Anyway, Pilgrim is trying, only that I want her to change her perception about Catholic. Though, her observation is friendly.

@ poster
thou shall not judge so that u should not be judged too.

I-man:

What does the Igbo term "nwanne" mean in English and how do you translate it?- Siblings?Relatives? The language spoken then was Aramaic-which uses "brother" like the Igbos would say "nwanne" without clearly delineating what type of relationship exists because there is no Aramaic term for cousins or step-brothers.e.t.c

The Bible was not translated from Igbo to Hebrew then Aramaic before English! Just because we have the NT saying three wise men came "from the EAST" does not mean you should now translate Igbo custom to the land of Israel! I beg you well-well!

That said, no one is fooled by that ploy. There is no mistaking that His brethren are simply Mary's children. Greek is a VERY WELL developed language - and there's no mistaking the terms used contextually to convey clear meanings that His brethren simply point to Mary's other children.

I-man:

The NT was written in Greek but the Greek term for "brother" like the Igbo term or the Aramaic term doesn't neccesarily translate to siblings

Tell us the term in Greek, then show us what it means. Can you do that simply? Thank you.  

I-man:

So only adherents of "new Churches" would take for granted "brother" or "brethren" as cast iron certainities of the type of relationships that exists.The confidence a lack of . . . .

You guys have tried to shlep this misconstruction for eons. Well, pilgrim.1 no dey hear word from time, and the Greek you pretend to know, we go speak am today-today!

Oya, nwanne _{(a combo of Yoruba and Igbo)}. . . over to you -- επιλύω η πρόβλημα  

I-man:

Exactly!It was crystal clear to me that you don't know and that was why I made that point about your lack of knowledge Enough said.That is all I wanted you to admit-That you don't know Not knowing didn't stop you from arguing

Hmmm. . I knew that is all you wanted (we use such teasers to make noise-makers settle down).

Now that you have capitalized on the quiescence, could you please now help us understand your Catholic history?

Thank you.

ebos:

Please, read down the bible verses of that Mark 6:3. Don't stop at verse 3. Read it down, you will get the points clear about that portion you quoted.

Read it "down" to what verse precisely?

ebos:

Hope you tackle her well.

Hehe. . please borrow him your towel - because e go wipe sweat tire!!

I-man
I expect you to ask Pilgrim why Jesus on the cross handed Mary over to John the beloved who took Mary and lived with her till the rest of his life. Could Jesus be so selfish not to consider His brothers? Where were the so-called brothers and sisters then? I hope they should have taken care of Mary and not someone else. How could they defend this handover of Mary to John and her children? I-Man fire her jare.

collino:

all of una wey dey tok against catholic church lack of knowledge dey worri una.sorri

We hear. Oya, make una submit una own knowledge make we sabi wetin we no know before!

- - - -

ebos:

Anyway, Pilgrim is trying, only that I want her to change her perception about Catholic. Though, her observation is friendly.

I do my best to be friendly - thank God that I've come across many friends who are Catholic, but nonetheless, very friendly as well (and you happen to be one of 'em)  

- - - -

saintchux:

@ poster
thou shall not judge so that u should not be judged too.

Yes, we are not holding a judiciary session any longer. Na question carry us reach this page.

ebos:

I-man
I expect you to ask Pilgrim

You see I-man now? The thing wey you expect am to do, he did not do.

Anyway. . .

ebos:

why Jesus on the cross handed Mary over to John the beloved who took Mary and lived with her till the rest of his life. Could Jesus be so selfish not to consider His brothers?

He wasn't "selfish" - and being "selfish" is not the point here.

ebos:

Where were the so-called brothers and sisters then? I hope they should have taken care of Mary and not someone else. How could they defend this handover of Mary to John and her children? I-Man fire her jare.

Did you check about His 'brothers' before asking those questions? Here:

John 7:5 -- "For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Finito!

@Pilgrim,
That was why I said you should read down the Mark 6:3 down. The portion said that “His mother and brothers and sister are here with us but don’t believe in Jesus. So, my question is, Didn’t Mary believe in Jesus (her son)? You can see now that another Mary was used and not Mary the Mother of Jesus, likewise those brothers as referred were not Mary’s children – I mean Mary the mother of Jesus. Another Mary was referred entirely. Again, Didn’t Joseph His foster father believe in Jesus? But that portions says Christ father did not believe in Him. I hope you get it right now?

@ebos,

ebos:

That was why I said you should read down the Mark 6:3 down. The portion said that “His mother and brothers and sister are here with us but don’t believe in Jesus.

What verse is that, please?

ebos:

So, my question is, Didn’t Mary believe in Jesus (her son)?

The Bible never taught that. If it did, please show it.

ebos:

You can see now that another Mary was used and not Mary the Mother of Jesus, likewise those brothers as referred were not Mary’s children – I mean Mary the mother of Jesus. Another Mary was referred entirely.

When you quote the relevant verses, then the point will be clear. Until then, I await.

ebos:

Again, Didn’t Joseph His foster father believe in Jesus? But that portions says Christ father did not believe in Him. I hope you get it right now?

I don't get it. Rather than make suggestions, I'd appreciate that you quote the text - the relevant verses, please.

ευχαριστώ εσύ ξανά

Nice debate
Now we can recieve free greek lessons, lol

I don't have my bible here.

ebos:

I don't have my bible here.

Typical Catholic!  You no sabi your Bible,talk true 

Convincing a Catholic member of the truth of the gospel is a very difficult thing to do, except by the grace of God.

They avoid all questions and stick to what they have been thought and not what the Bible says.

1. Holy comminion is bread and wine standard. But the catholics do it the other way round.

2. baptism is for those who have been convinced of the redemption and confess their sins, and not for innocent babies who do not know their left from right nor can make decision for themselves.

3. Making of images and bowing down to them is Idolatry.

4. There is no where in the Bible where Jesus called Mary mother. But in Catholic more reference is given to Mary than Jesus.

5. The "hail Mary" incantation is not a prayer of any kind. Mary can't pray for nobody, we can ask God anything in the name of Jesus and not "Mary".

6. Only God can forgive sin and not a mere priest that hides at the back of a cupboard listening to all your secrets. Confess all your sin to God in the name of Jesus sincerely and He is faithful and just to forgive you all your sin and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.

I do not know why this is difficult for the Catholic people to understand.

My Vision Last Night

In my vision last, I saw a crowd in heaven and the Angel of God tried to know their respective denominations while on earth. The Catholics and the Protestants in heaven were put at the ratio of 15:2, with Catholics had upper hand. I was there, I-man and other Catholics in this forum were there too but I was on top of them all in heaven. Pilgrim was also there and that was after much cry for help. Anyway, she made it because of her statement that she never accused Catholic direct of any idolatry. As for Locoman, Thiefofhearts and their supporters here, hum, I didn’t see them in heaven and I was really touched when I saw them in……. shouting ebos, ebos, please ask Mary to plead for us, but I said, Heh, be quiet there! Is that how to address her? Can’t you see the way we address her? They now said, ok, ebos, please ask blessed Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven & Earth to pray for us. Then, I said, blessed, sweet Mother Mary help these my friends.

Mother Mary now repeated the role she played at the wedding in Canaan. It was then that Jesus said Locoman, Thiefofhearts, PTH, and their supporters to go one side for a while and He would bring them up to heaven later. The place was neither heaven nor hell. Where is this place? Remember, Catholic believe there is a place known as Purgatory.

However, I asked Angel Michael, how the few Protestants made it to heaven. I was told these Protestants here in heaven were those who never said anything against Blessed Mary, the Mother of Christ, and have not gone against the true church. This is ebos’ vision, let him who has ears listen. Locoman, Thiefofhearts, PTH and co, please embrace Catholic faith and see us as friends.

hahahahahah hahahahahaha hahahaah what a dream ! Hm, I am sure you dreamt about purgatory that the Catholics teaches and not heaven. Please exclude[b] Pilgrim [/b] from your list of people you saw. Because i know where Pilgrim is going. we are going to dine with the Lord Jesus.

@ all Protestants
About Infant baptism, how do you put to rights the statement of Jesus that NO ONE will enter heaven except he is born of Water and Spirit with your not baptizing children? So, these children, after death would be where hence you are against Infant baptism?

I want somebody (any of my Protestant friends) to address this question bearing in mind the two words NO ONE. You have been asking questions on catholic faith, now let us ask our own.

ebos:

@ all Protestants
About Infant baptism, how do you put to rights the statement of Jesus that NO ONE will enter heaven except he is born of Water and Spirit with your not baptizing children? So, these children, after death would be where hence you are against Infant baptism?

@ebos,

My dear friend, first I want to applaud your 'night vision'. The only snag about it is that it goes directly contrary to the Christian faith as expressed in God's WORD. Ask, and I'll show you HOW and WHY it is so.

Now, as regards the question of infant baptism, let's understand one something and get it clear once for all.

The Lord Jesus Christ acknowledged baptism as applying to adults and those who are able to hear the Gospel and understand it. Do babies understand the Gospel? Do Catholic priests even attempt to preach the Gospel to babies before the administer the baptism to infants? Let's see what the WORD says on this:


(a) Jesus acknowledged, and even baptized, others who came to Him -

John 3:22, 26 (see also ch. 4:1-2)
'After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there
he tarried with them, and baptized. . . And they came unto John, and said unto him,
Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold,
the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.'

(b) But Jesus did NOT baptize children but simply blessed them -

Mark 10:13-16
'And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples
rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and
said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive
the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in
his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.'

(c) The crucified thief was promised paradise WITHOUT having been baptized

Luke 23:41-43
'And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath
done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into
thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with
me in paradise.'


From all the above, it is clear that God never sent anyone to go baptize children. The basic outline for baptism by water has already been given in Mark 16:18 - 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' You don't go out to baptize people first before they believe. And this standard was also exemplified in the ministry of the apostles in Acts 18:8 -

'And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house;
and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.'

Look again at the second line in that verse and see the procedure - they first HEARD, then BELIEVED, before they were BAPTIZED! This again is found in Acts 8:35-38. Philip first preached to the Ethiopian eunuch; and when the same officer requested to be baptized, the evangelist first made sure that he had believed BEFORE he administered baptism -

'And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said,
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.'

The problem with the Catholic practice today is that people are baptized without even first ascertaining that they have first HEARD the Gospel, then BELIEVED, before they are BAPTIZED! Can we in all honesty ask if the Catholic Church preaches the Gospel to infants before administering baptism by water?

Rest your heart. Infants are in a state of innocence - that is why Jesus categorically mentioned that unto such belong the Kingdom (Mark 10:14). There's nothing wrong if the Catholic Church would follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ and "bless" those children rather than administer baptism to them without a clear injunction to do so.

WHERE did Jesus ever baptize any INFANT?

What’s the hitch about my vision? Note, you even cried a lot for help before we could rally round to cross you over.

Now, about the Criminal who was promised heaven by Christ, he had a baptism by desire on the cross. What I mean, if given the opportunity at that moment, he would have been baptized but he had no such chance. He wanted it and such people are regarded as being baptised. Again, have you not heard, teach a child the way of the Lord, when he grow, he will not depart from it? So, why waiting for a child to grow and make decision for his spiritual needs, but you make every decision for his physical needs? Let me explain again, what the scripture mean by anyone who is incapable of spiritual responsibility has nothing to do with age (not referring to children per say). Some adults can also be incapable of spiritual responsibility that is why parents or sponsors have to take care of the spiritual needs of their children after baptism. It was said that Cornelius and his household were baptized and children must be involved. According to you, Jesus Christ teaching on John Chapter 3 (NO ONE) is no longer binding on Christians?

ebos,

ebos:

What’s the hitch about my vision? Note, you even cried a lot for help before we could rally round to cross you over.

I hear. But the real pilgrim.1 knows that only ONE voice is enough to take me to heaven - the voice of Jesus.

ebos:

Now, about the Criminal who was promised heaven by Christ, he had a baptism by desire on the cross. What I mean, if given the opportunity at that moment, he would have been baptized but he had no such chance. He wanted it and such people are regarded as being baptised.

I'm sure readers are least interested in what the Catholic Church "regards" as this, that or the other. The one thing that settles the matter is this - SHOW from the WORD of God that the thief on the cross was actually baptized!

ebos:

Again, have you not heard, teach a child the way of the Lord, when he grow, he will not depart from it? So, why waiting for a child to grow and make decision for his spiritual needs, but you make every decision for his physical needs?

Each person is to make a decision on their own. Trying to baptize INFANTS is to violate their right to decide for themselves. Besides, we know that many people who claim to have been baptized at infancy still grew up to be outlaws!

ebos:

Let me explain again, what the scripture mean by anyone who is incapable of spiritual responsibility has nothing to do with age (not referring to children per say). Some adults can also be incapable of spiritual responsibility that is why parents or sponsors have to take care of the spiritual needs of their children after baptism. It was said that Cornelius and his household were baptized and children must be involved.

There is no reason to believe that there were children in Cornelius' household. The word "household" does not translate to "children", and it is a common Greek term for mature members of a family. That is the way it is often used, and you can take a look at the following verses to confirm it for yourself:

Matt. 10:36 -- "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Acts 10:7 -- "And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually"

1 Cor. 1:16 -- "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other."

Gal. 6:10 -- "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

Php. 4:22 -- "All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household" (unless you're saying that Caesar had INFANTS running around the palace!)

ebos:

According to you, Jesus Christ teaching on John Chapter 3 (NO ONE) is no longer binding on Christians?

I never said so. I only showed that the Lord Jesus Christ clearly did NOT baptize INFANTS!! And if you want to argue it, please show me where the thief on the cross was actually BAPTIZED? Don't dribble ideas into the WORD of God to make it sound like God "regarded" some people already baptized by "desire" - it is nowhere taught in God's WORD.

If Jesus baptized INFANTS, please ebos show it!

Again, I asked you on Friday, where were Jesus brothers and Sister when Mary was handed over to John the beloved? You answer was that, Jesus brothers did not believe in jesus. Now, if Jesus brothers and sisters did not believe Jesus, did that stop Mary from being their mother? Did they not believe Mary their mother?

My brothers and sister may not believe in me, but it will not stop them from taking good care of my mother when I’m no more around.

I believe all these reasons are enough to convince you that Mary had no other children after Jesus because Mary’s sons and daughters could not be there and allowed John the beloved took care of the mother till death. It is unbelievable. So, telling us Jesus brothers and sisters did not believe in Jesus was the only reason He denied them their mother, and even Mary accepted to abandon her own children sounds somehow. I want you to produce more scriptural backings to your position.

Infant baptism, I will still come to it. But you have to answer questions today from us.

@ebos

Please take your time and read this article

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REcatholic.htm

Locoman,
You people should answer my question, it is time to ask you people. We want concrete evidence. I take my time and go through the site you pasted.

@ebos,

ebos:

You people should answer my question, it is time to ask you people.  We want concrete evidence.  I take my time and go through the site you pasted.

Lol. . . you know we're never shy of Catholic questions. If others are shy, definitely not pilgrim.1. The only thing is that when she starts asking questions, not many Catholics have the good humour to offer cogent answers from the Bible.

Should we still keep our fingers crossed?

ebos:

Again, I asked you on Friday, where were Jesus brothers and Sister when Mary was handed over to John the beloved?  You answer was that, Jesus brothers did not believe in jesus.

The fact is that the Bible records that Jesus' siblings did not believe in Him - and you can't deny that (John 7:5). After His resurrection, we understand that at least some of them believed - as is clear in reference to James who is called "the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19), and others who were referred to as "the brethren of the Lord" (1 Cor. 9:5).

ebos:

Now, if Jesus brothers and sisters did not believe Jesus, did that stop Mary from being their mother?  Did they not believe Mary their mother?

This sounds really odd, lol. Are you not here admitting that Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus? Check again the verse that says so explicitly:

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

The Bible never confuses this issue. Jesus had disciples; but the WORD never confuses or mixes up the disciples for His brethren/siblings. See an example:

John. 2:12
"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples:
and they continued there not many days."

Do you see that the Bible clearly demonstrates that Mary had other children whom the Bible calls His brethren?

ebos:

My brothers and sister may not believe in me, but it will not stop them from taking good care of my mother when I’m no more around.

That simply demonstrates and confirms that Mary had other children - not so? Your analogy does not disprove the point. Rather, you're only confirming what you initially argued against.

ebos:

I believe all these reasons are enough to convince you that Mary had no other children after Jesus because Mary’s sons and daughters could not be there and allowed John the beloved took care of the mother till death.

You have just confirmed the same thing you have argued in favour of - and then coming back to use your analogy to convolute your affirmations. Lol, ebos. . . do you need to edit some lines in yours?

ebos:

It is unbelievable.  So, telling us Jesus brothers and sisters did not believe in Jesus was the only reason He denied them their mother, and even Mary accepted to abandon her own children sounds somehow.

It's not unbelievable. The problem here is that you're trying tof forcefully assume some issues into the text where they are simply not there. Jesus did not deny them their mother; nor did Mary abandon her children. Neither you nor I can tell at this moment why His siblings were not at the site of the Crucifixion. But we do know that it has nothing to do with Jesus denying His siblings their mother; nor of Mary abandoning her children.

ebos:

I want you to produce more scriptural backings to your position.

I just did - please scroll above.

ebos:

Infant baptism, I will still come to it.  But you have to answer questions today from us.

No wahala - I full groud to answer any questions.

@ebos

What was your question? i have ask several question too but no answer

My questions are coming, only I have some guys here who doesn't want me to concentrate.

What Pilgrim answered was far from the truth. I used myself as an example and she think I have accepted in part that Mary had other children. Let’s use Igbos as example, if you are in Lagos and your town guys pay you a visit, and when next they come and fail to meet you, your neighbours will pass to you the message that your brothers came to see you. Those brothers and sisters of Jesus were siblings and not blood brothers and sisters. The ‘James’ Pilgrim made mention was His disciple, but the James referred as Jesus brother in Mark 6:3 was a sibling and not His disciple. Mary lived with John the beloved till death, and this keep many of us asking, where were her children? Prove it?

No, you people must provide anwsers today, no magomago answers

Jesus Christ said, the Bread and Wine receive after consecration are His true Body and Blood and it is clearly stated. Why do Protestants find it difficult to accept His teaching rather they believe bread and Wine after being consecrated are mere symbols – a teaching believe to be contrary to that of Christ? So, is the Communion Christ true Body and Blood or just a symbol? Christ also instructed us to do this as often as in memory of Him. But Protestants only carry this symbolic teaching of theirs occasionally – probably less than 6 times a year. Why?

Two questions begging for true answers

ebos:

What Pilgrim answered was far from the truth.

Hehe. . I'm having fun reading yours and wondering how you're unwittingly confirming my point.

ebos:

I used myself as an example and she think I have accepted in part that Mary had other children.

You may not have accepted in part - but the facts are there.

ebos:

Let’s use Igbos as example, if you are in Lagos and your town guys pay you a visit, and when next they come and fail to meet you, your neighbours will pass to you the message that your brothers came to see you.

I don tell una before: the Bible was not translated from Ibo to Aramaic before English! Wetin concern Ibo culture and Jewish customs?

ebos:

Those brothers and sisters of Jesus were siblings and not blood brothers and sisters. The ‘James’ Pilgrim made mention was His disciple, but the James referred as Jesus brother in Mark 6:3 was a sibling and not His disciple. Mary lived with John the beloved till death, and this keep many of us asking, where were her children? Prove it?

Oh my goodness!

My dear ebos, let me quote you again:

(a) "Those brothers and sisters of Jesus were siblings and not blood brothers and sisters."

(b) ". . .but the James referred as Jesus brother in Mark 6:3 was a sibling and not His disciple."

I hope you remember the meaning of "sibling"?

Uhm. . . let me see:

From the WordWeb online dictionary:

1. A person's brother or sister

part of family

Wikipedia says:

'One's sibling is one's brother or sister, respectively meaning a male or female
with whom one shares at least one parent.'

American Heritage Dictionary:

sibling: One of two or more individuals having one or both parents in common; a brother or sister.


@ebos, it seems more and more that you're actually coming back to confirm my point again and again. Do you want to edit your submissions now?

ebos:

No, you people must provide anwsers today, no magomago answers

Lol. . . na wa!

ebos:

Jesus Christ said, the Bread and Wine receive after consecration are His true Body and Blood and it is clearly stated. Why do Protestants find it difficult to accept His teaching rather they believe bread and Wine after being consecrated are mere symbols – a teaching believe to be contrary to that of Christ? So, is the Communion Christ true Body and Blood or just a symbol? Christ also instructed us to do this as often as in memory of Him. But Protestants only carry this symbolic teaching of theirs occasionally – probably less than 6 times a year. Why?

Two questions begging for true answers

If the "two" questions are in respect of the meaning of the Supper, and its frequency among Protestants, then I have this to say:

(a) the bread and wine are simply symbolic and not what Catholics call 'transubstantiation'. It is clear that both Christ and the apostles presented this truth in symbolic forms; and no one could argue that the bread and wine become the actual Body and blood of Jesus. If that were so, we ask to be shown the real flesh and skin in the hands of the Catholic priests who assume that the bread turns to the 'body' of Jesus after his prayer!

The bread is still bread; and the wine remains wine - but both are expressions of the Lord's work on the Cross. That is why we read this pivotal statement in 1 Corinthians 11:26 -- "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

In the same sense as the Supper is symbolic, so also the Church is called both the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and one Bread (1 Cor. 10:17). If you need to argue and stretch the "bread" of the Supper to become the actual "body" of Jesus as if it miraculously turned into His flesh, then you'd have to make the same implication as well for the Church! If you cannot see that the Church being spoken of as one "bread" is symbolic, then you may find it difficult grasping the fact that the bread and wine are symbolic of the Lord's Body and blood.


(b) Second, there are so many Churches which celebrate the Supper less frequently than they should. But you can't argue that all Protestants hold the celebration only 6 times in the year. In my local Church, for instance, we make it our aim to celebrate the Lord's Table every Sunday - and yet we're not Catholics, 

Cheers.

Pilgrim, Read John Chapter 6, I believe that Chapter will explain anout the body and blood of Jesus for all of us. Don't twist it. After reading, you tell me more about Communion. Remember it was because of Christ teaching that made His disciples to withdraw from Him. When they said how can this man give us his flesh and blood. Just read it well and tell me everything about it. Or, I will can copy my earlier post on John Chapter 6 and paste it for you.

Again, Jews don't have a word for cousin or nephew, every relative is addressed as brother or sister.

Holy Communion – This is where Catholics keep on wondering what Protestants are teaching. The Holy Communion is the center of the Catholic Faith. Protestants call it a mere symbol while Catholics says it is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, together with…, under the appearances of bread and wine. So, John 6 explains it all. Let us remember that even when Jesus Himself was teaching about His Body and Blood as food to be eaten, many of His disciples withdrew from Him – saying it was a hard teaching, no one could believe that. So, today it is not surprising that some sect have continued to demonstrate that the teaching is a hard one. Jesus said “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world.”.” (John 6:51). Again verses 53-58 states “I say to you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, You Have No Life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks My blood has Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “ This is a mystery – it is beyond your knowledge and it is not a mere symbol of Christ. That is why Catholic is different from protestant churches, so, Protestants can hold their views because the real founders knows they cannot play with John Chapter 6. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 11:23-31, Christ blessed the bread and wine and it became His Real Body and Blood and He broke the bread and gave it to His disciples and said “Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of Me.” Again, He took the cup after super, saying, “This cup is the new Covenant in My blood, drink it often in remembrance of Me.” Just read 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 and John Chapter 6 well. Anyway 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 carries curse that is why Protestant founders cannot call it the real Body and Blood of Jesus to avoid God’s wrath. They know what they are doing.