How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[lil_flower_luv]

“After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” That verse can not ring any truer for those who refuse to believe in Jesus’ plain and simple words. I see the same argument resurfacing, but this is all it comes down to.

 

[Harland]

There are over 50 pages and more than 700 responses. All I see is everyone going around in circles. One person quotes a scripture, someone else says your interoperation is wrong or they quote another scripture passage and says this passage proves you are wrong and it goes on and on around and around.

If you check I know you will find several threads arguing this same issue or Peter was not a Pope or after Peter there were no other Popes or why do Catholics worship Mary or pick any other topic. How many more threads are we going to have to endure before there is an answer to the question?

Do we have any writings from anyone who was taught by the Apostles or anyone taught by anyone taught by the Apostles? In other words do we have any writings from people living right after the Apostles? How did they understand and live Christ’s teachings? The Church went along for the first 1500 years with little problem. Even the Eastern Church, with few exceptions has the same beliefs as the Western Church. It wasn’t until the Sixteenth Century that the controversy of the true presents appeared. Why? Was it because everyone for the previous centuries were dumb or is it the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church had it all wrong?

 

[benedictus2]

Hi

and why are you so sure that John 6 is to be interpreted literal?
I mean, it is normally you Catholics that say that you mustn’t interpret the Holy Scripture literal!

I suggest you read John 6. When the disciples were shocked, instead of toning down His language he actually made it harder. Read it slowly.

At least this is what you accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Adventists to do.
In my opinion the blood and flesh of Jesus is only to be interpreted not literally but that Jesus meant that He is in us when we accept Him as our Savior.

They read literally that which should not be read literally (cannot be supported by the contextual reading of the whole scripture).

Pray tell where in the Bible did He say that He is in us when we accept Him as Lord and Savriour?

The Last Supper is a ritual to do in His remembrance for what He has done for us on the Cross. I hope I am clear, for I don’t know myself really what I am writing here!

Read the synoptic accounts. Jesus was doing a passover meal and then all of a sudden He does this “this is my body… this is my blood”. None of the disciples go “say what!!!”. This is so totally out of sync with the passover meal and yet they just accepted it. The only way they could have done this was because Jesus prepared them for this moment the year before at another passover with that discourse in John 6.

And it is (and was among the Ancient Christians) a “feast” for celebrating in Community.

Yes, but it was more than that. Think about it: what was Jesus doing when He said to do this in His memory ; He was asking them to do the very same thing He did that is to say “this is my body, my blood”. But if this is just a memorial then they are just play acting. Now why would our Lord want them to play act something some incredibly mind boggling as offering His body? So you have to go back again to John 6 when He repeats over and over again that we need to partake of His body and blood.

John 6 by itself will not make sense because after giving that discourse nowhere in the Gospel do we see Him giving them the means to do this. After telling them to eat his flesh, drink His blood he leaves it there without the wherewithal to actually do this eating and drinking.

When you read the synoptic, Jesus does something out of the blue with His passover meal which really does not make sense if you take it as just another passover meal.

But when you link the two together, then suddenly everything makes sense.

The Real Presence have been divisive from the very beginning that is why the disciples walked away but He lets them go. He does not water down what He has said.

As a matter of fact in the year 1000 Berengarius of Tours made the same objection you are making now and the Fathers of the Church baulked at this seeming logical objection. They said that Berengarius seemed like he was one of the objectors who walked away because of this hard teaching.

So Jesus turns to His disciples and utters according to Fr Barron the most plaintive text in the gospel " Will you go away too?"

And I think that is being asked of you now, "will you stay away?

We know who remained.

 

[benedictus2]

This is my body, dont stop there there’s more, GIVEN FOR YOU. What does he mean by these 3 words? Lets see. It was the night he was betrayed [his body given for you] then he went on trial [his body given for you] then he was nailed to the cross [his body given for you] This is my body [the bread being a symbol of his body and what was about to happen to him] Then there are the words DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. When we break bread we are to remember his sacrifice and why he came here to earth. To take away our sins. He was the sacrificial lamb. The new covenant between God and man.

Oh but it is not just the breaking of the bread, He says “This is my Body, this is my Blood”. If He had not done that bit then it would have just been a remembrance of the meal. What makes that meal different is precisely this “This is my body”. And you are right, He was telling them right there and then that this bread that He holds in His hand is His body that will be nailed to the cross the following day and the wine in this cup is His blood that will be shed on the cross.

**So think about that, the disciples are eating Our Lord’s body and drinking His blood right on there on that last supper on that night.
**
If what we do now is mere symbolism, then you are saying that our Lord picked only 12 people who will be able eat and drink His blood.

But think back to John 6, eternal life was given only to those who ate His Body and drank His blood. So therefore only the twelve have eternal life.

After dying for us, He only gives eternal life to His 12 Apostles? What is the point of being Christian then?

 

[benedictus2]

There are over 50 pages and more than 700 responses. All I see is everyone going around in circles. One person quotes a scripture, someone else says your interoperation is wrong or they quote another scripture passage and says this passage proves you are wrong and it goes on and on around and around.

If you check I know you will find several threads arguing this same issue or Peter was not a Pope or after Peter there were no other Popes or why do Catholics worship Mary or pick any other topic. How many more threads are we going to have to endure before there is an answer to the question?

Do we have any writings from anyone who was taught by the Apostles or anyone taught by anyone taught by the Apostles? In other words do we have any writings from people living right after the Apostles? How did they understand and live Christ’s teachings? The Church went along for the first 1500 years with little problem. Even the Eastern Church, with few exceptions has the same beliefs as the Western Church. It wasn’t until the Sixteenth Century that the controversy of the true presents appeared. Why? Was it because everyone for the previous centuries were dumb or is it the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church had it all wrong?

And if the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church she got it all wrong, then that means that Christ abandoned his Church for 1500 years. That also means that Christ is either a liar (did not keep His promise of sending His spirit to guide the Church) or is not God because He could not keep His promise.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholics,

Had an apostles shared in the Last Supper with Christ, partaking of the bread and cup, and died before Christ was cruxified, would that apostle had received eternal life?

We don’t know, shawn. The CC does not have a teaching about what happens to “apostles who share in the Last Supper with Christ, partaking of the bread and cup, and who died before Christ was crucified.”

I suppose it would depend upon whether, in the end, this rhetorical apostle accepted God’s plan for his salvation or not.

Did the New Covenant go into effect at the Last Supper or Christ’s death on the cross?

If at the Last Supper:
If the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper, via transubstantiation, then there would have been no need for Christ to die for our redemption to take place for Christ was sacrificed.

If on the Cross
If the wine remained wine, but represented Christ’s blood, as the third cup of the Passover represents the blood of the Passover lamb, then the redemption still had not taken place. Therefore Christ still had to be cruxified.

The New Covenant was a contract that only went into effect upon the death of Christ. At that point, our redemption was secured for those in Christ.

It began at the Last Supper and reached its completion at the death of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

The New Covenant was a contract that only went into effect upon the death of Christ. At that point, our redemption was secured for those in Christ.

Do you know, shawn, where the only place in Scripture is that Jesus uses the word “covenant”?

 

[benedictus2]

Deacon JAR;6657826:

Catholics,

Had an apostles shared in the Last Supper with Christ, partaking of the bread and cup, and died before Christ was cruxified, would that apostle had received eternal life?

Yes because He said so. We only believe this because Christ said so. Of course, like those who left Him at the bread of life discourse, you do not believe Christ either.

If the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper, via transubstantiation, then there would have been no need for Christ to die for our redemption to take place for Christ was sacrificed.

Christ said that the bread was the His Body which will be given up. Check rev-kevin’s notes above and my response to this.

In the same way that Christ’s sacrifice covered those who have gone before Him as well.

Moses, Abraham. Elijah were also saved by Christ even those His sacrifice happened wayyyyyyyy after their deaths.

 

[Harland]

And if the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church she got it all wrong, then that means that Christ abandoned his Church for 1500 years. That also means that Christ is either a liar (did not keep His promise of sending His spirit to guide the Church) or is not God because He could not keep His promise.

This is one of the points I was trying to make. Also this is what the Church has taught sense day one and this issue plus other issues that are peculiar to the Catholic Church have been discussed at great length with no resolution. Or hope of being resolved because everyone goes around and around with the same arguments.

What we need is an authority to give the final answer. I Know we have the Holy Spirit but everyone uses Him. So why doesn’t He teach everyone the same thing? He teaches Catholics one thing Church of Christ another and Church of God another and His Tabernacle another and The Church Next Door something else, etc. etc. You get my drift?

 

[Harland]

And if the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church she got it all wrong, then that means that Christ abandoned his Church for 1500 years. That also means that Christ is either a liar (did not keep His promise of sending His spirit to guide the Church) or is not God because He could not keep His promise.

This is one of the points I was trying to make. Also this is what the Church has taught sense day one and this issue plus other issues that are peculiar to the Catholic Church have been discussed at great length with no resolution. Or hope of being resolved because everyone goes around and around with the same arguments.

What we need is an authority to give the final answer. I Know we have the Holy Spirit but everyone uses Him. So why doesn’t He teach everyone the same thing? He teaches Catholics one thing Church of Christ another and Church of God another and His Tabernacle another and The Church Next Door something else, etc. etc. You get my drift?

The Papacy has been discussed at great length and I figured is was off topic so I did not bring up the subject of Papal Authority.

 

[benedictus2]

This is one of the points I was trying to make. Also this is what the Church has taught sense day one and this issue plus other issues that are peculiar to the Catholic Church have been discussed at great length with no resolution. Or hope of being resolved because everyone goes around and around with the same arguments.

What we need is an authority to give the final answer. I Know we have the Holy Spirit but everyone uses Him. So why doesn’t He teach everyone the same thing? He teaches Catholics one thing Church of Christ another and Church of God another and His Tabernacle another and The Church Next Door something else, etc. etc. You get my drift?

But that is the question isn’t it? If we say that the Holy Spirit is teaching everyone, then He is one mighty confused spirit don’t you think? Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself.

Or maybe it is not the same Holy Spirit that is in operation here.

As another CAF member once said: The Holy Spirit unites, the Devil divides. There’s the clue.

 

[KathleenGee]

Harland,

The issues you are pointing out are the same I am beginning to form. The differences have been going on and then reappear on another thread…on and on and on…and it just goes in circles.

That is why I say you can’t prove anything about our faith with the Scriptures alone. You have to look at the believers who came to the Lord through the apostles…and then you have to study how they worshipped, how they related to the Lord.

People always believed in the sacred presence of the Lord. The beginning Churches in revelations have all the same problems we see today in congregations of believers.

So to prove the Catholic Church is Christ’s church, in a way you can’t unless you do a painstaking study of history. But beyond that, it is an act of faith and nobody can do that except the working of grace.

I do not know why people keep returning to try to break down Catholics, not to break their faith, but to lose interest in CAF rehashing over and over…the same points…

I am one of these ready to leave. Let non-believers use our site to promote their theologies…I already get the impression from time to time. But I am being led to go out into ministry again and work among those who do hunger for the truth and not this ongoing debate and disputes. it is not the work of the Holy Spirit. If people have so many questions…then may be it would be good if they did join an RCIA class this fall.

But I honestly do not know why people come back after threads have been exhausted to start all over again, like some of the Muslims were doing.

 

[rev_kevin]

Oh but it is not just the breaking of the bread, He says “This is my Body, this is my Blood”. If He had not done that bit then it would have just been a remembrance of the meal. What makes that meal different is precisely this “This is my body”. And you are right, He was telling them right there and then that this bread that He holds in His hand is His body that will be nailed to the cross the following day and the wine in this cup is His blood that will be shed on the cross.

**So think about that, the disciples are eating Our Lord’s body and drinking His blood right on there on that last supper on that night.
**
If what we do now is mere symbolism, then you are saying that our Lord picked only 12 people who will be able eat and drink His blood.

But think back to John 6, eternal life was given only to those who ate His Body and drank His blood. So therefore only the twelve have eternal life.

After dying for us, He only gives eternal life to His 12 Apostles? What is the point of being Christian then?

Your missing what I’m saying. This is my body, [the bread was a symbol of his body, he is the bread of life, what better to use as a symbol of his body than bread] then he says TO BE GIVEN for you [to be the last sacrifice to God for our sins, his body was given for our sins, to suffer and die in the cross for us] thats what to be given means.
Now you say that if Jesus didn’t say this is my body it would be just a remembrance of the meal. Do this in rememberance of me. [when you break bread think of what I have done for the world, think about my suffering and dying for your sins. Remember what I came here for, remember me who gave his all for you]

They were eating and drinking a symbol of his body and blood that was to be given and shed for you, for your sins, to save the world

No ALL who eat his flesh [his body, the bread} meaning all who believe in him. I assure you, anyone who believes in me already has eternal life. I assure you, unless you eat the flesh [blieve] of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you can not have eternal life within you. {unless you believe in me you will not have eternal life} Remember this was said before the Last Supper happened. Here Jesus is talking about believing in him, eating his flesh, his body, that has not yet became his body and blood but they have eternal life. The only bread he was talking about was him being sent down from heaven as the bread of life.and this was said before the Last Supper so it would stand to reason that he meant all who believe in him and not that he is in the bread and wine.

He did not give eternal life only to his disciples when he died, this was given to all before he died. Remember John 6 was before the last supper and before his death when he said, I assure you, anyone who believe in me already has eternal life.

John don’t even mention the Last Supper, so to him it was not of much importance that Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood. Because it was only a symbol. If he thought it important or that Jesus really turned the bread and wine into his body and blood he would of put it in his writtings but he didn’t.

 

[benedictus2]

Your missing what I’m saying.

Actually I get your point very clearly but it seems you do not get mine.

This is my body, [the bread was a symbol of his body, he is the bread of life,

How is He the Bread of Life? Isn’t it that we only know that He is the Bread of Life because He said so in John 6. Well then, read the rest of John says and find out what else He says about Himself.

what better to use as a symbol of his body than bread]

Why would bread be a good symbol of His body? Bread is made of flour, how does that symbolize His body?

then he says TO BE GIVEN for you [to be the last sacrifice to God for our sins, his body was given for our sins, to suffer and die in the cross for us] thats what to be given means.

And that is exactly what I said as well. That this is the Body of Jesus that will be sacrificed the following day on the Cross.

Now you say that if Jesus didn’t say this is my body it would be just a remembrance of the meal. Do this in rememberance of me. [when you break bread think of what I have done for the world, think about my suffering and dying for your sins. Remember what I came here for, remember me who gave his all for you]

Well no. I think you need to re-read the synoptic gospels.

  So here are two accounts.

    Luke 22:19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do THIS in memory of me.".

  Matthew 26: 24-28 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, [16](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew26.htm#foot16) and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

When Jesus said do THIS, what is the THIS? The THIS is the offering up of His Body to be eaten by the disciples.

  When He says drink from this cup, He does not say this is the wine that symbolises my blood. No, He says This is my blood. What sort of blood? The blood that will be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

They were eating and drinking a symbol of his body and blood that was to be given and shed for you, for your sins, to save the world

No they were not. Jesus did not say this represents or this symbolizes my body / blood. Jesus said this is my blood, this is my body.
St Augustine wrote that at the last supper, Jesus held his body in his hands.

No ALL who eat his flesh [his body, the bread} meaning all who believe in him.

Nope. That is not what Jesus said
[/quote]

. I think you have a hearing/comprehension problem. Read what the text said.

I assure you, anyone who believes in me already has eternal life. I assure you, unless you eat the flesh [blieve] of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you can not have eternal life within you. {unless you believe in me you will not have eternal life}

Wrong. You’re putting words into Jesus’s mouth. Words He never said. Stick to what He said. Maybe that’s what you wanted Him to have said but that is not what He said.

  Either like Peter you believe in Him and believe that He has the words of eternal life or like the others, you don’t believe he has the words of eternal life and walk away.

Remember this was said before the Last Supper happened. Here Jesus is talking about believing in him, eating his flesh, his body, that has not yet became his body and blood but they have eternal life.

Nope. That is why I said, if you read John 6, it does not make sense by itself because He is telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood and yet surely He does not expect His apostles to kill him and tear him apart and devour Him.

Then comes the last supper and they must have thought, Aaaah, so this is what He meant last year when He said eat my body, drink my blood.

The only bread he was talking about was him being sent down from heaven as the bread of life.and this was said before the Last Supper

If he said He is the bread of life then He is bread of life. How is He bread of life? Well he showed the apostles exactly at the Last supper precisely how.

so it would stand to reason that he meant all who believe in him and not that he is in the bread and wine.

No, because that is not what he said.

He did not give eternal life only to his disciples when he died, this was given to all before he died. Remember John 6 was before the last supper and before his death when he said, I assure you, anyone who believe in me already has eternal life.

You’ve got that confused. He said in John 6 those who eat his flesh and drink his blood are the ones who have eternal life.

[/quote]

 

[benedictus2]

John don’t even mention the Last Supper, so to him it was not of much importance that Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood. Because it was only a symbol.

Because the whole Bible is to be read together. This is what happens with the protestant way of chopping up the word of God. They only get bits and pieces of the truth.

  John did not have the last supper account but gave the whole explanation for the last supper account.  Without John’s explanation the last supper account will not make sense.

If he thought it important or that Jesus really turned the bread and wine into his body and blood he would of put it in his writtings but he didn’t.

That is a ludicrous thought. You could equally contend that if Mark, Luke, Matthew thought it important they would have included the Bread of Life discourse in their account. Instead what the 3 evangelists did was include the last supper account.

The choice is really is really simple. Believe that He has the words of eternal life like Peter and the apostles did or think he has gone off his rocker and walk away.

You cannot explain away His very own words.

 

[Cinette]

There are over 50 pages and more than 700 responses. All I see is everyone going around in circles. One person quotes a scripture, someone else says your interoperation is wrong or they quote another scripture passage and says this passage proves you are wrong and it goes on and on around and around.

If you check I know you will find several threads arguing this same issue or Peter was not a Pope or after Peter there were no other Popes or why do Catholics worship Mary or pick any other topic. How many more threads are we going to have to endure before there is an answer to the question?

Do we have any writings from anyone who was taught by the Apostles or anyone taught by anyone taught by the Apostles? In other words do we have any writings from people living right after the Apostles? How did they understand and live Christ’s teachings? The Church went along for the first 1500 years with little problem. Even the Eastern Church, with few exceptions has the same beliefs as the Western Church. It wasn’t until the Sixteenth Century that the controversy of the true presents appeared. Why? Was it because everyone for the previous centuries were dumb or is it the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church had it all wrong?

*According to certain individuals/denominations/groups the Holy Spirit only kicked in in the 1600 century - before that he ignored the Church and let the Catholics have “carte blanche” - Jesus did not keep his promise! However, I have said so previously that Luther, Zwingli and Calvin believed things which the resultant denominations do not believe. If they were alive now they would not recognise the denominations as emanating from them!!

??? I have just come home after resolving a problem at a government department after going there for three consecutive days!!! Today I at last met with someone who was able to think and reason and he solved a very simple problem. He listened* paid attention and immediately took action. People on this thread should do likewise.

I disagree with you that the “Church went along for the first 1500 with little problem”. The Church had to overcome enormous obstacles, put out fires and fight heresy from the very beginning - the Church has never had it easy.

Now I must go and put out fires and do a 1000 things but couldn’t resist taking a peek at what was going on here.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Read it and studyed it. I find it to be a fasinating story. This occured during the time when the Prostants Reformermation gave a major blow to the authority of the Papacy and the RCC the 16th century. In the begining of the story the Calvinist Preachers tried but did not succed, Then a Catholic Priest came and with the Blessed Sacrament saved the girl and drove the evil spirits out of her in exactly 3 months. At first she was cured but then God allowed Satan back in her. Could this have been said to prove that the Prostents were wrong about the reformation and about the blow to the Papacy and the RCC in the 16th century? It went on for 3 months and most of the time she was just woke up by the Blessed Sacrament not cured. Also why would God allow this to happen to this girl after she had been cured already? Why put her trough this kind of torture? No reason was given. Sorry but this does not prove to me anything about the real presents.

*I have asked about this before - don’t you mean the “Real Presence”? However you keep talking about the real presents and I am wondering what you mean by presents. Never heard of this before - and you are not the only Protestant to refer to the “real presents”.

I am confused.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

And if the Holy Spirit waited for 1500 years to teach the Church she got it all wrong, then that means that Christ abandoned his Church for 1500 years. That also means that Christ is either a liar (did not keep His promise of sending His spirit to guide the Church) or is not God because He could not keep His promise.

Benedictus I gave a similar response but you watch, it won’t be long when, like a broken record, certain people will make the same statements!!! I am convinced that when we post they pay no attention whatsoever. Out of respect we pay attention to their every word and respond and all they do is repeat what they said before. This means that they are unwilling to really read and actually respond to what we say!!!

This is sad and frustrating.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Hi

well, I know your view about John 6. (I have read the posts, although it was quite hard for me. Due to, as I have often stated, English isn’t my mother-tongue. My problem is that I somehow know that it can’t be true. But I also don’t know the “Christian” interpretation of John 6…

Actually the “Christian” interpretation of John 6 IS the Catholic interpretation.

It is the interpretation of those who remained with Him (Peter and the Apostles) rather than those who walked away. Peter and the rest believed as those who left that Jesus meant exactly what He said. But they had no one else to go to. They knew that Jesus and Jesus alone had the words of eternal life.

For 1000 years this is what people believed. Then Berengarius of Tours came and proposed a symbolic reading and the Fathers of the Church said no, that is not true. The 500 years after that Calvin and Zwingli resurrected the the Berengarian heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

Cinette,

What kind of leader were the Jews expecting? They were looking for a polical leader like David, not a spiritual saviour.

You’re right on that one.

Being that the desciples were Jews, we understand the difficulties with them accepting the wine as being the blood of Christ. Why? The Law.

“Exactly the point. The disciples were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. He knew only full well the prohibition in the Law. More to the point, Jesus was a good Jew so He followed the law perfectly.

And yet here he is asking them to do something so abominable to the law. That is why they understood Him correctly and this is why they walked away. He was not making a symbolic statement here. Yet, instead of calming their fears and saying something to allay their their disgust, He goes into even harder language, so they left. Still here’s a chance for Jesus to say ‘No don’t do go what I mean is…’ as they started to leave but instead He just lets them go.

Those who remained thought the same as those who left except that they truly believed in Him as Peter confessed ‘You Lord have the words of eternal life’. Peter is basically saying here: ‘Those words that you just said about eating your flesh and drinking your blood, well they are the words of eternal life.’

So  we can either confess with Peter that Jesus indeed has the words of eternal life  and walk with Him still or like the other disciple believe that He has  completely lost the plot and walk away.”

The last supper a Passover meal? Yes

Got that one correct as well if you go by the synoptic account. However, if you go to John’s account it is not because John situates this meal the day before the passover.

As part of the Passover, the Jews drink 4 cups of red wine calling to mind the four “I wills” (Ex 6:6-7). The cups are symbolic of what God had promised the Isrealites.

1. “I will take you out…” 2. “I will save you…” 3. “I will redeem you…” 4. “I will take you as a nation…”

On your other post you called the last cup the ***cup of completion ***which is correct. I will tie this in later.

I think we agree that the Passover is a forshadowing of Christ. When Christ died on the cross, saying with His last words “It is finished,” the redemption work was finished.

Well not quite. At that point, the redemption work is not finished because redemption is only finished when He rose from the dead. When He said “It is finished” he had not even died yet.

So what exactly is the the “It” in “It finished”? The passover.

Christ never drank the 4th cup.

That is right, Christ never drank the fourth cup, the cup of completion or the cup of consumation while He was at table.

But nearing the end he says “I thirst” they give him wiine on a sponge. After drinking this, this is when He exclaimed it is finished.

Remember, He said he will not drink again from the fruit of the vine and yet that is exactly what He just did. By taking that wine He has completed the passover, He had drank the cup of completion.

Flashback to the garden of Gethsemane when He begs the father to take away the cup. Which cup? The fourth cup. The cup of completion because drinking the cup of completion means drinking it when He hangs there on the cross.