Replies

“You assume way too much in your belief...”

You say that He meant that the bread “is” His body.
My question to you...WAS it His body?
Obvious answer to any thinking person is...no...it was bread!

He took the BREAD and giving thanks He broke it...the bread...not his body.

So if it was His body, why does Scripture, not state that He took His body and after giving thanks broke it, sayign this is my body.

Be careful how you selectively parse.

His body was the hand that held the bread...not the actual bread.

You obiously don’t know my belief at all and your attempted ancient language lesson is unnecessary. But, FWIW what is the Aramaic for “is”? And what is the Aramaic for “signifies”, “represents”, “stands for”?

I’ll bet you’ll take at least one hour of googling to try to explain the verb tense of the original Arimaic, becaus eyou do not know the language and are merely parroting what you’ve been told.

You typed...”Further, as God, He certainly knew on that night of Holy Thursday, when the Eucharist was instituted, that His Church would have an uninterrupted, literal viewpoint on the matter, and that it would be 1500 years”

Unmitigated assumption on your graniose part sir..dontcha think!?! Can you support with scripture how you know what God was thinking in the context of your huge unsubstantiates straw man comment? No. because th scripture does nto support your assumptions.

..obviously discussing the matter with you will be fruitless and neither of us will budge.

best wishes

Well, I do not claim to speak Aramaic, but I did attend the Maronite Rite more than a few times. I know several priests from their rite reasonably well, enough to talk to about this and other subjects. They use Aramaic in their liturgy, and repeat verbatim the words of Christ at the consecration. “Den hu guffi” is “This is my Body” in their liturgy. I do not know how to say “represents,” “signifies” etc. in Aramaic. But The Maronite priests I know, who are conversant or better with Aramaic, all assure me that those words exist in the language. Perhaps NYer, who attends the Maronite liturgy all the time, can help us our here. In any case, you lay yourself wide open. The Aramaic says what it says, and it is only a matter of time before you stumble on the literal translation of the words. I encourage you to do so. And try, yourself, to find words meaning “signify,” “represent,” etc. I am already comfortable that, based on sources familiar with the language with whom I have spoken, Jesus had those options linguistically, and “is” in Aramaic has the same connotation as in English. In either language, it derives from “to be.” That speaks to essences. Essences are not figurative.

And there is always the fact that no one thought differently than what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe on the subject to fall back on! 1500 years is a long time for everyone to get it "wrong" before someone finally "corrected" the universally held "mistake." Jesus would never have instituted the Eucharist at all if, from the get-go, it would be as grossly misinterpreted as you imagine. God is not the Author of confusion. Men are. Inventing novel interpretations of things heretofore "always and everywhere done" in obedience to God's instigation is a hallmark of man's propensity for confusion.