Can Anybody Be This Stupid: Andrew Drew and his Abomination.

Only somebody with Post-Protestant Stress Disorder can be this stupid as to make a declaration such as the one  Andrew Drew has made.  He has proven he suffers from Post-Protestant Stress Disorder and is spiritually dead as a result.  Read the following:

Andrew Drew declared publicly and before GOD that these are the RED LETTER WORDS of the HOLY SPIRIT:

“WE are JUSTIFIED by the BLOOD of CHRIST by FAITH ALONE.”

He was immediately challenged to produce both chapter & verse as to these RED LETTER WORDS the Holy Spirit supposedly stated. Of course poor Andrew has failed to produce these RED LETTER WORDS by the HOLY SPIRIT. That is because they do not EXIST.

This is the screenshot of his comment:

We have been very patient waiting for Andrew Drew, who is known as one of the most vile, anti-Catholic, Heterodox in the Protestant world. In addition, Andrew is one of the Losers of the Zell Challenge on trying to prove Sola Scriptura was preached, believed and taught by the Early Church Fathers. He failed miserably and has stated “I WILL BRING THIS CHANNEL DOWN” as a result of this failure. We still stand, undaunted.

Notice also that Andrew Drew states this:

“Are you disagreeing with Holy Spirit RED LETTER WORDS?”

No Andrew, we never disagree with the Holy Spirit.  Just like we do not disagree with the Holy Spirit thru James in 2:24:  “You see that a man is Justified by works and NOT by Faith Alone.”  That passage you have made perfectly clear you do NOT agree with; giving one reason or another to make the claim that “James may have said that, but he didn’t mean what he said.”

Andrew came here to try to defend the 16th century, created doctrine of Faith Alone.

During the course of this debate Andrew has made several MAJOR BLUNDERS. Andrew has continued to deflect and ignore, now over 30 times, when he is asked to provide the evidence for this Major Blunder of his.

This is treachery, it is lying and it is delusional, all in one person.

Andrew states: “WE ARE JUSTIFIED by the BLOOD OF CHRIST by FAITH ALONE” and these are the RED LETTER WORDS of the HOLY SPIRIT is delusional. This level of treachery, of lying and of delusion can only come from 1 of 2 sources.

If this is by Satan:

2 Corinthians 4:4

⁴ In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

If this is by God:

2 Thessalonians 2:11

¹¹ Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,

Since when does the Holy Spirit need the treachery, the lies and the delusions of people like Andrew to guide the Church and us into all TRUTH?

We have to ask then, who has deluded Andrew? Hopefully it is the Satan, because if it is from God, then Andrew is the unElect and will not come out of this Beast we call Protestantism.

ANDREW, CONFESS YOUR SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT. YOU ARE GRIEVING THE HOLY SPIRIT, (Eph 4:30), BY YOUR CLAIMS THAT “WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST BY FAITH ALONE,” AND CLAIMING THEY ARE HIS RED LETTER WORDS.

^{Acts 5:3} But Zell said, “Andrew, why has Satan filled your heart to lie about the Holy Spirit by making false and blasphemous claims? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Once you publicly confess your sin, your treachery and your trespass against us, you will be allowed to post once again. No need to post scripture, only a public confession will do and apology to us for this treachery with the promise to be a truth seeker. What you did is the opposite of Truth Seeking.

Update:  Andrew is mad that I called him an idiot, stupid and an imbecile.  Well Andrew, you decide if declaring and proclaiming that those words of yours are the RED LETTER WORDS of the HOLY SPIRIT qualifies as Stupid, as Idiotic and something only an imbecile would declare and proclaim before God and before us.  Remember Andrew, Stupidity is not a sin, so you are lucky on that count.  But your abomination is pure blasphemy.

Andrew Drew has lost all credibility because of this shameful act of blasphemy.

 

UPDATE:  Andrew Drew has been permenantly banned from SolaSymbolic due to not confessing his sin against the Holy Spirit and against us.

Andrew failed to come clean as to his motives.  He was told as a condition of remaining here to answer these:

1. Provide the CHAPTER and VERSE of the Red Letter Words of the Holy Spirit that He states: “WE are JUSTIFIED by the BLOOD of CHRIST by FAITH ALONE.”
2. If you cannot provide those Red Letter Words, then you have to admit you fabricated this lie.
3. That you sinned against the Holy Spirit publicly since you made this abomination publicly.
4. Confess your sin to us and promise to never use a lie again on this blog.
5. Admit that you lied by invoking the Holy Spirit to prove your false, 16th century, created doctrine of Sola Fide.
6. Admit that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and doesn’t need these types of lies to prove a doctrine, but that you lied out of desperation to prove your doctrine of Faith Alone, aka, Sola Fide.

Andrew:  Goodbye – Good Luck.

James 2 Commentary

Central to understanding James 2, in its proper context, we must read James 1 (1:1-27) and then James 2 (2:26).  James is pointing us to something Jesus Christ taught the Apostles: The Hearers of the Law/Word and the Doers of the Word/Law.  Once we know this as part of the context of James 2. which leads to the conclusion in verse 2:24, and we will understand that James was tasked with admonishing these he is addressing to reject a Faith that is Alone/By-Itself/Only.

Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 7:24-27

²⁴ “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;

²⁵ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

²⁶ And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;

²⁷ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”

Matthew 7:17-27 should be read, reflected and contemplated upon to understand that Jesus Himserlf makes His words the absolute measure of human conduct!  It is His teaching that is put forward as the definitive messianic Torah; the Law of Christ.

The Epistle of James

James 1:21-25

[21] Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

[22] But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

[23] For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;

[24] for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

[25] But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

James first tells us explicitly that we should receive the implanted word, which is able to save our souls.  He then goes on to teach about the Hearers and the Doers of this very word implanted in our hearts and souls.  

It is important to see that word “ABIDES by this Law of Liberty,” by being a DOER of this Law of Liberty, a DOER of effectual actions, we will receive a Beatitude in what we do, by being the Doers of the Law of Liberty.  We are to keep our self unstained from the world, (James 1:27), yet we are in the world to reflect the light of Christ.

Asaph Vapor – Heterodox to the Extreme

To Assaph Vapor:

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Notice that Church is in the singular. Yet who wants to destroy the Catholic Church?

Lets open our bibles to an Epistle written to a specific Church, by the Apostle Paul.

Open to the Epistle to the Romans. Its the 5th book in the New Testament. Open to Chapter 16:20:

Romans 16:20 NASB
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Yes, The Apostle Paul tells the Roman Church at it will soon crush Satan under its feet. Does the Apostle Paul tell that to any other particular Church? NO he does not.

Satan knows scripture and he knows that this particular Church will one day crush him. This is ongoing of course and when Christ comes again in glory, the defeat of Satan will be complete.

Satan has been trying to destroy the Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years.

Protestants have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church for 501 years.

Even united, they cannot destroy the Catholic Church.

But now Satan has a new secret weapon: Asaph Vapor. Satan incarnated his mother and out popped Asaph Vapor. He is the incarnate son of Satan. Asaph Vapor has both a Demonic Nature and a human nature. Its a hypostatic union of evil incarnated with a human person who can’t think past his hate.

Asaph Vapor, you will have as much success in destroying the Church we call Catholic as your father Lucifer has had. ZERO.

I have been asking you for over a year now, which denomination you belong to. You are a coward. Jesus never commanded His Apostles and disciples to be COWARDS. In fact Jesus is obviously speaking of you, Asaph Vapor when he tells us:

John 8:44 NASB
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

You are incapable of telling the true and cover up the fact that you have been utterly refuted, by deflecting and tap-dancing around like one of Satan’s Accordion Monkeys. You are nothing but a spawn of your father, Lucifer.

Again, you would make a better muslim that you do as a christian, a false christian at that. Lowercase “c” for the Heterdox.

Read How ASSaph is Vaporized and Refuted on Transubstantiation

R Hell speaks lies!!

Nowhere in the BIBLE says what you said about this “Satan enters every PROTESTANT and un-protestant protestant who eats unblessed, unconsecrated bread in remembrance.”

You are such a heretic!

REASONS WHY TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS NOT BIBLICAL:

1. Transubstantiation says the bread and wine miraculously turned into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Really? Which part of the Bible says that?

2. Catholics like to quote Jesus’ words “eat of My flesh and drink of my blood”. But is that literal flesh and blood? If Jesus said He is the door, the light, the salt, the shepherd, did He meant literal door, literal salt, literal shepherd? Rhetorical.

3. Scientifically if you check the bread and wine in Catholic churches, did it really turn into flesh and blood? Rhetorical

4. Bible says do not take blood in Gen 9:4, will Jesus go against the Bible? Rhetorical.

5. I Cor 11:23-29 Paul says partaking of bread and wine is a memorial, a sign; not what the Catholics claimed to be.

6. If bread and wine is real flesh and blood, when Jesus partook with the 12 disciples was is real flesh and blood? rhetorical again. Jesus hadn’t shed His blood yet!

7. In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, “this is my blood” and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, “fruit of the vine”. If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as “fruit of the vine’ but rather “blood”. This proves that when Jesus said “take eat & drink” he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.

8. Tertullian, in 200 AD also knew nothing of the false doctrine but considered the bread and juice as symbols: “Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

9. Didache (AD 96) “Chap 9. 1. [7.380] Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup:2455 We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, 2456 which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory forever.”
Early church writings indicate Eucharist as vine (grape), not real blood.

10. If transubstantiation is true, why was it still being debated in the ninth century? And why did it take the RCC until the 12 century to make it official teaching?

11. As far as the water into wine goes, yes it was literal. But according to the RC Church, the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood UNDER THE SPECIES of bread and wine. In other words, it’s a miracle that isn’t really a miracle. Could you imagine if the water was turned into wine under the species of water? They taste it and say It’s water, and Jesus says: No it’s really wine under the species of water. Man, they would have thrown him in a nut house.
Also, if it has been turned into the actual blood, eating blood is forbidden in 3 different dispensations. Before the Law (Gen. 9:4). Under the Law (Lev. 17) and after the law during grace in the New Testament (Acts 15)
The church also says that it’s an unbloody sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but the bible reads: Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (of sins).
The church says it’s literal, but Jesus himself said it was spiritual. (See John 6:63) They’ll always read John 6 at mass. It’s probably read more than any other text during the year, but when Jesus is explaining the text, they leave this part out. Also, they want people to believe that Jesus said this at the last supper, when He said: I am the bread of life, He who eats my flesh…more than two years before the last supper. Jesus said: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING! The words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT (Spiritual NOT literal) and they are life. (Jn. 6:63)
(From KJVNEWS)

12. Let the Bible interpret for itself!
Compare John 6 verses 47 and 54.
Joh 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
Joh 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Both verses says what will give eternal life.
verse 47 says he who believes in Jesus has everlasting life
verse 54 says he who eats of Jesus’ flesh and blood has eternal life.

>>>> which means eat of Jesus’ flesh and blood = believes in Jesus.
>>>> meaning its believing in Jesus’ that gives eternal life.
>>>> again saying eating flesh and blood is spiritual , not literal

13. Catholics say its literal flesh and blood in John 6 and the Last Supper. Of course that is a lie. Jesus wasnt even sacrificed on the cross yet, how you get Jesus real flesh and blood? Obviously it had to mean figuratively. Common sense.
*****************

Satan’s 2 favorite heresies:
a. Denial of the Blessed Trinity
b. Denial of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ.
Lets take these assertions one by one.

Answering the Heterodox on Transubstantiation

QUESTION #1
1. Transubstantiation says the bread and wine miraculously turned into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Really? Which part of the Bible says that?

Answer: You ask what part of the Bible says that? The Holy Eucharist is prefigured in the Old Testament and then revealed in the New Testament:

Exodus 25
Leviticus 17, 24
Numbers 4
1 Samuel 21:3-6
Matthew 12:1-8
Mark 2:23-27
John 6

The Last Supper narratives in each Gospel all attest to the Real & Substantial Presence.

Jesus is the one who says “My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink.”

Jesus said: “Take, eat, this is My Body.”

The Heterodox say Jesus said: “Take, eat, this is NOT My Body.”

John 13:26-27 when Judas is given unconsecrated/ordinary bread, this bread is a metaphor of spiritual death.

The Bread of Life Discourse is revealed at The Last Supper and confirmed on The Road to Emmaus.

When Jesus took bread, blessed bread, broke bread and gave it to His Apostles, he said “Take, eat this is My Body.” 

This answers question 1 and refutes your premise. Jesus does say: “Take, eat, this is MY BODY.” This is Transubstantiation. 

QUESTION #2

2. Catholics like to quote Jesus’ words “eat of My flesh and drink of my blood”. But is that literal flesh and blood? If Jesus said He is the door, the light, the salt, the shepherd, did He meant literal door, literal salt, literal shepherd? Rhetorical.

 

Zell: Yes we do like to quote the very Red Letter Words of Christ Jesus at The Bread of Life Discource and at The Last Supper. They tell us something that the Apostles didn’t understand when they first heard it and then at The Last Supper, they do understand it.

According to Jesus, who says “Take, eat, this is My Body” and in light of the fact that at The Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus tells the Apostles:

John 6:53-56 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
At The Last Supper Jesus not holding up a VINE, a FLASHLIGHT, a SHEPHERDS STAFF, a DOOR, a SALT SHAKER, Jesus Christ is holding up the New Manna which is greater than the old Manna, the Bread of Life of which He said: “Take, eat, this is MY BODY.”

Question 2 is Refuted. Just keep repeating these words to yourself: “Take, eat, this is my Body.” Know that Jesus Himself gives Judas the Protestors (John 6:66), bread spoke of at the Bread of Life Discourse and Satan enters Judas as Satan enters all who eat this unblessed, unHoly and unConsecrated bread of spiritual death.

QUESTION #3

3. Scientifically if you check the bread and wine in Catholic churches, did it really turn into flesh and blood? Rhetorical

Zell: Wow. Another example of ignorance. If you check Jesus’ DNA would it have GOD DNA in it or would it have Human DNA? No further explaination is required. The Substance of the Bread and the wine are Changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Host and in the Wine. The Accidents remain the same. If you do not understand this go here:
How Can This Man Give Us His Flesh to Eat? ~ https://youtu.be/LSi8nAyz0rk
Another Eucharist video: https://youtu.be/Q0uHH17FSzs

What Asaph Vapor is really asking, is the same thing the other Protestors(ants) ask themselves grumbling “How can this man give us His Flesh to Eat?” Asaph Vaport would have walked away if he were among the John 666 crowd.

What does the Apostle Peter say when Jesus asks them if they will go with Asaph Vapor and the rest of the John 666 crowd? “Will you go also. What does Peter say? “Two whom has we go, you have the words of Eternal Life.” What were those words? John 6:53-56.
Peter said: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of Eternal Life.. ~ What were those words? ~ https://youtu.be/yJQsr0XHvR0
You are refuted here in Question 3.

QUESTION #4
4. Bible says do not take blood in Gen 9:4, will Jesus go against the Bible? Rhetorical
Zell: Genesis 9:4 ~ Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
So everybody Jew cook his fatted calf more than WELL DONE? What if a speck of blood were on his fingertips while he was eating (they ate with their hands). What did Jews do who bought meat in the market or at the Temple? That animal was bled out by having it’s throat cut. Its impossible to remove every single drop of blood from an animal unless you cremate it.

Leviticus 17:11 ~ For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.

It may be that the very reason God forbids drinking blood in the Old Covenant is the same reason Jesus commands his disciples to drink His blood: For the life of the flesh is in the blood.
This is not to mention that in Noahs time, the pagans would drink the blood of animals to gain the strengh of soul of the animal.

QUESTION #5

5. I Cor 11:23-29 Paul says partaking of bread and wine is a memorial, a sign; not what the Catholics claimed to be.

And what does this mean to a Jew? Actually, what is a remembrance to a Jew? And Paul is exactly right that it is a Remembrace as Jesus also told the Apostles when He said: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
It is here that Jesus institutes Holy Orders to His Bishops, the Apostles.

The Unbloody Sacrifice: What is the correct understanding of Remembrance? Part 1 ~ https://youtu.be/_eRoD5AcuZ0

Exodus 13:8 NASB
“You shall tell your son on that day, saying, ‘It is because of what the LORD did for ME when I came out of Egypt.’

Exodus 13:8 KJV
And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.

Luke 22:19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ESV  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 participation in the body of Christ?
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
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.”
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:26-27
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (This echos the Mishnah Perchim 10:5

1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Each of these passages echo Exodus 13:8 ~ a direct participation in the Pascal Mystery.
If you lost the Jewish Roots of Christianity, you will get many things wrong and you get this wrong as well.

The central focus at The Last Supper is not the lamb. It is Jesus and the Holy Eucharist. That is to be done in Remembrance now. The long awaited New Exodus is being instituted and the Holy Eucharist is the food for that journey.

6. If bread and wine is real flesh and blood, when Jesus partook with the 12 disciples was is real flesh and blood? rhetorical again. Jesus hadn’t shed His blood yet!

Zell: You say Jesus hadn’t shed His blood yet! No he has not, this is the sacrifice which is started in the Upper Room at The Last Supper and consumated on Calvary which Jesus says “It is consumated (finished, completed).” Only in Jerusalem could a sacrifice take place. Jesus on the cross is done outside of the walls of Jerusalem.

This is why Jesus institutes the New Covenant in the Upper Room by saying “This cup which is pored out for you is the New Covenant of My Blood.” According to you Assph Vapor, Jesus had mere wine in that cup. Well, if that is so, then there is no New Covenant for you. For Catholics, the New Covenant starts in the Upper Room with the Apostles and according to Johns gospel, Judas and his master Satan, have left (John 13:26-27).

So to answer question #6, Yes it was real flesh and real blood because that is what Jesus said at the Last Supper revealing all He stated at the Bread of Life Discourse.

QUESTION #7

7. In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, “this is my blood” and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, “fruit of the vine”. If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as “fruit of the vine’ but rather “blood”. This proves that when Jesus said “take eat & drink” he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.

Zell: Juice? Is that what you call Wine? 2 things here: Is Jesus referring to the Wine as the fruit of the vine in its substance or its accidents? As I explained in the question above, Jesus knows we can’t eat human flesh and drink wine in its raw form. This is why the bread and wine are transubstantiated making the substance into of bread and wine into his flesh and blood, just like he said. It does take like wine and I’ve tasted it many times at the table of the Lord. So He does refer to the cup of wine as the His Blood.

What does Elizabeth say to the pregnant Mary? Blessed is the fruit of your womb. Jesus is the Fruit. Jesus also said “I am the vine.” And He also states He will not again drink of the Fruit of the Vine until He comes again in glory to judge the Living and the Protestant dead.
CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX, COPTICS, ASSYRIANS AND THE ORIENTALS Walk by FAITH not by SIGHT, or taste or smell. WE WALK With Christ SPIRITUALLY and worship in Spirit and Truth.

QUESTION #8

8. Tertullian, in 200 AD also knew nothing of the false doctrine but considered the bread and juice as symbols: “Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

Zell: Cherry picking passages out of the works of Tertullian are we…..? I suggest you read this passage again. Because you have made a mistake here. What is Tertullian saying?

He states in your last sentence: *On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there WAS a TRUE BODY.* Nice mistake. You make them often enough, but this one is very nice.
By the way, Tertullian is writing against another protestant heretic: Marcion.

Here is the full quote from Tertullian:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…”

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

CAUGHT LIKE a RAT.

Here are a few other Tertullian quotes:

On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8:
The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.

On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19:
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station (fast) must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God?

On Modesty, chapter 9:
He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord’s body—the Eucharist, to wit.

QUESTION 9

9. Didache (AD 96) “Chap 9. 1. [7.380] Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup:2455 We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, 2456 which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory forever.”
Early church writings indicate Eucharist as vine (grape), not real blood.

Zell: You again misquote and misinterpret another ancient document.

Attending Mass all the Apostolic Churches, we give thanks, that is what Eucharisto means: Its a Thanksgiving.

First, concerning the cup:2455 We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant,
And yes we do thank the Father for the Holy Vine of David Thy servant,. We say at Mass The fruit of the vine made with human hands becomes for us the Blody and Blood of our savior Jesus Christ.

Didache 9:
1. And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus:
2. First concerning the Cup, “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child; to thee be glory for ever.”
3. And concerning the broken Bread: “We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever.
4. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”
5. But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
Nothing more holier than the Body and Blood of Christ.

Didache 24
1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;
2. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.
3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.”
What does the Apostle Paul say in 1 Cor 10/11?
10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
This doesn’t sound like a symbol to me. Of course it is Jesus who tells Paul directly of the Last Supper and also places Judas at the scene to remind us that Satan entered this Protestant at the Lords Table:
11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

QUESTION 10

10. If transubstantiation is true, why was it still being debated in the ninth century? And why did it take the RCC until the 12 century to make it official teaching?

Zell: Very simple, there were heretics from the Gnostics all the way to this present day. You stand with the Gnostics and every single person who denied the Real & Substantial Presence.
When questions arise, they are answered by the Church, which makes known the wisdom of God.

QUESTION 11

11. As far as the water into wine goes, yes it was literal. But according to the RC Church, the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood UNDER THE SPECIES of bread and wine. In other words, it’s a miracle that isn’t really a miracle. Could you imagine if the water was turned into wine under the species of water? They taste it and say It’s water, and Jesus says: No it’s really wine under the species of water. Man, they would have thrown him in a nut house.
Also, if it has been turned into the actual blood, eating blood is forbidden in 3 different dispensations. Before the Law (Gen. 9:4). Under the Law (Lev. 17) and after the law during grace in the New Testament (Acts 15)

The church also says that it’s an unbloody sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but the bible reads: Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (of sins).
The church says it’s literal, but Jesus himself said it was spiritual. (See John 6:63) They’ll always read John 6 at mass. It’s probably read more than any other text during the year, but when Jesus is explaining the text, they leave this part out. Also, they want people to believe that Jesus said this at the last supper, when He said: I am the bread of life, He who eats my flesh…more than two years before the last supper. Jesus said: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING! The words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT (Spiritual NOT literal) and they are life. (Jn. 6:63)
(From KJVNEWS)

Zell: As explained, the substance of the Bread and the Wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The accidents remain the same. This is explained in the video above.

When Jesus tells the Apostles they will do greater miracles then these, NO greater miracle is there then Transubstantiation? The Bread of Life, and the cup of the New Covenant, the forgiveness of sins? Here are the words of Eternal Life that Peter and the Apostles (less Judas) heard at The Bread of Life Discourse; even though they did not understand it. By Grace, they stayed. But anti-grace Judas stayed obeying his master, Satan.

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Assaph Vapor, you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. You eat the bead of spiritual death, which Jesus has given to Judas. That was not the same bread.

You state: Also, if it has been turned into the actual blood, eating blood is forbidden in 3 different dispensations. Before the Law (Gen. 9:4). Under the Law (Lev. 17) and after the law during grace in the New Testament (Acts 15)

Yes, and if would be a sin for even Jesus to state this at the Bread of Life Discourse and at the Last Supper as well. He would be telling them all to SIN. I explained above Gen 9:4 and Lev 17:11. You can believe What Jesus said at the Last Supper, or you can leave along with the other Protestants of John 666.

Acts 15? Said so the gentiles in those cities wouldn’t participate in the temple worship of idols and false Gods who fornicated and drank animal blood. As Paul states, you can’t sit at the take of the Lord and at the table of demons.

You state this: The church also says that it’s an unbloody sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but the bible reads: Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (of sins).

Hear the very Red Letter Words of Jesus at The Last Supper:
Matthew 26:28: For this is MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many for FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

The sacrifice is offered at the Last Supper and the sheding of Blood is done outside the walls of Jerusalem. All those who witnessed the Crucifixion witnessed a brutal execution. We learn from the Apostles that it was the culmination of the Sacrifice of Christ which is started in the Upper Room, in Jerusalem.

You state this: The church says it’s literal, but Jesus himself said it was spiritual. (See John 6:63) They’ll always read John 6 at mass. It’s probably read more than any other text during the year, but when Jesus is explaining the text, they leave this part out. Also, they want people to believe that Jesus said this at the last supper, when He said: I am the bread of life, He who eats my flesh…more than two years before the last supper. Jesus said: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING! The words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT (Spiritual NOT literal) and they are life. (Jn. 6:63)

Zell: You and the authors of the KJVNews, as well as all Protestants who do not believe in the almost 2,000 year old understanding of the Real Presence, make the same mistake with John 6:63. Why? Lets look at it:

John 6:
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

As with all protestants who proof-text, they fail to look at the verses preceding verse 6:63. If they would the would have seen that each time Christ refers to His Flesh Christ says “MY FLESH’, or “THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN.” But in , ” Ver. 63. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, THE FLESH profiteth nothing.”

So here, we can see that all Protestants misinterpret THE FLESH and Christ’s flesh. As with all Protestants who can’t read the Catholic Bible with the Eyes of Faith, they remain unaware that the contrast between the Flesh and Spirit occurs many times in the New Testament. Now let’s let Scripture help us with Scripture. Look up Gal 5:13-26, 1 Peter 4:6, Matthew 26:41, John 3:6, Rom 7:5,6,25, 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 7:1, Gal 3:2 and 4:8, and 1 Pet 3:18.

It should also don’t on you that when the Protestants walk away, the Apostles don’t. And when Jesus asks them “are you also going to go away” Peter states “To whom shall we go? You have the words of Eternal Life. All Protestants walk away.

If you look carefully at verse 62, “Then what if…..” Jesus is telling them that at a future date they will see Jesus ascending to the father. Its as if Jesus tells them to just wait and it will be revealed to them. But they don’t wait.

You are refuted here Aspor Vapor. Queston 11 isn’t true.

QUESTION 12

12. Let the Bible interpret for itself!
Compare John 6 verses 47 and 54.
Joh 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
Joh 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Zell: Where in scripture does it say to let the Bible interpret for itself!? Nowhere.
Let’s compare John 6:47 and 54.

John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
Zell: This passage is most assuredly true and we affirm it. Yet the John 6:66 walked away. They stopped believing because they didn’t have enough faith to trust the very Red Letter Words of Christ Jesus at The Bread of Life Discourse. The Apostles stayed, not understanding what Jesus just said and not responding with faith to remain with Him until everything is revealed to them. Except of course, the ultimate Protestant, Judas.

John 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal Life, and I wil raise him up at the last day.

Zell: Yes, I believe this and you do not believe this. You do not eat His flesh and drink His blood by your own admission. Jesus is speaking literally because the disciples took Him literally. They were thinking in carnal terms, not in sacramental terms and they still wouldn’t have known it unless they stayed with Christ until after the Resurrection and the institution of the Church on the Day of Pentecost which would lead them into all truth.

Finally you state this:
>>>> which means eat of Jesus’ flesh and blood = believes in Jesus.
>>>> meaning its believing in Jesus’ that gives eternal life.
>>>> again saying eating flesh and blood is spiritual , not literal

Zell: This is your interpretation and not what the Church has taught for almost 2,000 years. You are refuted and this is a false interpretation which the Gnostics would also believe in.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

John 6:48 I am the bread of life.

There is a separation between these two verse which you aren’t able to see. Nor any of the Heterodox can see or will see unless the Grace of God reveals it to them just as Jesus revealed this to the Apostles at the Last Supper.

QUESTION 13

13. Catholics say its literal flesh and blood in John 6 and the Last Supper. Of course that is a lie. Jesus wasnt even sacrificed on the cross yet, how you get Jesus real flesh and blood? Obviously it had to mean figuratively. Common sense.

Zell: You can’t distinguish the common from the miraculous.

Zell: Another error of yours. Here is the explanation given by one of my favorite theologians:
Regarding the Christological concerns viz-a-viz the Eucharist, I think these are due to not recognizing the available philosophical options. To ask whether a statement such as “He took into His Hands that which the faithful know, and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body’” is literally true is to ask about the genre. It assumes that if there is going to be some qualification, it must be at the level of the words, i.e. meaning them symbolically, or metaphorically, etc. But that implies that the ontological options are either “literally present” or “not literally present.”

But, there is another option. We can affirm that St. Augustine’s words are literally true, and yet understand the “in a manner” not as a semantic qualification, but as modal qualification, i.e. a difference in the mode of presence. In other words, Christ literally carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body,” but His mode of presence in the Host He held in His hand was not identical to His mode of presence in His physical Body. In that way He was no less literally present in the Host than He was in His physical Body, even though His mode of presence there was different. (I explain this more below.)
What about this ‘slide into Eutychianism’? It seems to me that we need to distinguish miraculous divine acts regarding Christ’s human nature, from the conflation of Christ’s divine and human natures. We can’t just assume that the former indicates the latter. And the principle of charity would require us not to assume Eutychianism when a miraculous divine act regarding Christ’s human nature is the explanation being offered. The problem with Eutychianism wasn’t the elevation of Christ’s human nature by way of divinization; the problem was a conflation of the two natures into one nature. The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist does not claim (or imply) that Christ’s human nature ceases to be human, or that Christ’s risen body does not have flesh and blood, or that it ceases to be material, or that it ceases to have dimensions. It is a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44), but it is not a mere spirit. Grace does not destroy nature, and the hypostatic union does not destroy Christ’s humanity. The flesh He received in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, He will have eternally. But we have to distinguish those limitations that are essential to human nature, from those limitations that are proper accidents of non-deified human nature. If we don’t make that distinction, and make it in a principled way, then we run the risk of mistaking the removal of non-essential limitations for Eutychianism.

From our human experience it seems that bodies cannot be in two places at the same time. But, then, our ordinary experience of bodies is through their accidents in the mode of accidents. (E.g. We experience bodies through their color, size, shape, texture, etc.) We simply do not experience bodies in any other way. But there is no reason why the substance of a body cannot be in two places simultaneously, in one place in the mode of quantitative dimension and in another place only in the mode of substance and not in the mode of quantitative dimension. We simply don’t have any basis for claiming that a substance cannot be in two places at the same time, in two different modes. And therefore we shouldn’t assume that the Church’s teaching that Christ is present in the Eucharist according to the mode of substance [i.e. transubstantiation] is Eutychianism, and not a supernatural miracle that nevertheless does not destroy the integrity of Christ’s true human nature, just as His passing through closed doors (Jn 20:19,26) and His face shining like the sun (Mt. 17) did not destroy the integrity of His human nature.

Recognizing that there are other modes of presence, besides the mode of quantitative dimension, opens up the conceptual window to the Church’s teaching regarding the Eucharist, because then we see that we do not have to choose between Christ being present in the Eucharist in the mode of quantitative dimension (as His physical Body was and is), and Christ being present only by His Spirit. The former is the Capharnaite error of which St. Augustine spoke:
‘Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have eternal life’ (John 6:54). Some [the Capharnaites] received this foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them.”(Exp on Psalms 98:9)
The Capharnaite error was to assume that Jesus was going to give them His flesh in the mode of quantitative dimension.

But the other error (i.e. that Christ is only present in the Eucharist by His Holy Spirit) does not allow us to eat of that flesh and drink of that blood of which He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” (John 6:53)

ZeLL: If you read closely, your question # 13 is fully answered.

Now Asaph Vapor here is what I have come to believe after engaging the Heterodox:

There is a reason why the Apostles stayed in John 6:66 and the protestors(ants) left. The Apostles were given super abundant Grace and they responded with faith in the very words of Christ, even though they did not understand what those words yet meant. Those words are revealed at The Last Supper.
Jesus gives no explanation of what He tells the crowd in the synagogue at Capereum as they walk away, (John 6:66). He doesn’t even give the Apostles an explanation of the words he spoke at the Bread of Life Discourse. He only asks the Apostles if they were going to leave also. Peter responds on behalf of them all, even to Judas, who John now reveals, will betray Him.

Think about this for a moment. Judas fell off at this very moment, but stays with Jesus, never realizing that he is an instrument of Satan. He continues to walk with Jesus and the Apostles. He does everything the Apostles do, including casting out demons, healing the sick, prophesy in His name, and performed many miracles. Yet, Judas was not one of them any longer, but still remained with Him. Isn’t this what Protestants do: They follow Jesus, but at the Last Supper theyn refuse to eat the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Holy Eucharist, but instead eat a symbolic piece of bread, that is not The Body and Blood of Christ?

It is at The Last Supper, according to John, that by eating unblessed and unconsecrated bread, Satan actually enters Judas, thus Judas abiding in him and Satan abiding in Judas. This is the exact opposite of what Jesus says to the other Apostles in John 14:23, and 15:1-8. I am convinced that when Protestants eat their unHoly bread they received Satan and it is “anti-grace.* At Mass, we receive the Grace, the spiritual food for the journey.

This topic is Transubstantiation and answering the 13 questions.  This is not an open forum Asspor Vapor.

The New Testament just fell from the sky.

Protestants might have the impression that the bible just came to be as if it fell from the sky, in the KJV no less.  At the time the New Testament canon was being decided there were approximately 45 gospels and over 400 writings contending in some manner for inclusion as canonical scripture.  It was not until 362 AD that St. Athanasius, a leading Church Father, provided a list of books which matches our list of canonical books of the NT.  The Church beginning in 382 AD under the instruction of the pope held a series of councils culminating with the Council of Carthage in 397 AD which finalized the canon of the NT.  In the end the only books which made it into the canon of scripture where those considered canonical by the Western Church in the city of Rome.  Once the pope ratified the council findings the NT canon was accepted by the Church as a whole. 

The only reason we have a bible today is because the Catholic Church said so.  There were no protestants at these councils none at all.  If there were, I invite you to list the names of these Protestants.   The Catholic Church did not need the assistance of any Protestants in figuring out the bible; there were no protestants around and history would have to wait for over a millennia for the first protestants to show their face upon this earth.  If no bible was available and given the 45 gospels and over 400 epistles and the like to the protestant reformers of the 16^th century would be anyone’s guess what they would have come up with.  We certainly know that Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations would not have made it into the NT scripture.

The Fathers of the Church are important because they, in their writings, are a witness to us as to what the apostles taught to them when they preached the faith throughout the known world.  It is this faith which the Farther of the Church record in their writings and admonish those considered heterodox.  The Fathers of the Church provide a record of the Church of their time of its beliefs, practices and traditions and how the apostles and the Early Church interpreted scripture.  It is their writings and theological insights which have guided and shaped the Church’s doctrines and dogmas.  The Fathers of the church illustrate to us the organic nature of the development and clarification of doctrine and dogma within the History of the Church which they have shaped.

 Christ never asked the apostles to write a book and distribute it but rather preach the Faith as taught to them.  Books require an external source of interpretation, no book interprets itself.  If Christ gave us a bible, he should have given us an authority to interpret the Bible.  He certainly did so with the Jews of the Old Testament, why would he have not done so for Christians of the New Testament?  Did he say read it and go and created 40,000 denominations/sects/cults for yourselves?  No, he prayed that they all be one.  Christ established one Church, and only one Church. 

 Look at the legal history of the United States and the interpretation of the United States Constitution.  Originalism in interpretation of the Constitution means that we look at the original intent and meaning of the text of the constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers as provided in their writings.  This is exactly what the Catholic Church seeks to do in the same manner.  The courts (certainly the highest of these –SCOTUS) provides a living voice and a framework which arbitrates and adjudicates contentions in accordance to the constitution and the laws.   This is again no different from why the Catholic Church exists as an institution.  Without the Judiciary there would be anarchy, and likewise so, without a Church which speaks with authority.  This anarchy is evident in Protestantism which has given us 40,000 denominations/sects/cults.  The gate is certainly wide which leads to destruction; 40,000 denominations/cults and sects wide.  

Where does the idea of the Trinity come from?  Certainly it is biblical.  But the word nor the conceptual form exists in the scripture.  How about Original Sin?  These are traditions – the teachings of the Church Fathers which lent assistance to the development of these doctrines.  Without the Church Fathers, we would not have the concept of the Trinity nor of Original Sin.

The R. Zell – Tim Spangler Debate.

Here are the questions that Tim Spangler, a lucker found on many Fr. John Hollowells youtube.com video comment threads has challenged me on.

Tim Spangler challenges me to to show him Catholicism in the following verses.

I will number these so Tim can follow along.

Here is Tim Spanglers Challenge:

tim spangler4 hours ago (Oct 11, 2016)

How about YOU Zell? Care to go down the list with me to see if this is referring to CATHOLICISM?

The Protestant – Catholic divide – The Narrow and the Wide Gates

Jesus says:  Matthew: 7:13-14

 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. ¹⁴ For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

The gate is indeed wide.  In fact this gate is so wide, it can be said to be 45,000 Protestant denominations wide.     That is an outstanding number.  Again:  The gate is wide indeed.  And this just begs the question of just how many versions of the Truth there are?

And the Narrow Gate is one Church wide – THE CATHOLIC CHRUCH. 

Jesus said: “I have more things to say to you,……”

I was told by an Anti-Catholic blogger:

“The Roman Catholic Church’s teachings have been added over the centuries, which means the scriptures never taught them.  If doctrines are added to the church it means the teachings themselves were never there from the beginning.”

Catholic Rejection of the Holy Eucharist

According to the Gospel of Luke, the first person in history to say “Yes” to the Body of Christ, is the Virgin Mary during the Annunciation.

This was her “Fait” her “Yes” her “Amen.”

In the Catholic Church, at the Mass, we also go up to receive the Holy Eucharist.  The Catholic Priest asks each of us, “Body of Christ” and our response is “Amen.”  Amen confirming we believe the very words of Jesus Christ, that the Holy Eucharist is indeed exactly what Jesus said the Blessed Bread and Blessed Blood are:

“His Body & His Blood.”

Protestantism is found in the New Testament

I recently debated one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever encountered.  His first name is Kevin, a well known blogger.  He told me that “THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE PROTESTANTS.”  Well, I thought about how to respond to this stupid remark and then it hit me like a lighening bolt.  He was right.  I went straight into my bible to find the exact place where the FIRST PROTESTANTS are found.

They are found in the Bread of Life Discourse.  Here at the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus’ disciples were already grumbling among themselves and then they no longer walked with Jesus.

We read about them in JOHN 6:66 –

⁶⁶ From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament

The question is: can I trace the Catholic Church back to Jesus and the New Testament.  My answer is an unequivocal YES.

The New Testament is the living witness to the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride, the Church from it’s beginnings.  The Early Church Fathers are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century witnesses to the growing church.  The New Testament is complete.  The living witness, the New Testament, has within it’s pages, letters left by the Apostles to individual churches as well as to the Church at large.

The Last Supper – And The Two Types of Bread

The Last Supper

And The Two Types of Bread

Most Christians are familiar with the dispute over whether Jesus was talking metaphorically or literally during the Bread of Life Discourse.

If Jesus was talking metaphorically then the eucharist is just symbolic. If Jesus was talking literally, then the Holy Eucharist becomes, in some mysterious way, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

St. John gives us something that is often overlooked at the Last Supper by the other Gospel writers. He tells us that Judas received bread from the very hand of Jesus while in the Upper Room. This bread is not the Eucharistic bread that Jesus gives to the 11 other Apostles.