true.

She quoted the post in which I answered her point-by-point even while accusing me of failing to answer- or even read- the Scriptures she proposed.

That goes beyond "unreflective" or "willfully obtuse" to deliberately deceptive.

im not saying that you didnt...im saying that when i replied to your post i showed you something else...your post doesnt show me that the Eucharist is symbolic ...you may think it is...but not what I see..the early church didnt think it was symbolic and neither do I.....that is what i was saying...my goodness...

but just so you know im sorry for not expressing it clearly....you did respond you did you did you did...what i should of said is the response to my question was not responded....in other words it is still left unanswered....i know you tried....

....

but sorry you felt the need to call me a liar...when it was me not expressing clearly...my fault...and for you to feel the need to go and say a few insulting things....that i did not make you do...that you did on your own....

first you called me not christian of me...or something like that...this was AFTER you spit out an anti catholic remark....

then you call me a liar....that was because i didnt express myself clearly....so i will take the blame for that...

you then belittle me by making me smaller than what some have made Johnny feel....and you have the gull to tell me that Im not a witness to Christ.....

why dont you take out that log that is in your eye before removing mine...hows that?

[Anijen]

Perhaps.

But it also happens to be true.

She quoted the post in which I answered her point-by-point even while accusing me of failing to answer- or even read- the Scriptures she proposed.

That goes beyond "unreflective" or "willfully obtuse" to deliberately deceptive.

I was about to write that you quoted and broke down the verses for her and then for her to say to you that you didnt answer or read I would have felt the same way.

Servant it is obvious to those who are reading the post that you are just repeating your same argument and a flawed one at that.

Eucharist is in remembrance it is not the literal body and blood of Christ, it is symbolic no wonder atheist shake their heads and think we are all dunderheads...

[Servant]

I was about to write that you quoted and broke down the verses for her and then for her to say to you that you didnt answer or read I would have felt the same way.

Servant it is obvious to those who are reading the post that you are just repeating your same argument and a flawed one at that.

Eucharist is in remembrance it is not the literal body and blood of Christ, it is symbolic no wonder atheist shake their heads and think we are all dunderheads...

im only repeating it because they keep repeating the same thing...

funny that you said that to me...after all several times when they drifted away a bit...i had to say "lets not go in circles"...

it is funny that you would point it at me when i was trying to keep them focused....

yeah...so if it is symbolic then Paul's words were meaningless then....and the other scripture...yeah ok...seriously...

rememberence was Jesus COMMAND to do it...

do this in rememberence...is a command...not a symbolic...

how is that symbolic? "DO THIS in rememberence of me"..."Do this....." is a command...

[Servant]

maybe I can just break everything down to make it clear....Jesus was not speaking symbolically about the Eucharist for the following reasons:

1. Jesus' Eucharistic discourse ends with verse John 6;58 (see verse 59). The dialogue of verses 60-70 occurs later and deals with faith, not the Eucharist.

2. the word "spirit" is nowhere used in the Bible to mean "symbolic." The spiritual is every bit as real as the material.

3. in verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man ("the flesh") with the spiritual or faith-filled man. 1 Cor. 2;14-3;4 offers a good explaintion of what Jesus means by "the flesh": Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone...Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealously and revalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in ordinary human way?

The contrast between the flesh (human thoughts and desires) and the spirit (human thoughts and desires elevated by grace) is made in Romans 8;1-13, especially verses 5-9; "For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. but you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the spirit of God dwells in you." Many other verses converm this meaning of the term "flesh": Gal 5;13-26, Romands 7;5-6, 25, Gal. 3;3, 4;29, 1 Pet. 3;18, Rom. 13;14 and 2 pet 2;10

4. Notice that Jesus says "my flesh" when discussing the Eucharist. he says "the flesh" when referring to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his sense and reason. No Christian believes that Jesus' flesh is "of no avail," for his flesh was the means of our redmption.

5. the unbelieving disciples leave Jesus AFTER verse 63. The would not have left at this point if Jesus had assured them that he was only speaking symbolically. This is the ONLY time in the NT that any of Jesus' disciples abandon him because they find a doctrine of his too hard to accept....why did the diciples left at this point instead of some other? I know one poster said they left because they only followed him for his miracles ....this had nothing to do with them leaving....if they were following him just for his mircals then they would of continued...they left him after verse 63...which has nothing to do with his miracles and why they left...

[Anijen]

im only repeating it because they keep repeating the same thing...

funny that you said that to me...after all several times when they drifted away a bit...i had to say "lets not go in circles"...

it is funny that you would point it at me when i was trying to keep them focused....

yeah...so if it is symbolic then Paul's words were meaningless then....and the other scripture...yeah ok...seriously...

rememberence was Jesus COMMAND to do it...

do this in rememberence...is a command...not a symbolic...

how is that symbolic? "DO THIS in rememberence of me"..."Do this....." is a command...

How is this symbolic? Well, when Jesus commanded them to do it in remembrance of Him, the bread when we break it is in remembrance (symbolic) of Christs' body and the water/wine would be in remembrance (symbolic) of his blood that he shed for us. The bread nor water/wine literally turns to blood and flesh that wouldn't be symbolic that would be actual. Just as a crown is symbolic of royalty, the Star of David for Judaism, the cross for Christianity etc. Bread and wine is symbolic of flesh and blood but not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. I am sure if I did a analysis of my stomach contents after partaking of the Eucharist or Sacrament I would not have human DNA in it.

[Cold Steel]

I've always thought it is a mistake to let the question be posed: "Are Mormons Christian?" Editors might do this because it sells and anti-Mormons do it because, well, they're anti-Mormons. It would be more fairly asked, "Is Mormonism Traditional Christianity?" because, clearly, we are Christian by every definition of the word. In a quote often attributed to Lincoln, it is asked, "How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?" The answer is still only four; it doesn't matter what you call the tail.

Look, Mormons don't exactly buy the legitimacy claimed by other Christians, either. We don't accept baptisms by Baptists and even other denominations that do it right, by immersion. And many other denominations don't accept our baptisms. On the other hand, how many "traditional Christians" fail to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit, an obvious Christian practice? So by failing to do that, we could make the argument that they aren't Christians because they reject it. But that would be as utterly stupid as them saying we're not Christians because our view of the Trinity is minutely different from theirs, so it's an absurd name calling thing. Jews and Muslims won't buy either of our views of the Trinity, so we're really arguing angels on the head of a pin.

Mormons are viewed by some denominations as "sheep stealers." We rob some churches of plate-passing members and are a financial threat. Others don't like us because they're certain our prophets are false and they view themselves as saving people from deception. But in this they would do well to remember the words of Gamaliel: "If the work is the work of man, it will fall; but if it is the work of God ye cannot destroy it, lest ye find yourselves at war with God."

Personally, I can't think of a worse thing than thinking I'm helping God, but in reality fighting against Him. That's why I'm very certain of my testimony of the gospel. Even so, we should not always let the editors and our enemies frame the question in the way they prefer. Unfortunately, the woes faced by our nation may soon swamp the petty differences we argue about on the Internet. In the meantime, we should make people understand that it's not a question of "if" we're Christian, but what sort of Christians we are. After all, not all Christians believe in the rapture. Not all Christians believe in premillennialism; some are preterists while others Dominonists. Some Christians huddle around lit candles and pray to images of saints. No one ever asks in bold headlines, "Are Catholics Christian?" (or perhaps they do); it's a fact, however, that some who say we aren't Christians also don't believe the Catholics are Christians. The lesson there is make sure your co-conspiritor doesn't have you on their list next.

[Anijen]

Servant wrote;

4. Notice that Jesus says "my flesh" when discussing the Eucharist. he says "the flesh" when referring to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his sense and reason. No Christian believes that Jesus' flesh is "of no avail," for his flesh was the means of our redmption.

Of course he said His flesh because it is in remembrance of him this does not make the bread his flesh. If he meant literal flesh he would of said when you eat this it turns into my flesh, but he did not he said eat in remembrance.

Servant I could (and I have did this)give lessons to native Islanders whom have never heard of Christ and tell them this story and they would instantly recognize the symbolism here. What you are doing and what the RCC has done is to make something so simple confusing, something clear obscure to the point where it is truly incomprehensible to comprehend.

[Servant]

Perhaps.

But it also happens to be true.

She quoted the post in which I answered her point-by-point even while accusing me of failing to answer- or even read- the Scriptures she proposed.

That goes beyond "unreflective" or "willfully obtuse" to deliberately deceptive.

ok i want to apologize again...you made me out to be some big meanie...which im not....

i do apologize for not being clearer...i do see that i made it sound as if you didnt say anything at all...that is not what i meant...i do apologize...for making it sound like that...i did not intend to make it sound as if you didnt respond at all...because you did respond to all...some were insults...some were just your opinion...some were scripture...you are right...you did...but what i was trying to say which i did say poorly was you didnt answer my question...you may think that you did...but nowhere did I see it the way you were trying to make it sound...no where in the bible nor can it really be proved that it is symbolic...unless it flats out says "The Euchrist is only symbolic" and as many times I have read the bible and took bible classes and theology classes have i ever read that it does...

i want to say im sorry that you got upset....i am not a liar i just am poor at speech...you know like Abraham was...he isnt a liar (im trying to be funny here)...

expressing is not my best skill...writing isnt either...yeah i can express and know what I know...but sometimes my mind works quicker than my hands and sometimes i do lose some train of thought...and it just comes out wrong...

i would feel much better if you called me a liar if you knew i was purposefully doing something just out of spite...

(well I guess you may have thought that....i know i thought that when you spit out your anti catholic remark...so thinking how i felt when you said that...i can now understand how you must feel...but trust me mine was not done intentionally)...

im ok if you dust your feet from me...really im..but know that i did not intentionally mean to cause you upset enough for this explosion...

im not a mean spiteful person....and just so you know I am a witness of Christ...and to be honest i wouldnt feel comfortable saying anybody wasnt...because only God really knows....people can judge wrongly....God knows the heart...

i just want to clear my mind before i go to bed...i dont want to think that you are upset...and i dont want you to think i did that on purpose...

[Servant]

Of course he said His flesh because it is in remembrance of him this does not make the bread his flesh. If he meant literal flesh he would of said when you eat this it turns into my flesh, but he did not he said eat in remembrance.

Servant I could (and I have did this)give lessons to native Islanders whom have never heard of Christ and tell them this story and they would instantly recognize the symbolism here. What you are doing and what the RCC has done is to make something so simple confusing, something clear obscure to the point where it is truly incomprehensible to comprehend.

yes he did well he was more direct than that...he said "Eat this is my body"...."Drink this is my blood"....then he command them this: "Do this in rememberence of me"

nowhere does he say Eat this is a symbol of my body....drink this is a symbol of my blood...

[selek]

Of course he said His flesh because it is in remembrance of him this does not make the bread his flesh. If he meant literal flesh he would of said when you eat this it turns into my flesh, but he did not he said eat in remembrance.

Servant I could (and I have did this)give lessons to native Islanders whom have never heard of Christ and tell them this story and they would instantly recognize the symbolism here. What you are doing and what the RCC has done is to make something so simple confusing, something clear obscure to the point where it is truly incomprehensible to comprehend.

More to the point, he said "do this (the ritual) in remembrance of me".

A "remembrance" is a memorial, or an act in commemoration. It is a memento or souvenier intended to bring those who are gone from us back to our minds.

If the Sacrament were anything but symbolic- if Christ's flesh and blood were actually present, it would- by definition- not be a "remembrance".

You don't "remember" someone who is present- you associate with them.

[Servant]

How is this symbolic? Well, when Jesus commanded them to do it in remembrance of Him, the bread when we break it is in remembrance (symbolic) of Christs' body and the water/wine would be in remembrance (symbolic) of his blood that he shed for us. The bread nor water/wine literally turns to blood and flesh that wouldn't be symbolic that would be actual. Just as a crown is symbolic of royalty, the Star of David for Judaism, the cross for Christianity etc. Bread and wine is symbolic of flesh and blood but not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. I am sure if I did a analysis of my stomach contents after partaking of the Eucharist or Sacrament I would not have human DNA in it.

ok...you see this as "do this in rememberence of me"...as symbolic...so this must be symbolic too? "Do this every week"?"Do this now"...."do this everyday"...do this in rememberence of me is a command...is how I see it...and how the Apostles sees it and how the Early Christians see it...they didnt think it was symbolic why should I? i am so sorry i dont see "do this in rememberence of me" as a symbol...i just dont...nowhere does it state that...nowhere does it point it to be that...i just dont see it...

More to the point, he said "do this (the ritual) in remembrance of me".A "remembrance" is a memorial, or an act in commemoration. It is a memento or souvenier.If it were not symbolic, if Christ's flesh were actually present, it would- by definition- not be a "remembrance".You don't "remember" someone who is present- you associate with them.

i just addressed this to another poster...

[Anijen]

yes he did well he was more direct than that...he said "Eat this is my body"...."Drink this is my blood"....then he command them this: "Do this in rememberence of me"

nowhere does he say Eat this is a symbol of my body....drink this is a symbol of my blood...

~Sigh.

By your type of logic one would assume that when the children of Israel put blood on the doors (Symbolic of a Savior and for death to pass over them)that this blood actually turned into Christ's blood.

Silly really even to think people actually believe it is real flesh and blood when a child knows it is symbolism.

My children understood this concept even before they understood the word symbolic. For instance when I read Aesop's Fables, such as The Tortoise and the Hare, or The Boy Who Cried Wolf, I know and can help them understand that they have a meaning behind the story and they know that a turtle isn't literally going to beat a rabbit in a race and that if one continues to lie know one will continue to trust him etc.