Response to Objections to the Body and Blood

Here I defend the Real Presence of Christ in Communion and answer the following ten objections against it:
1--Jesus was only speaking allegorically
2--Jesus was only pulling the wool over their eyes
3--Jesus couldn’t have meant it literally, since the Torah prohibits drinking blood
4--Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me,” so it is nothing more than memorial.
5--Jesus said we are saved by eating His flesh, so He can’t really mean eating flesh
6--Jesus broke bread with the apostles while He was still with us on earth. That could not possibly be His body and blood since He was sitting right there
7--Jesus elsewhere defined bread or food as something else
8--James White’s explanation - the crowds got it right.
9--If that were true, it would repeat breaking His body on the cross and go against Scripture
10--Jesus explained His words as allegorical in verses 62-64
You can find the text of this essay right here: www.holinessofthebride.com/wp...
You can find it up on my Real Presence page at Holiness of the Bride right here: www.holinessofthebride.com/se...
My marriage book Get Married and Save the World is available here: www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/...
My book Pain, on the meaning of suffering and God's solution to it, is right here in paperback and e-book: www.amazon.com/Pain-Thomas-Ac...
Write me anytime at: [e-mail]

[@fcastellanos57]

That doctrine was not taught by any of the apostles nor Jesus, to start with. It does not matter if billions accept the concept that Jesus is in the host, numbers of people accepting this does not make this true or the importance of the person who believes it, there have to be a clear teaching in the scriptures that plainly teaches this but there is not any. It has to be understood that the meal they had together was not a new meal since it was the passover meal, one they celebrated every year. Even if this was a miracle like you say, it does not follow that there had to be a selected group of men with the power to go through that same ritual to put Christ in this form. Jesus with his dead abolished the levitical system along with all sacrifices.
I want to ask you, I do agree that Jesus was not talking symbolically in John 6, yes we need to eat of his flesh and drink his blood, how do you think we are going to do this? Do you think Jesus was talking in the physical or spiritual sense? In the physical sense it does not make sense, I don’t think he meant that should should cut him up and eat him right? So it has to be in the spiritual sense. How do you supposed this is done?

[@holinessofthebride1935]

Christ follower, I will answer your question, but I don't see that you actually engage the points within this video. Why not? I already responded to your objections, and I respond to more in this video.
Jesus taught this doctrine, as plainly as He taught anything else! He then defended His doctrine against those who were offended and in disbelief, just like you and most Protestants are. It was accepted by the early Church as well, because they took Jesus' teaching at face value, and didn't try to imaginatively insert other meaning in there, as Protestants try to do.
I am not discussing whether a unique priesthood must provide the Real Presence, but only defending Jesus' own words, that the Eucharist is His divine body. That is a true miracle. Christ left us with something GREATER than the manna in the desert (which was a miracle, remember) and He left us with something GREATER than an orthodox Jewish Seder with its layers of symbolism -- that is the Lamb of God, whom we consume when we take Communion. We unite with our Lord in the New Covenant Passover in a profoundly intimate way. We eat and drink Him.
Christ follower, If you recognize that the body and blood is MORE than symbolic, then you already know what a weak doctrine it is to take the ordinary teaching of Jesus and make it mere symbol. Where do you go from there? You simply take His words to mean what they ordinarily mean. That we take, and eat His body. It really is Him.
Trust Christ's words, and don't try to demand an explanation for every philosophic quandary that comes along. If Jesus said it then it's true. Don't try to worry about every Catholic tradition that was built up, but simply focus on the teaching itself. That's why I came to accept it -- because clearly a symbol or a mere spiritual presence did not represent what Jesus taught.
I toyed with the idea of a spiritual presence years ago, and rejected it. That's because Christ said nothing about a spiritual presence in this passage or at the Last Supper. We have a spiritual presence of Christ with us all the time! That's not what Jesus spoke about. He told us to consume His body and blood. There is little complicated about it if you allow Him to speak.
I believe Peter is a great example of how we should accept His words, even when they are as amazing as that. He is a model for us. We believe Jesus' words, not because we philosophically grasp them, but because we believe and know He is the Son of the living God.
Protestants have made a terrible error to reject the Real Presence. They now defraud the brethren and harm the Church. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is a central part of the Church, near to our heart .