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. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; 39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 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. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
OS=Opening Statement,1R=First Rebuttal,2R=Second Rebuttal
JUST HIS IMAGINATION
1)Malakye reasserts Trent falsely quotes Jesus, (2R7):
Trent was not giving an interpretation. They gave a direct quote which any casual bystander would conclude was a journalistic faux pas.
Statement in question:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body.
2)Declared that is not a quotation. Malakye asserts Trent says Jesus said 'That which I offered under the species of bread is truly My own body'. Trent nowhere has it as a quote, this is much ado about nothing. Here are four biblical citations in Session 13 on the Eucharist:
Chapter VII two Scriptural quotes:
read in the Apostle those words full of terror; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the
precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. 1 Cor, 11:29, 28
Chapter II His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me John 6:58
Chapter V when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him Hebrews 1:5.
3)Precept of the apostles, says, who said, those words of terror: Those are Scriptural introductions. Declaring that doesn't mean what follows is direct Scripture, Reverend Schroeder is correct. I'll take the correction, footnotes were not in Trent, but still summarizes Luke 22:19, John 6:53, 1 Cor. 11:24-29, Malakye's categorization, false, not faking a quotation. True, 'Truly Truly' does give us the attention that Jesus actually affirms that He is giving us his true flesh and blood, new manna, which absolutely destroys the metaphorical take on John 6. However, Trent isn't saying Jesus said 'truly' either once or twice at the Last Supper. A summary says 'truly his body', not 'truly, truly his body.' A summary, that language used by Trent, is correct.
Malakye asserts: Trent stole the word "truly" from its double usage as an attention getting device in 6:53, ----falsely used at Last Supper(2R5)
4)Trent says nothing about Jesus using the term truly anywhere in the Last Supper, so the premise is wrong. John 6 is the prophecy, fulfilled in the institution, Luke 22:18-20, as Reverend Schroeder footnotes. Besides, if He says 'This is My Body', it 'truly' is His body, even with no John 6 reference.
Trent in two other places uses similar language, Chapter 1, 'and definite words that', chapter 3, 'He Himself told them that ', without being actual quotations, referring to same/similar passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke & 1 Corinthians, again footnoted by Reverend Schroeder. This theory that it destroys infallibility again fails.
EMMAUS, SCRIPTURE OR MIND-READING?
5)Malakye asserts: "May I not also mind-read? I submit that after breaking bread, they noticed the nail prints in his hands and that's how they recognized him."2R17
Didn't mind-read but quoted Scripture. Jesus on Easter Sunday, gave the Eucharist, right then. However, He had been with them with his hand-prints, there all the while before.
Luke 24:16: Their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
God, before the breaking of bread stopped them from seeing him. Jesus walked with them before, when he explained the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27), his hands and feet were not different. Didn't recognize him.
24:30-31:
30When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
6)Nothing about hands and feet. No, when bread broken, which Jesus identified as his Body, Luke 22:19, Paul identified as his Body and Blood (1 Cor:10:15-16), then they recognized him. He vanished, telling them, his Body and Blood is a preeminent way He will be known going forward.
Then they approached the apostles/disciples:
Luke 24:35Then they told what had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
They recount that even though Jesus spent time with them, his hands and feet exposed, only when He broke the bread, did they recognize him, no mind-reading. Now, after them explaining this to the apostles/disciples, only then did Jesus make his appearance, showing his hands and feet for the rest of the disciples/apostles for recognition.
REVISITING JOHN 6
7)Here I want to look over our discussion on John 6 over this debate. I want to go over what I established, and Malakye's objections:
First thing I noted is the background to the John 6 narrative, which includes two things I highlighted. Just before Jesus discourse He did two miraculous things, like Moses, (who through God) gave manna, distributed bread and fish (Numbers 11:22), Jesus rescued disciples through the power of God of 'I am', similar to Moses being the instrument of God rescuing the Israelites through water (OS5). At the time of Passover and gives thanks (v. 11, OS5). Jesus is the new Moses predicted (Dt. 18:18, OS18, 1R24-25). The background undercuts metaphor. John 6:1-21 thus has two miraculous events that gives background to the miracle predicted by Jesus in John 6:48-58.
8)Malakye's take is that John 6:29-47, where Jesus talks about belief, overrides everything else in John 6. In every statement he brings other Scriptures and arguments, (OS6-9, 1R14-20, 2R24-25), but just assumes John 6:48-58 is metaphorical. He ignores the beginning of John 6, doesn't look at the beginning, or end of John 6:48-58:
6:49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 58This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."
Jesus compares giving his flesh and blood to the OT manna. The manna that sustained the Israelis for 40 years was literal, not metaphorical. As I've repeated in every statement, (OS4-7, 1R11 2R5, 17-18), Jesus promised to give a better manna, that He identifies as his flesh that must be eaten. See if Malakye addresses this in his third rebuttal/closing statement. Instead He refers to Sirach 24:21, eating wisdom 1R16, as somehow being more relevant than Jesus' own comparison of the Flesh and Blood that we must eat as superior to the Exodus bread of angels that God rained from heaven. Why would Jesus bring up a literal miracle, with the background of the miraculous feeding of fish and loaves, and saving the disciples, John 6:1-15, 6:16-21, put there by John himself, and Jesus specifically talk about a superior new manna, that is just about metaphor? Not feasible.
9)Though Malakye refers to metaphor, he admits that Jesus gives his life unmetaphorically in John 6:51. Then Jesus says to eat bread which is his flesh. Jesus repeatedly says we must eat his flesh and drink blood, in the context of providing a new manna, of a Passover sacrifice. In the Passover it was required to eat the flesh, (1R8, Numbers 9:13, Exodus 12:8) with unleavened bread. That which Jesus is speaking to, is more relevant than drinking water Scriptures.
10)I documented with Scripture after Scripture eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically is negative (OS14, Micah 3:2-4, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, John HIMSELF in Revelation 17:6, 19:18). Malakye argues that since water, bread, eating, tasting, are used metaphorically elsewhere, ignore the fact that eating flesh is negative, (OS6-9, 1R14-20, 2R5) and since totally different terms are used elsewhere positively, it must be used positively here. The context, where Jesus compares this new manna favorably to the real, physical old manna, excludes this idea. Yes, there is much metaphorical usage in similar terms eat, bread, taste, water, etc. But here the immediate context isn't metaphorical, because of the reality of the manna, and Jesus really was going to die. Malakye says the fact that the Catechism mentions the 'bread of the Word of God' somehow paralyzes the Catholic position' 2R5. Wrong, Trent will even talk about symbolism in the Eucharist (Session 13, Chapter 2), such as many Church Fathers, never to the exclusion of its true presence. If context is symbolic, metaphoric understanding is possible. But the context is not:
vv. 49, 58 OT manna (Exodus 16:4), literal
v. 50 Eating bread, literal
v. 51 That bread is flesh that must eat. Word Phago, used literally. Jesus literally will die
v. 52 Challenged on giving literal flesh to eat by unbelieving Jews
v. 53 Says truly, truly, on giving his flesh and blood for eternal life tied into eating flesh, comparable to Jews eating sacrificial meal or cut off (Exodus 12:8, Numbers 9:13)
vv. 54-58 Jesus responds with the word trogo eat four times, gnaw, masticate. Literal.
v. 55 Flesh real food. Literal.
These factors point to literalness. Malakye's diversions to other Scriptures ignores the context of John 6:48-58 itself, fatal to the metaphorical assumption.
CHANGING THE SUBJECT
11)1R16Me Jesus' followers must believe "now". [But I say, first] he had to be put to death... [So his] argument fails.
Malakye RESPONSE: And yet, why do I get a dunce cap when I say he didn't offer himself at the Last Supper because...(helloooo!)... he first had to be put to death???
Anyway, my argument does not fail because Jesus gave quite enough circumstantial evidence at this point to make them accountable... "now"..
He leaves out why I said this. Malakye's OS16 He continues, "unless you eat", i.e., "now", present tense. Without Jesus providing any tangible way for them to immediately comply with his command to labor and to eat, the crudely literal Catholic position must be rejected.
12)He left out my argument. He argued since the Last Supper was a year off and one had to believe in Jesus now, and since one couldn't eat his flesh literally then, he can't be talking about it. As I noted, belief in Jesus said 'The bread I shall give (v. 51)' requires belief in the future, his offering himself on the cross is a year away 1R24-25. If you believe now, it is a belief that he will offer his flesh and blood, destroying the idea of Jesus only stressing 'now.' I quoted Romans 4:25 that resurrection had to be fulfilled, in the future. This wrecks Malakye's attempt to say He had to offer the Eucharist in John 6. Even with Jesus' teaching, the apostles weren't sure. Dumfounded by the missing body:
20:8: Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9:for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
In John 6, He didn't have to offer the Eucharist then, exactly as He wasn't on the brink of offering himself on the cross yet either. He was at the Last Supper. He totally ignores the context of that statement. I next look at the tie-in of the Eucharist to the cross before crucifixion.
SACRIFICE
13)Malakye says: the RCC "keeps the same pattern by offering Jesus time after time"2R27 in the Mass, contrary to Scripture quoting Hebrews 7:27 saying it contradicts the once and for all sacrifice,...
the same pattern of Levitical priests, where Catholic priests imitate the Levites in offering repeated sacrifices by... standing. However, that pattern has not only been cancelled due to Jesus sitting down, symbolizing his work was finished."
The immediate context shows his interpretation that because He sits, he does nothing now is wrong: Hebrews 7:25"Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."
14)The purpose of Jesus' ongoing intercession is to help us achieve salvation. Nothing whatsoever saying, "well, since he suffered on the cross once, one's salvation is wrapped up, no sacrifice is needed any more." This concept of once saved always saved/persevere which is behind attacking the Mass, is against the whole book of Hebrews. Salvation is a process, noted OS24. He lives to intercede for our very salvation. Hebrews gives the eternal warnings/consequences of neglecting/abandoning Christ, 2:1-3, 3:1-14, 3:16-19;11:29, 4:1-3, 4:11-14, 6:4-6, 9-12, 10:22-29, 35-38, 12:5-17, 25-26, separation from God. 2:1Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?
Just neglecting Christ can lead to the loss of salvation. The demonic theory of once saved always saved, is felled just by this quote.
15)A Greek Father on Hebrews 7:26-27 ties the Eucharist to the cross here:
What is "forevermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect if He never sins (v. 26) if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.
Since then we have such a High Priest, let us imitate Him; let us walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice: one alone has cleansed us, and after this, fire and hell. For indeed on this account He repeats it over and over, saying, "one Priest," "one Sacrifice," lest anyone supposing that there are many sacrifices should sin without fear. Let us then, as many as have been counted worthy of The Seal (Baptism), as many have enjoyed The Sacrifice, as many as have partaken of the immortal Table, continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity: for falling away is not without danger. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Homily XIII8-9, Philip Schapf, NPNF1, Volume 14, p. 430.
16)Malakye doesn't catch that Jesus is a priest now, who must offer a sacrifice right here and now, not merely think about something that happened 2000 years ago, because falling away is damning, as Hebrews & Chrysostom confirm. That sacrifice is the cross, through the Eucharist. He is a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. Malakye has not addressed Melchizedek, though central to the book of Hebrews:
"Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrew 5:6, 6:20, from Psalm 110:4) Forever.
Melchizedek was the priest in Genesis 14:18 who offered bread and wine, as a sacrifice. What does Jesus offer? Bread and wine He changes to his Body and Blood. He said do this. It is done perpetually.
Malakye: The O.T. priesthood excluded Christ from an earthly priestly office because of his lineage. 2R18
Hebrews 8:6: But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
The point of the book of Hebrews, He is not bound to the Levitical priesthood, offers a sacrifice of Bread and wine(form), in the order of Melchizedek. He mediates the new covenant in his blood, not a Levitical earth-bound Priesthood.
17)Let's go to a passage that Malakye infers that Jesus does nothing, it is all finished (Paragraph 13), above). Hebrews 8:1: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.
Malakye notes that He sits, but infers that is all. However, it says He as a priest ministers, Litourgos, (Liturgy comes from this word) in the sanctuary. NOT FINISHED, but an eternal priest. Even if He sits, He ministers right now, through a liturgical action, offering gifts and sacrifices, through His ministers, He must offer now. No sacrifice, a deficient worship.
Verse 6 the covenant he mediates is better.
18)Malakye2R27 the idea that "Christ daily offers himself upon our altars for our redemption" is diametrically opposed to Hebrews 9:25
Why? Verse 26 says because he would have to suffer, put to death repeatedly. It is ludicrous to say in the Mass that Jesus is put to death repeatedly. So no point at all. But as Priest He must offer sacrifice.
As documented in all my statements, a few verses before 9:25, Exodus 24:8 is specifically tied into Jesus' institution in Hebrews 9:20: "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.," Jesus very words in Matthew 26:28 (See 2R10-11).
Animals killed in sacrifice, but its blood was at the old covenant institution where they ate and drank, (Exodus 24:11), Hebrews changed to the exact words of Jesus' institution in the New Covenant. Sacrifice in Blood that we are to partake of. Not fake/symbolic blood in either the Old nor New Covenant. (This covenantal institution also precedes the Levitical priesthood).
Hebrews says:
19)9:23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Sacrifices are multiple, matching Malachi 1:10-11. Superior to the Levitical, but the sacrifice, though it is multiple, is one.
Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, the only place where the new covenant is prophesied:
31:31: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.
20)Hebrews 8:8-11, right after telling us how Jesus ministers via Liturgy, quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. So, what is the only time the term 'covenant' is used in the New Testament? When Jesus established the Eucharist, Mt. 26 quoted above. I also documented OS26-27 the deliberate, non-attending of the Eucharistic sacrifice/meal was a sin, Heb. 10:26For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.
If they don't commit that sin, there is a sacrifice for sins.
21)Finally, Hebrews 13:9-10 notes this.'9Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. 10We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.
Notice that there is an altar, right here, right now. Altar only pertains to sacrifice. The Levitical foods had foods that did not provide grace, but in the New Covenant grace does have a food that benefits the adherents. The Levitical priests have no right to eat this food, but the New Covenant is only fulfilled in the Eucharist.
1 CORINTHIANS
22)Malakye promised a response on 1 Corinthians. Paul not only gives the institution of the Eucharist, 1 Cor. 11:24-25, he interprets it both before and after.
This points us again to the parallel in 1 Corinthians 10:16:The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? 1 Cor. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and/or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
The words absolutely destroy symbolic interpretation. Partake in the Body and Blood, profane them if not in grace. Now he will say just as Jesus didn't mean it in John 6, don't take Paul's words literally either. Paul notates again the words (verse 25) that match Exodus 24:8. Paul has interpreted this for us as real, despite whatever Malakye asserts in his closing.
IGNATIUS/AUGUSTINE-COUNTERFEIT?
23)Malkaye is horrified by the Church Fathers and slanders them: Rather, they generally give no hint of comparing Scripture with Scripture(2R20).
Stone, a Protestant scholar Malakye refers to agrees that the Fathers taught the real presence and sacrifice in his book. In some cases Stone only gives snippets. Page 48 of that book he mentions he gives a mention of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Priest seen as alter Christus. Stone refers to Cyprian briefly, but his Epistle 62-63, has tons of Scriptural references, including Paul in 1 Cor. 10-11, all the gospels, including John 6, Jeremiah, Exodus 12, Revelation, Melchizedek, many other Scriptures NPNF1,vol. 5, 358-364. Cyprian notes those such as Malakye, picking up like Zwingli, is "changing it by human tradition into anything else than what was divinely appointed. 62:14 p.362" It is not that they don't use Scriptures, Malakye can't stand that their understanding is Catholic. Spelled out for anyone to research in depth, Malakye slandering aside. Chrysostom has an in-depth, fine analysis of Hebrews which shows both the Eucharist true presence and sacrifice. Augustine doesn't use and compare Scripture, in reference to the Eucharist? I am dumfounded. Augustine is replete with Scriptures, Psalm 40:10-12, Augustine, tying it in to 1 Cor. 11:27-29, lamb, Passover meal, Exodus, Matthew, Isaiah, NPNF1 Vol. 5, pp. 123-124. Ignatius was at John's feet, he heard from John himself and just happens to speak about it like Catholics, the Eucharist is salvific. He just doesn't see the novel interpretations started by the 16th century heretic Zwingli. Many Fathers used figurative language but at the same time, as noted by Stone, (pp. 29-33) also the true presence. They use Scripture voluminously with explicit explanations, there are no reformed Baptist takes on the Eucharist. Malakye's assertion that Jesus allowed his followers to create a counterfeit religion (2R27) is not plausible, as Jesus says otherwise (Mt. 16:18-19, 28:20). Historic churches, including the Coptic Churches, and Orthodox, all believe in the Eucharistic true presence and sacrifice. If counterfeit, why no 'true' Christians to correct?
SUPERSUBSTANTIAL BREAD
24)Malakye argues against Matthew 6, daily bread referring to the Eucharist.
epiousios exists nowhere else in Greek literature either. Since, therefore, no one can really be sure of it's meaning, it is irresponsible to use this as an apologetic for Transubstantiation(2R22).
Malakye has admitted that the meaning of eating flesh and drinking blood nowhere in Greek literature ever meant believe, every single use of eating flesh/drinking blood, inside and outside Scripture, is negative. That speculation becomes the main apologetic to say Jesus didn't mean what He said in John 6. He calls my take 'irresponsible?' Primary interpretation here is supernatural bread of the Eucharist, secondarily, daily bread. Jerome's interpretation of Matthew 6 not the only basis. 150 years before, Cyprian interpreted it that way as I already documented, 1R19-20(250 AD), already cited Cyril of Jerusalem likewise. Baptist scholar AT Robertson says "Jerome's translation of this verse is simply literalistic translation of epiousios, which probably signified something much more like 'supernatural.'" The Lord's Prayer, cited, Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, p. 173. Greek John Cassian, Chrysostom's pupil also refers to the Eucharist as 'above all substances'. This apologetic has ancient, scholarly support.
Jesus talks about praying for the Kingdom to come, which Jesus inaugurates. Jesus is the new Moses predicted Deut. 18:18, Baruch (OS4). God rained manna from heaven, gave them to eat daily (Exodus 16:4,8). The Eucharist offered daily. Jesus speaks about the new manna, John 6:49-58 perfectly fits the Eucharist and the Lord's prayer.
APPEALING TO THE CATHOLIC CANON?
25)The four institutional narratives all say 'This is My Body' and the blood 'is' poured out (3 of 4). I argued that points forward to and makes present his sacrifice and body/blood. 2R13 Malakye argues: In 2011, the new translation of the Mass was changed to, "which WILL BE given", thus finally agreeing with Protestants
This debate is not on the Catholic canon but Scripture. Scriptures are in the present tense. Luke 22:20"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." He is making present. BTW, the canon translation doesn't mean it isn't his body. Yes, every time He uses present language doesn't mean present, but in this essential time Jesus himself says so. Verse 18, He says when he will eat in the heavenly kingdom. In each gospel narrative He says Peter will deny him, so He could have used future terminology. But He doesn't. New covenant in real/sacrificial blood poured out here, real blood in Exodus 24(2R10-11).
26)Malakye argues based on "the bread of sorrows, tears, deceit", when Jesus says "This is My Body", it means it isn't his body. 2R5 His sample metaphors all negative, don't apply. This is a Passover meal, where He is eating the lamb's flesh, ringing in the disciples' ears are the John 6 words one must eats his flesh. Mentioned there, now fulfilled. Unleavened bread was a part of it (Exodus 12:15). This meal was sacrificial and to imagine the new one wasn't, is betrayed by Jesus' words of institution, using Exodus 24:8 language of, covenant in My Blood, which speaks of its reality and sacrifice, fatal to the it is only a symbol, not a sacrifice mantra.
27)When I charged Malakye with explaining away Jesus and Paul's words he tried to turn it around: 'This accusation is quite hypocritical' then quotes all have sinned and says Catholics ignore that about Mary(2R8).
Does all include Jesus? Does a baby, mentally handicapped people sin? If Malakye says Jesus, babies and mentally handicapped people sin, he may have a point, but probably not. There are some exceptions. The equivalent to 'This is My Body' meaning 'This is Not My Body', is the Bible saying 'Mary sinned' and Catholics saying 'Mary didn't sin.' It doesn't.
TEMPORARY PRESENCE
28)Malakye "I will never leave you or forsake you", refutes the convoluted doctrine of a "sacramental temporary presence" (2R11).
Actually, if one eats his flesh and drinks his blood, one will live forever, John 6:53, permanent. You don't, you won't. It gives grace, forgives sins (Heb. 13:9-10, Mt. 26:28), lasts. A temporary sacramental presence doesn't mean Jesus leaves after that presence is gone. The idea that we believe Jesus' only presence is in the Eucharist, is wrong. Nonetheless, one can leave, forsake, and choose to no longer abide with him (John 15:6,10), and get cast into the fire, if one mortally sins, doesn't keep the commandments. One example, for two years, Judas was a believer, Jesus didn't choose an unbeliever. Judas was one of twelve assigned to preach the gospel, had the authority to cast out demons Mark 3:13-19, Mt. 10:1-8. Unbelievers can't cast out demons. It is in this context Jesus said it can only be done by the power of the Holy Spirit, and it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say that Satan can cast out Satan, Mark 3:22-30. All twelve, including Judas, are called sheep, Mt. 10:16. A two-year believer, but when did doubt first appear? When Jesus declares himself God, 5:17-29? No problem. When Jesus spoke about eating flesh and drinking blood. John specifically notes here in John 6 after the proclamation of the reality of teaching on his true flesh and blood. Judas now termed an unbeliever here (OS12, John 6:64, 70-71). A thief and son of perdition after John 6, noted in John 12:6, and John 17:12. He partook of the flesh and blood that he didn't believe in, to his own damnation, 1 Cor. 11:27. One can believe Jesus or join Judas in unbelief.
ALTER CHRISTUS
29)Malakye quotes Hebrews 9:25; "blood not their own" has been utterly done away with (2R28).
Jesus commissioned the apostles to 'Do this in remembrance of me.' He says 'This is My Blood'. That is what he told them to do. They say 'This is My Blood', not 'This is Jesus' Blood.' Surely not 'This symbolizes my Blood.' That makes it alter Christus, and exactly fits the Hebrew passage of a blood not their own, it is Jesus' blood. Hebrews 9:20, 23 is before verse 25, quoted here. Cyprian, correctly notes Alter Christus, epistle 62-63.
SYMBOLIC CANNIBALISM
30)The charge of cannibalism, eating dead flesh, is again made (2R9). Jesus is not dead. It gives eternal life and grace, forgives sins, a dead body doesn't. I will accept the correction that we do eat all of Jesus, including parts of his body, but in the form of bread and wine, not dead flesh. Second century Pagans are those who made this charge, Christians in 15 centuries didn't. If cannibalistic to eat the resurrected body and blood of Christ, then it is cannibalistic to eat a symbol of it. It is sinful to lust after women, just as committing the physical act of adultery (Mt. 5:27). If so, you can't symbolically eat flesh. The Baptist should never do the Lord's supper anyway, even with grape juice. On the contrary, Jesus says 'Do this.' That shows how bankrupt and graceless, the Baptist Lord's Supper is.
NEW BREAD OF ANGELS
31)Malakye:Bible does not say one solitary word about an army of eucharist angels 2R28
Angels are ministering servants for salvation (Hebrews 1:14). As manna was bread of angels (Psalm 78:25), for the greater manna, that Jesus identified as superior, angels must be more involved in the New Covenant meal:
Hebrews 12:22-24 22you have come---- to innumerable angels in festal gathering---24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood.
The term covenant is only used when Jesus institutes the covenant in his blood. Angels are involved.
Heavenly worship reflecting the Mass, slain, living lamb, scrolls, worship of the Lamb, angels surrounded, Revelation 5:5-11, (OS13-14). This image perfectly fits the New Covenantal worship.
CONCLUSION
32)In this debate I have established that Jesus meant what he said in John 6:48-58, was literal, not metaphorical. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29,8:31-36), and this sacrament has been shown to give grace and forgive sins. Jesus explains it is through the Holy Spirit that He does so (John 6:63). This new manna far surpasses the Exodus manna, which sustained Israelites for forty years. This new bread of angels gives eternal life (John 6:53).
The meal has been shown to point to the one-time sacrifice, is offered daily, regularly (Malachi 1:11-12). Will you believe in Jesus very words in John 6:26-69, and the four institutional narratives, or will you downgrade Jesus to metaphor, and like Judas, believe in Jesus only until he speaks about the reality of his true flesh and blood? I suggest you take Jesus at his word.
Word total: 5,000.