Eucaristic scriptural evidence?

[godsent]

47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes (BU)has eternal life.

48"(BV)I am the bread of life.

49"(BW)Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which (BX)comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and (BY)not die.

51"(BZ)I am the living bread that (CA)came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, (CB)he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give (CC)for the life of the world is (CD)My flesh."

52(CE)Then the Jews (CF)began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (CG)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (CH)raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood (CI)abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the (CJ)living Father (CK)sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58"This is the bread which (CL)came down out of heaven; not as (CM)the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread (CN)will live forever."

I read this in my bible,and in my opinion,it makes it absolutely clear that in the holy eucarist jesus is truly present.

I think when you look at the last supper,and he says what he says,one might think"its a figure of speech",BUT,when you read the whole bible,it sheds light onto other aspects and reveals the truth about what jesus did and said!

 

[godsent]

any thoughts?

 

[Della]

Many Protestants would say that the John 6 passage is a figure of speech, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. They cite verse 63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail…”. They say Jesus was telling the disciples here that everything he had just said about his flesh and blood being real food and real drink was just a metaphor.

This argument doesn’t make sense within its context, but they will not have Jesus’ words taken literally in this case, so they pull this verse out of context to force it to say what they want it to say. And they do this because they look upon the Bible as a proof-text for their beliefs and expect Catholics to hold to this form of biblical interpretation, even though we do not use the Bible as “proof” of anything but rather cite it as the witness to the beliefs of the Church passed down from Christ through his Apostles and to their successors, the bishops of the Church.

 

[awalt]

Absolutely - assuming verse 63/64 is a metaphor, than the entirety of what Jesus says in verse 6, since previous verses are so specific, is “Eat my flesh, but you wsill find it a waste of time” - totally illogical!

The writings of at least the following people from 100 AD to about 300 AD clearly wrote of a literal meaning to these verses:

Ignatius of Antioch (110)
Justin Martyr (150)
Ireneaus of Lyons (~200)
Origen (244)
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (373)
Cyril of Jerusalem

There is not a single writing in the first 500 years or more interpreting these verses as anything but literal. So it was fundamentalists 1000 - 2000 years later that decided there was an error? Who do you really want to believe?

An open mind seeking the truth will believe this is literal.