Gospel of Matthew Truth

[Anonymous No.18825479]

>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
>Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Well, /lit/, what does the atheist and gnostic non-dualist say to this?

[Anonymous No.18826008]

schizo

[Anonymous No.18826028]

Why do Catholics put so much emphasis on transubstantiation? Of all the things that lose meaning in the Bible if they're not taken literally, this seems to be of not important. It still perfectly makes sense as a symbolic act.

[Anonymous No.18826100]

>>18826028
> this seems to be of not important
If Christ said to do it or we have no life in ourselves, then it's important.

[Anonymous No.18826116]

>>18826028
This is not a symbol, Jesus said that literally and put an emphasis on that. It's not hyperbolic.

[Anonymous No.18826118]

>>18826028
Also, I'm not catholic. And if it is purely symbolic then we have no unity with Christ and are just roleplaying like the protestants.

[Anonymous No.18826124]

>>18826028
Because private interpretation is unreliable

[Anonymous No.18826332]

>>18826028
The man himself was ready to lose people over this point

> The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, lives continually in me, and I in him.
> After this, many of his disciples went back to their old ways, and walked no more in his company.

[Anonymous No.18826367]

How do I understand that Christ willed all of his sufferings and had full power over them as God, while them still being really experienced by Him as a human?

How do we get to this state of controlling our passions?

[Anonymous No.18826380]

>>18826332
One thing I wonder: in my study Bible it says that the animal sacrifices in the OT are to be seen as a type for the final sacrifice of Christ. Of course the instructions are that one should not eat the blood with the flesh. Jesus says to drink his blood. What's the relationship between the two things? It must've been incredibly blasphemous to drink any blood for the Jews.

[Anonymous No.18826685]

>>18826028
>It still perfectly makes sense as a symbolic act.

It has a certain trivial meaning as a symbol, but if it's just a symbol... well, I'll let Flannery O'Connor explain.

In the late 1940s or early 1950s, Flannery O'Connor went to a party where Mary McCarthy, the well-known writer and lapsed Catholic, was in attendance. O'Connor described the meeting in the collection of letters The Habit of Being.

>"Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the 'most portable' person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, 'Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.' That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.18827072]

The Cross extends throughout all of divine substance, including that of the soul; the breadgrains of one's life, and the thin rain of one's solace, are metagenerated by the Cross of one's soul, in syncord with Christ.

>>18826367
>How do we get to this state of controlling our passions?
By conviction; only a strong mind can bear the heaviness of glory.

Light & sharp is the crown, and heavy & blunt is the robe, of the world; heavy & blunt is the crown, and light & soft is the robe, of spirit.

[Anonymous No.18827546]

does anyone know how to make bread the body of christ? how did it go from bread to the white stuff it is now.

[Anonymous No.18827562]

>>18827546
I always forget the name, it's something like biscuit or cracker. Toast?

[Anonymous No.18827623]

>>18825479
How can you be Gnostic and Non-Dualist? Gnosticism needs the trapped soul or whatever they call it to be able to have the possibility for escape.

[Anonymous No.18828208]

Same as the last thread: >>/lit/thread/S18784763#p18786711

>If it is for the forgiveness of sins then why would he drink it at all? Also, if the "true presence" and such is achieved and is effective BEFORE his execution, as this excerpt claims, then why would it even be necessary for him to die at all? Catholics and reading: blood enemies.

[Anonymous No.18828223]

>>18827623

Consider that the definitions of Monism and Dualism are improper.

[Anonymous No.18828300]

>>18825479
Isn't 2 mathew a forgery?

[Anonymous No.18828525]

>>18828208
Nonsensical false causation and false dialectic between the Last Supper and Christ's crucifixion. Probably the most weird false dichotomy I've seen discussed here.

[Anonymous No.18828537]

>>18828525

Any objection in particular?

[Anonymous No.18828560]

>>18828537
>effective BEFORE his execution
>would it even be necessary for him to die at all
Yes, show how your reasoning isn't a false dialectic.

[Anonymous No.18828700]

>>18828560

What is false about it? Either it is effective before his death, making his death redundant, annulling the Catholic explanation of the Atonement, or it is not effective before his death, annulling the Catholic explanation of the Eucharist.