A Tale of Two Eucharists

[po18guy]

It requires a profound faith to believe in an unseen Christ. And, “blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed”. However, an even deeper faith, and the associated love of Christ, is needed for belief in the Eucharist. As belief is a decision, so is love. The more deeply you love Christ, the more you seek to be in a mystical union with Him. This was required in the seedling of the early church through just such a belief in and love of our Risen Lord Jesus.

God, knowing all things beforehand, left us not as orphans, but planned and decided to remain with us “always, even to the end of the age”. He sent His Holy Spirit to teach and accompany us, to provide the gifts necessary for the building up of the Kingdom. But, Christ knew our weakness in the face of the awesome task at hand, as well as the strength and courage needed by mind, body and spirit to ensure that disciples would be made of all nations.

Christ taught extensively about His Body in scripture. He made it known that He is the bread of life, that He is the Resurrection and the Life. His teaching foreshadowed the institution of the Eucharist, as the remainder of his life had also foreshadowed events that were to come. Thus, the very night before he was to pay the ultimate price for our sins, he lead a supper gathering in prayer. It was there that he instituted His Supper, for us. It was, of course, so that we would remember Him, but also so that we would have the strength of the life which He gives us.

The evil one has always opposed Christ. He sows the seeds of weakness of faith and doubt as to the presence of Christ in our world, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Satan is present - we see his influence. We feel it. We suffer from it. Christ, who loves us infinitely more that Satan hates us, left us His Body, that whoever eats it may have life.

One unwanted result of the reformation was to cast doubt upon the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This belief was attacked by the spirit of antichrist, as written of in the first and second letters of John. Since that occurrence, look at what has happened to the Body of Christ: division, separation, disputes, animosity. These are the fruits of antichrist. Christians fighting one another, rather than the evil one. It is Satan’s greatest triumph. It is real.

The Eucharist is also real. It is the bulwark of our defense against evil. It is the source of strength to fight. It is the fount of hope in a world of darkness. Christ, in the Eucharist, is the very Love of my heart, until He returns on the last day. It is Emmanuel - God with us. But, belief in the Eucharist is neither automatic, nor instantly achieved. It develops, as do all forms of love. It, like our conversion, is a process to which we submit. One which we seek. And, what we seek, we find, because it will be opened to us, and revealed to us.

Look at, not merely the writings of the early church, but the practices. The Eucharist has been practiced, without interruption, continuously since the Last Supper. Truth never changes, and Christ is always with us, the Eucharist remains the center of the Christian life. I pray for the depth of faith, the profound degree of love which will lead all believers to the Eucharist.

Christ’s peace be with all.

 

[Pax]

In Luke 22:19 “…Do this in remembrance of me.”

In fact, a more expressive translation would read “Celebrate this as a memorial sacrifice of me.”

The Greek words used in this sentence all carry much more meaning than what we get out of them when we translate them into English. Almost all Christians are familiar with this concept, because almost all Christians are familiar with the Greek word agape. It translates into English as “love,” but it really carries a lot more meaning. The Greek language had a massive vocabulary, one that at times was extremely specific. It is also a language from a different time with different emphasises, meaning that certain areas of the language will be more developed than our language.

How this plays out in this particular case is that Koine Greek (and Hebrew) developed in a period of time when things like sacrifices were very important. It was a central part of most people’s religions, and thus lives. English, and to a lesser degree Latin, developed at a time and in a culture when things like sacrifices were less important. As a result, Hebrew and Koine Greek have more words to refer to things involving sacrifice than we do.

In the case of the passage cited above, the words involved have heavy sacrificial emphasis.

“Do” is the translation of the word ποιεῖτε (poieite). This particular word often carried a sacrifical context. It is used in the Septuagint 70 times to say “offer a sacrifice” in place of the Hebrew word תעשׂה (asah). It was also used when referring to the Passover, with the meaning of “celebrate.” When one was referring to celebrating the Passover, he would use this word. It was not always used in this way, but the emphasis did exist in the word.

The stronger word is “rememberance,” which is a translation of the Greek word αναμνησιν (anamnesis). This particular word is actually quite loaded. It is one of over 20 different Greek words referring to memory, but unless my memory fails me it is the only one that has a sacrificial meaning. It is used in the Septuagint in place of the Hebrew להזכיר׃ (zakar) and לאזכרה (azkarah).

*Zakar *means memorial, and is often used to refer to burning incense. It is the root word of azkarah, which means “memorial offering.” Here are a few examples of its use (I will bold the translated word in each example).

The use of the term in the New Testament is also in a sacrificial context. Hebrews 10:3 uses the term to refer to the yearly sin offerings in the Levitical system:

Here’s the kicker: the word “sacrifices” is not really in this sentence. Many translations add it, but it does not in fact belong. To see this, look at a King James translation. BIble translators always have to add words when they translate. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense in the new language, because languages don’t translate word for word. In the King James Bible, the translators rendered all of the words they added in italics. Here is the verse in the King James translation:

If we remove those extra terms, we get:

The reason that the words “sacrifices” and “made” are added is because otherwise, the meaning of the passage may be lost. This is because the word *anamnesis *translates as “remembrance” when in fact it means “memorial sacrifice.” Taking into account the complete meaning of the word, the verse ought to say :

Because translators often - particularly in more direct, word for word translations like the King James - render words as simply as they can, fine points like this can be lost.

Peace and God bless

Nicely done.

 

[Pax]

Soc,

What do you think of the following taken from one of my earlier posts?

Leading up to the discourse on the bread of life, John tells us of the following miracles:

–Jesus turns water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes and feeds the multitude.
–Jesus walks on water.

In the first two miracles Jesus shows what he can do with food by way of miracles. In the last miracle Jesus shows what he can do with his body by walking on water. These miracles are the setup for the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus is preparing the disciples for the promised miracle of the Eucharist. So what immediately follows on the heals of the discourse?

In John 7:2 we are told that “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” John doesn’t describe what happened at this time but the other gospels do. They tell us that Jesus went up the mountain and was Transfigured before Peter, James, and John. Once again, Jesus shows a miracle of his body. The discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles. These miracles reinforce the miracle Jesus will perform in giving us His literal flesh and blood as true food and true drink. The discourse is not bracketed by metaphors and it is not intended to be taken metaphorically

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello soc,

As a person converting to the Catholic Church, I can tell you, this is one of those doctrines that I struggled with. I struggled more with a belief in God, certainly, but this one was something I didn’t understand how anyone could be, at all. I had conversations with a Catholic friend, where it just kept coming back to him telling me that no, Catholics are NOT vampires!

I put this one on the tail end of “things that I have to be believed in order to be Catholic”. That tail end included believing in assorted invisible creatures. It wasn’t a shelving of things that were bothering me, more a trust. A trust that God would help me figure it out.

I didn’t stop reading and studying though. But I was coming more from an approach of, is the Catholic Church Christ’s Church? The one that He established. And I spent a LOT of time reading and studying and praying over that one. I believe that it is, and so, it is only logical I believe that if Christ’s Church teaches the doctrine of the Real Presence, then I need to understand the doctrine.

This understanding is two-fold. First, the reasoning out of it. What was the practice in the Early Church. Did it ever diverge? And if so, how? This is one doctrine, across the board, from East to West that has always been. It is logical to me that, as one of the ECF’s pointed out (I think it was Basil?), that it isn’t by any mere coincidence that all the church’s that the Apostle’s established, were all the same Faith. And the Eucharist, is by far, a defining doctrine of all the church’s, from East to West, in every location that the Apostle’s established Christianity.

At the same time, I was working on that second understanding. The one that God leads me to. The mystery of His Presence in the Holy Sacrament that He instituted. And that is where God leads me, and who am I to say no?

I’ll pray that God guides you, to where he wants you to be.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

He is neither the sun nor the moon. He himself is the uncreated source of all light. He is not the sun which consumes itself in giving light nor the moon which reflects the light of the sun.

Yes, Clair, but will everyone who follows Jesus here on earth see this light today, while still in their mortal bodies? Let us look at Jesus’ words again:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” *(John 8:12)*Jesus said that those who follow Him will never walk in darkness but will have His light to show them how to live. When you or i follow Jesus, today, will an actual light from heaven show us the way, or is the light of which Jesus spoke a metaphor for His words in the Bible that guide us?

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.(Psalm 119:105)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This seems like a reasonable speculation. This may be a reasonable effect, but it is difficult to for me to read the passage and then establish that as Jesus intent. There is no point in Jesus life or ministry where he would allow the Jews to make him king. Jesus entrance into Jerusalem on the donkey on what we celebrate as “Palm Sunday” would have been the most likely time for an earthly coronation, but it simply wasn’t going to happen.

Absolutely! Jesus in no way wanted to begin a rebellion, which was a very real possibility in His day, as i learned from reading the Jewish historian Josephus. Jerusalem to Rome was like Iraq to the United States. They were constantly snuffing out insurrections by the strength of their military presence. Many devout Jewish people were expecting a holy war to oust the Romans and put a Messiah king on the thrown of the Jewish nation. This can be seen by reading the extra-biblical writings of the ancient Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ time on earth.

Do you think, then, Pax, that Jesus’ intention was to not explain Himself to the mob, but, instead, to say something that would turn them off and turn them away from their plans to thwart Jesus’ reason for coming to earth?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It’s impossible to prove anything conclusively from scripture alone which is why the reformers couldn’t agree on many issues, including this one. As many posters have said, the only Church which can lay claim to being the historical one has simply “always done it this way”. And time spent reading the ECFs will confirm this.

I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.

(Isaiah 45:5)

Can you explain what these words mean, FH?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You must have looked up Psalm 77 (78)! He struck it because he felt it was God’s word to Him to do so, I believe. I doubt he knew then that it would be a sign of something greater later on. And he had his doubts too, didn’t he?! It was his doubting that kept him from be allowed to enter the Promised Land…so maybe that can
be something to reflect upon when it comes to lacking faith in the Eucharist.
…

Good guess, Mary! Actually, the reason Moses was not allowed to cross the Jordan river before he died was that he disobeyed God. God told him to speak to the rock and it would produce gushing water to quench the thirst of the Jewish people. Moses, who was angry at them for all their gripping about being thirsty, lost his cool and struck the rock, instead. You can read about it here:

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=20&version=31&context=chapter

One reason why God disciplined Moses was that he misrepresented God to the people. Another reason was that he failed to participate in creating a beautiful symbol of Jesus. The Father (represented by Moses) speaks to Jesus (represented by the rock) who pours out the Holy Spirit on all who will receive Him (the water that flowed generously from the rock) and this outpouring of the Spirit quenches their thirst for eternal life and righteousness.

They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

(1 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Do you see how this event in history was to be a wonderful metaphor of Jesus’ love and provision for you and i?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… The evil one has always opposed Christ. He sows the seeds of weakness of faith and doubt as to the presence of Christ in our world, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Satan is present - we see his influence. We feel it. We suffer from it. Christ, who loves us infinitely more that Satan hates us, left us His Body, that whoever eats it may have life.

One unwanted result of the reformation was to cast doubt upon the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This belief was attacked by the spirit of antichrist, as written of in the first and second letters of John. Since that occurrence, look at what has happened to the Body of Christ: division, separation, disputes, animosity. These are the fruits of antichrist. Christians fighting one another, rather than the evil one. It is Satan’s greatest triumph. It is real.

The Eucharist is also real. It is the bulwark of our defense against evil. It is the source of strength to fight. It is the fount of hope in a world of darkness. Christ, in the Eucharist, is the very Love of my heart, until He returns on the last day. It is Emmanuel - God with us. But, belief in the Eucharist is neither automatic, nor instantly achieved. It develops, as do all forms of love. It, like our conversion, is a process to which we submit. One which we seek. And, what we seek, we find, because it will be opened to us, and revealed to us.
…

I understand, Po, that you believe one unfortunate result of the Reformation is to create doubt in the Eucharist. Yet, i also have Protestants telling me that one unfortunate reason for the Reformation was that the devil had feed lies to the Roman Catholic church that have worked their way into its doctrine.

So, how do i know who is speaking the truth? Has the devil given me a Protestant cup of doubt to drink, or has he given me a Roman Catholic poison sausage that is the skin of the truth wrapped around a lie?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

What do you think of the following taken from one of my earlier posts?

Leading up to the discourse on the bread of life, John tells us of the following miracles:

–Jesus turns water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes and feeds the multitude.
–Jesus walks on water.

In the first two miracles Jesus shows what he can do with food by way of miracles. In the last miracle Jesus shows what he can do with his body by walking on water. These miracles are the setup for the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus is preparing the disciples for the promised miracle of the Eucharist. So what immediately follows on the heals of the discourse?

In John 7:2 we are told that “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” John doesn’t describe what happened at this time but the other gospels do. They tell us that Jesus went up the mountain and was Transfigured before Peter, James, and John. Once again, Jesus shows a miracle of his body. The discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles. These miracles reinforce the miracle Jesus will perform in giving us His literal flesh and blood as true food and true drink. The discourse is not bracketed by metaphors and it is not intended to be taken metaphorically

Pax:

Thank you for trying to give me reasons to believe. I apologize if i’m misunderstanding you, but is your line of reasoning this?

1. 
   *]Jesus turns water into wine
   *]Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes and feeds the multitude.
   *]Jesus walks on water.
   *]Jesus does miracles with wine, bread and His body.
   Therefore,
   
   Conclusion: The bread and wind of the Eucharist actually contains the DNA of Jesus’ flesh and blood.
   Sometimes i’m a little slow to catch on, but i do not see how your premises 1 - 4 necessarily support your conclusion. It would help me if you added more premises, or restated your logical argument, or explained the connection between the premises and conclusion.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hello soc,

As a person converting to the Catholic Church, I can tell you, this is one of those doctrines that I struggled with. I struggled more with a belief in God, certainly, but this one was something I didn’t understand how anyone could be, at all. I had conversations with a Catholic friend, where it just kept coming back to him telling me that no, Catholics are NOT vampires!

I put this one on the tail end of “things that I have to be believed in order to be Catholic”. That tail end included believing in assorted invisible creatures. It wasn’t a shelving of things that were bothering me, more a trust. A trust that God would help me figure it out.

I didn’t stop reading and studying though. But I was coming more from an approach of, is the Catholic Church Christ’s Church? The one that He established. And I spent a LOT of time reading and studying and praying over that one. I believe that it is, and so, it is only logical I believe that if Christ’s Church teaches the doctrine of the Real Presence, then I need to understand the doctrine.

This understanding is two-fold. First, the reasoning out of it. What was the practice in the Early Church. Did it ever diverge? And if so, how? This is one doctrine, across the board, from East to West that has always been. It is logical to me that, as one of the ECF’s pointed out (I think it was Basil?), that it isn’t by any mere coincidence that all the church’s that the Apostle’s established, were all the same Faith. And the Eucharist, is by far, a defining doctrine of all the church’s, from East to West, in every location that the Apostle’s established Christianity.

At the same time, I was working on that second understanding. The one that God leads me to. The mystery of His Presence in the Holy Sacrament that He instituted. And that is where God leads me, and who am I to say no?

I’ll pray that God guides you, to where he wants you to be.

Thank you, Rebecca. I find your sincere explanation of your struggle with this helpful.

I’m struggling with it, too. Part of my agonizing over the Eucharist has to do with my doubt that any church is 100% immune to deception. Perhaps Evangelicals are more susceptible to being deceived than some others, as many of the local bodies of believers decide for themselves what they will believe. I’ve experienced the destructive consequences of this myself.

On the other hand, with the Roman Catholic church, it appears the majority rules, as shown by the church counsels. This is good if the majority knows the truth, but bad if the majority is deceived. I know that the truth is the truth, even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.

For me, then, i think i have no other choice than to pray for wisdom, consider carefully the evidence and the arguments on both sides of the issue, and make up my own mind. If you have any quotes from the early church fathers that helped you to make up your mind, and if you have the time, please let me know.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Avtually I remember being at mass and hearing the reading about Massah and Meribah ( not sure of spelling) where Moses struck the rock and there were doubts and everyone wanted to be Priests… and I remember thinking in my ignorance that is where we got the name “Mass”. I do think the Priest is like Moses and tthe words of consecration is what strikes the rock…or brings this great miracle.I think we are like the people back then because we grumble at times and complain and disbelieve and many want to become Priests when they are not called to that.

I was thinking about how the miracle of transubstatiation which occurs at the consecration has a lesser form because to the extent we offer our work and lives to God can be said to be a form of ‘transubstantiating’ those things by making them God’s property. In that way we are all priestly and we ‘transubstantiate’ our lives into the Kingdom of God.

MaryJohnZ

Thank you for sharing that with me, Mary.

I’m reminded not just of the metaphor of Jesus being the rock from which the water gushes in the desert, but also of these words of Jesus:

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11"Sir," the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” 13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

(John 4)

Would you say that Jesus is using living water as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, which He gives to you or i?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 7.

---

Is God the water that quenches our thirst?

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water… Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

(John 4:10, 13, 14)

http://www.gtalawphil.com/question.gif

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, i just am following the wise advise given to me by my first full-time employer: “Do not assume, or you will make an *** out of u and me!” I do not want to assume that i understand you, if i am mistaken.

I take it, then, that you do not believe Jesus was saying God is an animal, or vegetable, or mineral? Is this correct, or am i making an *** of myself?

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/images/Issues/donkey.gif

Unless you believe that I practice some form of animism or I am so incredibly dumb that I can’t discern the obvious, I really don’t see the point of this question.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a bird?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Soc,

What do you think of the following taken from one of my earlier posts?

Leading up to the discourse on the bread of life, John tells us of the following miracles:

–Jesus turns water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes and feeds the multitude.
–Jesus walks on water.

In the first two miracles Jesus shows what he can do with food by way of miracles. In the last miracle Jesus shows what he can do with his body by walking on water. These miracles are the setup for the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus is preparing the disciples for the promised miracle of the Eucharist. So what immediately follows on the heals of the discourse?

In John 7:2 we are told that “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” John doesn’t describe what happened at this time but the other gospels do. They tell us that Jesus went up the mountain and was Transfigured before Peter, James, and John. Once again, Jesus shows a miracle of his body. The discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles. These miracles reinforce the miracle Jesus will perform in giving us His literal flesh and blood as true food and true drink. The discourse is not bracketed by metaphors and it is not intended to be taken metaphorically

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Does often mean always, Mike?

Also, you have not answered my question: Why did Jesus say He spoke in parables? Do you remember the reason He gave for doing this?

What I do know is that when an objection and/or question arises regarding something Jesus says, He or the inspired author always gives a clarifying response.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Anyone want to try to answer this question?

And your point is?

There are plenty of things Jesus clearly stated to unbelieving Jews, such as His divine origin, the necessity of faith in Him to have life, etc., which they completely rejected.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

No problem, Lazer! The topic of the discussion is still related to my original post:

I asked question 4 after the suggestion was made that John, chapter 6 should be taken literally. The reason i should take Jesus’ words literally, i was told, is because He did not explain what He meant by calling Himself the bread from heaven.

He reaffirmed the intended meaning of His words.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here are a couple of more examples:

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

God Bless,
Michael