Yes, we’ve had this discussion before where are unable to recognize the difference in the New Covenant of the New Testament.
Mathew 26:26-28
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, ad gave t to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
And he took a chalice, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
In examining this we see that Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, established a new covenant.
A covenant must be clear, therefore a metaphorical sense which is difficult to understand is excluded.
Also, after His Resurrection, He never modified His words.
Thus, if he only intended the metaphorical sense, many of his disciples have for years been practicing idolatry, adoring as the true body of the Lord, what was and is nothing but bread.
Beginning with John 6:51 and through 6:67:
“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
The The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
(From the nature of the words used in V 56 “true, real meat,” “true, real drink”’ “Caro enim mea vere est cibus: et sanguis meus, vere est potus:” The obvious meaning is the literal one.)
As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me the same also shall live by me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live forever.”
“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard,’ and who can hear it?
But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that, would betray him
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
St. Paul wrote (eight years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel) a letter to the Christian converts at Corinth: 1Cor. 10:16, “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”
1Cor. 11:23- 29, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”
All attempts to drag in other references in an attempt to disguise Christ’s real meaning in these self-evident passages are disingenuous.
All attempts to LEAVE OUT other references in an attempt to disguise Christ’s real meaning in these passages is sophistry.
Naw, you're the one being disingenuous...God did not write only the scriptures your religion likes to glom on to...He wrote 'em all...
When God tells his people they have to drink blood for salvation and at the same time tells the same people they can not drink blood under any circumstances, there's a problem...One statement can be a metaphor or they can both be a metaphor, but they both can not be literal...And if you don't accept that, you're being disingenuous...
Yes, “It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.”
“But there are some of you that believe not.”
And there are STILL some that don’t believe that the SPIRIT gives life and that the FLESH, which Catholics claim you have to eat and gives life, profits for NOTHING.
And you never addressed the contradiction between Catholic teaching and the clear, plain reading of the entirety of Scripture.
Additionally. Peter HIMSELF declares that he had never eaten anything unclean. That would include eating human flesh and drinking human blood.
So did Peter lie to God when he said that?
Peter never ate flesh and blood according to words from his own mouth.
It should be more than obvious that Christ's REAL meaning is not about the physical acts (or beliefs concerning) the consuming of the bread and wine of the observance of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist (thanksgiving) but of the FAITH that is required in order to have eternal life. The eating and drinking of the elements does not supplant the requirement of faith in what those elements represented - the broken body and shed blood of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world. We demonstrate our faith in Christ by doing as He commanded us to "for whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
I seems to me that Catholics place a much higher priority on the receiving of the Eucharist than the faith IN Jesus Christ and what He did for us. Some Catholics even go so far as to assert forcefully that ONLY their priests have the authority to "confect" the elements and administer them to believers and NO ONE else can do so, thereby making the reception of the Eucharist - and the grace for salvation they contain - ONLY available to Catholics. Other Christians are deprived of their benefits. Taking that logic a step further, since only the Catholic priest can give the elements and ONLY Catholics in a "state of grace" can validly receive them, the rest of the non-Catholic Christian body has no access to salvific grace. Now, that is a WHOLE lot of reading into the words Jesus spoke as told in John 6. It also blatantly contradicts much of Scripture that teaches salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and that we participate together in our remembrance of Him and His gift of everlasting life as a reminding testimony to ourselves and each other before God.
It's ALL Scripture and ALL relevant.
I also find it ironic that you dismiss *other references* and yet drag in John 6 which is not connected to the Last Supper in the least.P> Don't be a hypocrite.
God clearly prohibits the eating of blood. Period.
That command is reiterated by the church fathers, the church leaders and the HOLY SPIRIT at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That's AFTER the Last Supper and outside the Law.
The prohibition still stands in God's eyes.
Salvation is by grace through faith as it ALWAYS has been.
Works of the Law never justified anyone or cleansed anyone from sin. And if the works of the Law that God established couldn't or didn't do it, then nothing else man invents or tries to substitute for it can or will.