T
TheSpiritHeals
Guest
What are the bible verses for establishing transubstantiation as opposed to a communion that only remembers the Last Supper?
- Status
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
The bible verse that is used is where Jesus says (I can’t remember word for word) And he took bread gave thanks and said take this all of you and eat it this is my body which will be given up for you. Then likewise he took the cup of wine, offered it up, and said take this all of you and drink from it this is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant which will be shed for the forgiveness of sins.
There are actually 4 different eucharistic prayers to celebrate mass. I would reccommend checking them out.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
The part of the Last Supper where Jesus says, “Do this in memory of me.” Not, “Symbolically do this,” but, “Do this,” as in, do it completely, and not as a symbol. Jesus didn’t do it as a symbol (at least not only as a symbol), he did it literally, and if he commands us to do it, which he did, he means to do it literally as well, or else we wouldn’t be doing it, would we?
po18guy
Well-known member
John 6:26-71, Matthew 26:17-29 and Matthew 28:20, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, 1 Corinthians 10:14-17, 11:23-34. But, do not expect a bible Christian to understand these in context, as they have learned them, if they have, out of context. You have almost 2,000 years of consistent Catholic and Orthodox practice in addition to the scriptures. And, they practice that way because the Apostles handed the practice on to the Church.
E
Enim
Guest
Isaiah 55:10 Christ is the WORD:
10And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void,
HOC EST ENIM Corpus meum. (enim = "in fact) as a matter of fact, emperical.
This as matter of fact is my body,
10And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void,
HOC EST ENIM Corpus meum. (enim = "in fact) as a matter of fact, emperical.
This as matter of fact is my body,
L
ladybrandon1134
Guest
I believe he meant it literally. I just found out my mother does not believe in the Real Presence but believes it is purely a symbolic act. I read John 6 to her but she insists it is just a symbol because Jesus said “do this in ***REMEMBRANCE ***of me”. Any suggestions of books or tracts on this that I can share with her? I am very upset and do not feel that it’s just a matter of personal belief as she says it is.
Diane
B
bmullins
Guest
The problem with it being symbolic is that it ignores all the scripture that indicate it is much more than that. Most prominent in my mind is the following:
If I had to suggest a single book to a Catholic on the subject it would be the “Lamb’s Supper” or “A Father Who Keeps His Promises.” Both do a good job of laying out the importance of the Eucharist and the Real Presence.
If it were simply a symbolic gesture, how could it bring judgement on us?
If I had to suggest a single book to a Catholic on the subject it would be the “Lamb’s Supper” or “A Father Who Keeps His Promises.” Both do a good job of laying out the importance of the Eucharist and the Real Presence.
po18guy
Well-known member
Francis Cardinal Arinze’s book Celebrating the Holy Eucharist is an excellent help in understanding the nature of the Eucharist.
T
TarlsQtr
Guest
A couple of points in addition to what others have added.
I believe another relevant line from scripture is Malachi 1:11. It reads (D-R): *For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. *
Who or what is the “clean oblation,” which is another way of saying pure sacrifice? Judaic sacrifices were/are not symbolic and Jesus is the only pure sacrifice. Who are the only churches to offer sacrifices? The apostolic (Catholic/Orthodox) churches.
Also, the word “remembrance” is used because there is no word in the English language to encapsulate the real meaning. The word used is “anamnesis.” It is a “remembrance” but much more. It is to bring the present to the past. Jews did not (and still do not) believe that they were “remembering” the original Passover, but that they were partaking in the original Passover in a mystical way. The same is true of the Eucharist. More than just remembering it, we are partaking in it during the Holy Mass.
I
isaiah_m
Guest
Get a copy of the Navarre Bible. check the extensive commentary on 6:48 and following. It talks of some followers leaving him becasuse they couldn’t accept the reality of transubstantiation. Pay particular attention to the word for eat (v 54) which means “to chew” which in the original language indicated a physical form of actual eating that could not be mistaken by the people of Christ’s time for something symbolic.
P
Phyllo
Guest
I don’t know the particular verse in John 6 … but Jesus says his flesh is REAL food and his blood is REAL drink. …
It can’t get more real than this.
So to me if you are outside the CC you are not getting the Real Presence. And if you are not receiving the Real Presence why bother at all?
It can’t get more real than this.
So to me if you are outside the CC you are not getting the Real Presence. And if you are not receiving the Real Presence why bother at all?
P
Pan_Dulce
Guest
Hi I am not a Catholic or anything else for that matter. I just call myself a Christian. I do have some responses to what I see here regarding the Eucharist. Pleas indulge me and consider what I offer. Thanks.
To isaiah m,
Matthew 26:26 includes, “…Take eat; this is My body.” The word “eat” - phago in the Greek - does indeed mean to eat or devour. This is not a good argument for sybolic vs literal. His command to do this "eating, is not a command to pretend you are eating Him. But a command to eat or to chew, as you put it, the bread.
Remember, the context of the Last Supper is the Passover and Jesus and His disciples were eating the Passover Meal. The Passover meal normally consisted of a sacrificed lamb. I believe Jesus was trying to explain that he will be the final sacrificial lamb - the Lamb of God. He wanted them to remember Him as the Bread of Life.
To take this a step further with the blood. The blood of the lamb was traditionally sprinkled on the door posts. Since there would no longer be a blood sacrifice of the lamb as Jesus would be the final blood sacrifice, the wine was used to symbolize that. Blood sacrifices had to be made to cover sin. Jesus became the once and for all blood sacrifice. We remember his sacrifice by partaking in the Bread and Wine not of the flesh and blood.
.
To Phyllo,
John 6:54-57-- Jesus, speaking at the synagogue at Capernaum after declaring Himself to be the Bread of Life and the Living Bread, does say, “The one eating My flesh and drinking my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink. The one eating My flesh and drinking My blood abides in Me and I in him. Even as the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father; also the one eating Me, even that one will live through Me.”
The disciples had trouble understanding what Jesus meant so He explains in verse 63, “It is the Spirit, the One making alive. The flesh does not profit, nothing! The words which I speak to you are spirit and are life.” Jesus essentially says He was speaking figuratively.
He often used confusing metaphors and illustrations to obscure the truth from all but the most discerning as he did here. He typically had to take the disciples aside, as he did here, to explain to them in easier terms. He still did not spell it out to their satisfaction and as a result, many of them left. He certainly wasn’t trying to explain transubstantiation to them.
YoungTradCath,
“Do this in memory of Me” is what he meant. To say “Symbolically do this” is kind of silly to say. He wanted us to eat the bread and drink the wine, REMEMBERING that his flesh and blood were the final sacrifice. Maybe you can infer the symbolic concept but Jesus was more accurately asking us to remember.
To isaiah m,
Matthew 26:26 includes, “…Take eat; this is My body.” The word “eat” - phago in the Greek - does indeed mean to eat or devour. This is not a good argument for sybolic vs literal. His command to do this "eating, is not a command to pretend you are eating Him. But a command to eat or to chew, as you put it, the bread.
Remember, the context of the Last Supper is the Passover and Jesus and His disciples were eating the Passover Meal. The Passover meal normally consisted of a sacrificed lamb. I believe Jesus was trying to explain that he will be the final sacrificial lamb - the Lamb of God. He wanted them to remember Him as the Bread of Life.
To take this a step further with the blood. The blood of the lamb was traditionally sprinkled on the door posts. Since there would no longer be a blood sacrifice of the lamb as Jesus would be the final blood sacrifice, the wine was used to symbolize that. Blood sacrifices had to be made to cover sin. Jesus became the once and for all blood sacrifice. We remember his sacrifice by partaking in the Bread and Wine not of the flesh and blood.
.
To Phyllo,
John 6:54-57-- Jesus, speaking at the synagogue at Capernaum after declaring Himself to be the Bread of Life and the Living Bread, does say, “The one eating My flesh and drinking my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink. The one eating My flesh and drinking My blood abides in Me and I in him. Even as the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father; also the one eating Me, even that one will live through Me.”
The disciples had trouble understanding what Jesus meant so He explains in verse 63, “It is the Spirit, the One making alive. The flesh does not profit, nothing! The words which I speak to you are spirit and are life.” Jesus essentially says He was speaking figuratively.
He often used confusing metaphors and illustrations to obscure the truth from all but the most discerning as he did here. He typically had to take the disciples aside, as he did here, to explain to them in easier terms. He still did not spell it out to their satisfaction and as a result, many of them left. He certainly wasn’t trying to explain transubstantiation to them.
YoungTradCath,
“Do this in memory of Me” is what he meant. To say “Symbolically do this” is kind of silly to say. He wanted us to eat the bread and drink the wine, REMEMBERING that his flesh and blood were the final sacrifice. Maybe you can infer the symbolic concept but Jesus was more accurately asking us to remember.
P
Phyllo
Guest
From the Haydock commentary.
Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. — The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.
God Bless
B
bmullins
Guest
Matthew 26:26 includes, “…Take eat; this is My body.” The word “eat” - phago in the Greek - does indeed mean to eat or devour. This is not a good argument for sybolic vs literal. His command to do this "eating, is not a command to pretend you are eating Him. But a command to eat or to chew, as you put it, the bread.
You misread it, as I did when I first studied it because I have no background in Greek. It does indeed mean to chew, but not in the essence that you are placing it in. When asked what does this mean? Jesus doesn’t say Oh I meant for you to chew lightly… he gave them a much more dramatic word. He went from the word that could have been misunderstood, and in fact many of them gave him the benefit of a doubt. When he reaffirms it, he doens’t say Oh I meant… ‘chew’. He says not only must you eat… but you must gnaw on my flesh, like an animal gnaws on a corpse. You must consume it, gnawing and ripping with your teeth.
That is why so many walked away, but the true key to that verse comes after… when his disciples faced with the reality that Jesus was telling them they would have to literally gnaw on his flesh… Peter responds with “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
You misread it, as I did when I first studied it because I have no background in Greek. It does indeed mean to chew, but not in the essence that you are placing it in. When asked what does this mean? Jesus doesn’t say Oh I meant for you to chew lightly… he gave them a much more dramatic word. He went from the word that could have been misunderstood, and in fact many of them gave him the benefit of a doubt. When he reaffirms it, he doens’t say Oh I meant… ‘chew’. He says not only must you eat… but you must gnaw on my flesh, like an animal gnaws on a corpse. You must consume it, gnawing and ripping with your teeth.
That is why so many walked away, but the true key to that verse comes after… when his disciples faced with the reality that Jesus was telling them they would have to literally gnaw on his flesh… Peter responds with “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I only have time for a brief reply…
God introduced many concepts in the OT that applied to the people living in those times, but also served to foreshadow and prepare people for the ultimate fulfillment of those concepts in the person and ministry of Christ. Such concepts are called biblical “types” and the study of them is called typology. This is not just a Catholic concept; most (if not all) Protestant Scripture scholars accept the validity of biblical typology.
For example, Melchizedek (the priest-king described in Genesis) is a biblical type of Christ, and the Letter to the Hebrews goes into this in detail. King David, the shepherd-king, is also a biblical type of Christ. The Great Flood is a biblical type of baptism, and so on.
In John 6, Jesus compared his Body and Blood to the mana that the Hebrews ate while wandering in the wilderness. Therefore, according to Jesus’ own words, the mana of the OT was a biblical type for his Body and Blood. At the Last Supper, Jesus declared that the bread and wine was his Body and Blood and told us to continue this practice.
Consider the fact that the mana was actual bread which was given to them through a miraculous means, but could only maintain biological life. Christ declared that his Body and Blood (once more, in John 6) was “true bread” and “true drink” and had the power to grant eternal life.
But if Jesus’ words were only symbolic, and there is nothing miraculous about the bread and wine present during the Mass, then this is the ONLY case of an OT type being better than its NT fulfillment!
God introduced many concepts in the OT that applied to the people living in those times, but also served to foreshadow and prepare people for the ultimate fulfillment of those concepts in the person and ministry of Christ. Such concepts are called biblical “types” and the study of them is called typology. This is not just a Catholic concept; most (if not all) Protestant Scripture scholars accept the validity of biblical typology.
For example, Melchizedek (the priest-king described in Genesis) is a biblical type of Christ, and the Letter to the Hebrews goes into this in detail. King David, the shepherd-king, is also a biblical type of Christ. The Great Flood is a biblical type of baptism, and so on.
In John 6, Jesus compared his Body and Blood to the mana that the Hebrews ate while wandering in the wilderness. Therefore, according to Jesus’ own words, the mana of the OT was a biblical type for his Body and Blood. At the Last Supper, Jesus declared that the bread and wine was his Body and Blood and told us to continue this practice.
Consider the fact that the mana was actual bread which was given to them through a miraculous means, but could only maintain biological life. Christ declared that his Body and Blood (once more, in John 6) was “true bread” and “true drink” and had the power to grant eternal life.
But if Jesus’ words were only symbolic, and there is nothing miraculous about the bread and wine present during the Mass, then this is the ONLY case of an OT type being better than its NT fulfillment!
po18guy
Well-known member
Gladly!
But, more than mere remembrance! Jesus told us that the fathers ate manna which fell from heaven. Yet, even after eating it, all eventually died. He then claims to be the true bread from heaven, that we may eat (not simply ‘believe’) and have life eternal. In either case, we must actually eat that which is given us from heaven. The fathers did not simply believe that the manna was food - they had to eat it. The Paschal lamb also had to be eaten.
While covering sin is an Old Testament concept, Jesus’ blood actually washes away our sins (Acts 22:16). We cannot enter heaven with any impurity in our souls (Revelation 21:27), so the sins cannot be covered (there is nothing hidden that will not be brought to light - Mark 4:22, Luke 8:17), but must be absolutely gone.
What He said was “DO THIS” in remembrance. In recent centuries, emphasis has wrongly been placed on the end of His command, to the detriment of the beginning. If remembrance was the point, the Apostles could remember without eating and drinking. To obey His command, they had to eat and drink, and not merely remember. Yet, he gave them what looked like bread and wine, yet told that that it had become His Body and Blood. Because of the beliefs and actions of the Apostles, based on Christ’s assurance that “this IS my Body” and “this IS my Blood of the covenant”, Catholics, Orthodox, some Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians) believe that the bread and wine are either tran-substantiated or con-substantiated into His true presence. They each have believed this since their founding.
You are on the right track as far as eating and drinking, but to make the Eucharist merely symbolic is to give profit to a material thing rather than the spirit. The bread and wine, to profit us spiritually, must contain Spirit within them. To that end, the Catholic Church (and several others) teaches that the Eucharist fully contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Nothing less will satisfy Jesus’ commands.
This is also why it is vitally important to have an authoritative Church, the pillar and ground of the truth - to ascertain and proclaim the truth of such matters to all believers.
P
Pan_Dulce
Guest
Phyllo,
Haydock saying that the sacrament is the living flesh of Christ does not make it so. If it were true, he might have a point. The Bible does not say that His spiritual presence is associated with the bread anymore than the Holy Spirit is found anywhere else.
God does not establish laws of physics and then proceed to break them by having bread be the presence of Jesus while still being bread. The fact that there is no physical evidence of this happening should make one suspect. Miracles are such because there is evidence!
I could go to the store and say that my $1 bill is really a $100 bill even though it still looks like a $1 bill. That would be silly, but how is this different? There are things that remain hidden from us in the Bible but giving an unreasonable or unprovable answer to counter them is not responsible.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to, “Test all things, hold fast the good.” If we are to accept transubstantiation, how then can we test it?
In the John 6 text, Jesus moves from the verb phago to trogo, that is eating to chewing. This is a stepping up of the metaphorical strength against those who refused to believe Him. His argument gets more intense with stronger metaphors. These strong words should not be taken in isolation.
Another note. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, Paul writes, “…that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was given over, took bread; and having given thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; this is My body, the one being broken on behalf of you; this do in remembrance of me.” The word broken above, referring to His body, is the Greek word klao. It means to break bread. He says that His body will be broken like the bread He was breaking. This is clearly referencing his death. I don’t see the Eucharist there.
Thanks for indulging.
Haydock saying that the sacrament is the living flesh of Christ does not make it so. If it were true, he might have a point. The Bible does not say that His spiritual presence is associated with the bread anymore than the Holy Spirit is found anywhere else.
God does not establish laws of physics and then proceed to break them by having bread be the presence of Jesus while still being bread. The fact that there is no physical evidence of this happening should make one suspect. Miracles are such because there is evidence!
I could go to the store and say that my $1 bill is really a $100 bill even though it still looks like a $1 bill. That would be silly, but how is this different? There are things that remain hidden from us in the Bible but giving an unreasonable or unprovable answer to counter them is not responsible.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to, “Test all things, hold fast the good.” If we are to accept transubstantiation, how then can we test it?
In the John 6 text, Jesus moves from the verb phago to trogo, that is eating to chewing. This is a stepping up of the metaphorical strength against those who refused to believe Him. His argument gets more intense with stronger metaphors. These strong words should not be taken in isolation.
Another note. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, Paul writes, “…that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was given over, took bread; and having given thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; this is My body, the one being broken on behalf of you; this do in remembrance of me.” The word broken above, referring to His body, is the Greek word klao. It means to break bread. He says that His body will be broken like the bread He was breaking. This is clearly referencing his death. I don’t see the Eucharist there.
Thanks for indulging.
P
Pan_Dulce
Guest
po18guy,
I don’t believe we need to actually eat that which is given us from Heaven. The bread from Heaven Jesus was talking about was spiritual bread, “the words I speak to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63).
The reason Jesus had to be sacrificed is the same reason that animals were sacrificed - to cover sin. God does not change, therefore He had to follow His established rules. Luckily, Jesus was the final sacrifice. Nonetheless, it really was a blood sacrifice. The animals were temporary and Jesus permanent. It can be called washing away but it is the same thing.
I don’t think you can separate the doing or the remembering. It is, do this in remembrance. Both aspects are required. Also, Jesus doesn’t say that the bread and wine had become his flesh and blood. The metaphor referred to His body would be broken like he had broken the bread and then He says the wine is the blood of the New Covenant poured out for the remission of sins. The bread represents his death and the wine His blood that gets rid of our sin.
You have to read into the texts to take away that He was being that literal especially when He tells his disciples that He was speaking in a spiritual sense. If he was literal and we take the Eucharist, then we should not die as did those who ate the manna. The fact is, that Catholics die every day that have taken the Eucharist - the same fate as those that ate the manna.
I don’t believe we need to actually eat that which is given us from Heaven. The bread from Heaven Jesus was talking about was spiritual bread, “the words I speak to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63).
The reason Jesus had to be sacrificed is the same reason that animals were sacrificed - to cover sin. God does not change, therefore He had to follow His established rules. Luckily, Jesus was the final sacrifice. Nonetheless, it really was a blood sacrifice. The animals were temporary and Jesus permanent. It can be called washing away but it is the same thing.
I don’t think you can separate the doing or the remembering. It is, do this in remembrance. Both aspects are required. Also, Jesus doesn’t say that the bread and wine had become his flesh and blood. The metaphor referred to His body would be broken like he had broken the bread and then He says the wine is the blood of the New Covenant poured out for the remission of sins. The bread represents his death and the wine His blood that gets rid of our sin.
You have to read into the texts to take away that He was being that literal especially when He tells his disciples that He was speaking in a spiritual sense. If he was literal and we take the Eucharist, then we should not die as did those who ate the manna. The fact is, that Catholics die every day that have taken the Eucharist - the same fate as those that ate the manna.
P
Phyllo
Guest
The mystery of the Real Presence has been a stumbling block for 2,000 years. Many of Jesus followers fell away because they understood exactly what he meant and they turned away from him. . And yet, many Protestants believe in the Trinity which is impossible to explain and can not be tested. Go figure…
Either Jesus was giving us his body and blood for real food and drink or he was lying. I choose to believe that Jesus was telling the truth. Peter had faith to believe in Jesus and that is why Jesus said that he would build up the earthly church with Peter as its head.
I would doubt that the mysteries of God can or will ever be able to be explained to certain individuals, and that is why they are called mysteries. There are things of God we need to believe in faith.
The Real Presence is a truth of the Catholic Church that I choose to believe in.
God Bless
P
PJM
Guest
Here ya Go!
Eucharist verses from the Douay Rheims Bible
John 5:[RSV] 3-36-38 “But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.”
Matthew 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
**
MARK 14: 22-24**
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself
**John from Chapter 6: 47-57 **
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.
God Bless you,
Merry Christmas
Pat
- Status