Replies

It's not a matter of personal interpretation. He says wine is blood, then he notes it is still wine. If it is also blood, then why did he neglect to mention it? When he changed water to wine, it stayed wine and was not referred to again as water. Further more, it does not state that he changed the wine into blood. You might read it again because it is no where in there. And as if it were needed at this point, this is no different than any other jewish feast. Bitter herbs are sorrow,.. Wait, did the bitter herbs get changed into sorrow. Mercy me. who made that change. I've never heard bitter herbs weep...

And as far as what belief you share, that's what this is all about. Your revisionist philosophies edit Matthew and Mark to say that Jesus Changed these things when the language in no way supports it. It doesn't say he changed them and it does say that the wine is still wine. Point to me where Jesus says "This bread I've changed into my body and this wine I've changed into my blood". It isn't there. So who told you it was? Based on what? And to what end. See, language exists for a purpose. Assumptions exist to get you in trouble.

Your suggestion that believers in the literal word of Christ are dishonest is a curious evangelistic tactic. Good evening.

Oh please. Nice try but back up the wagon spanky. Literal translation? Belief in literal translation. If you can show me where in the text it says Jesus changed bread to flesh and wine to blood, I'll give you 10 bucks. It isn't there. Based on literall translation, the most that can be said is he referred to them as flesh and blood - not that he turned them into flesh and blood. So given that he returns and notes the wine is still wine and no change is noted, the only thing possible to literally infer is that he is speaking symbolically. I notice you did not offer that the wine is the new covenant. Did he change the wine into the new covenant such that in order to be saved we need to be drunk on grape juice 24/7. Following your logic, that would have to be the proper deduction though it is nowhere in the scripture implied or suggested. Is the wine the content of scripture of the NT - the NT is the verbal representation of what deliniates the new covenant so it must then be that it changed into a book. You might argue it's absurd; but, it's a logical extention of the fallacy invoked by your arguments. So if you please, demonstrate where in the verses it says christ physically changed these things. Because absent that, this is nothing more than a common Jewish feast of rememberance being established. Something Catholicism was pretty much entirely ignorant of when it started playing philosophy games with scripture. Had they learned from the Israelites instead of persecuting the daylights out of them, they might have known better.. though I woulnd't expect the logic to be any less flawed.