How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev_kevin]

*Oh Man rev kevin!!! Benedictus can be excused for being frustrated with you because no matter how many times she says and points to the scripture you read through your own interpretation and cannot SEE the truth. You must excuse her for that surely? We have proved so many times from the scriptures that the bread and wine is CONSECRATED into the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said so!

So I guess we must leave it at that - we can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it to penetrate into your heart - that is His job.

God love you
Cinette
*

I have given you scripture and what they mean. All you give me is Jesus said this is my body, and say what else would it mean besides his real presence. [spelt it right this time] At least I have given what it means, and not just saying, he said this is my body. I have given scripture and meaning, scripture and meaning. You have not proven that Jesus said so. Once again all that is said is, this is my body. LIke you say, I can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it ti penetrate into your heart-thats his job. You give up, I never will, because Jesus never gave up and I try to as much like Jesus as I can and do what he wants and that is to make disciples of all nations.
God’s love
Rev Kevin

 

[benedictus2]

Excellent!

So we know the New Covenant began at the Last Supper and reached its fulfillment at the Crucifixion.

Slum dunk! The apostles were drinking the Blood of the New covenant. Some people think as if everything is linear.

 

[benedictus2]

You say “began”. Interesting choice of words. What redemptive benefits are gained from the time of the Last Supper and before Christ’s crucifixion?

How about the very simple fact that it is the SAME BLOOD? If the Blood of Christ is what redeems, then that very same blood, they were drinking prior to the crucifixion, therefore redemptive.

At the Last Supper, Christ did not drink of the Cup of Redemption (3rd cup). That was later.

You mean the fourth cup. Christ did not drink the 4th cup. That was to happen later at the crucifixion.

 

[benedictus2]

The benefits of Christ’s one Sacrifice did not reach fulfillment at the Crucifixion as you claim.

There had to also be the burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory at the right hand of the Father, before even the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all believers.

Correct so far.

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, no benefits of the New Covenant were possible.

How is that so? The benefits of the New Covenant come precisely from that, the New Covenant. And it is this New Covenant that makes possible the sending of the Holy Spirit. Without this New covenant the Holy Spriit would not have been sent.

The Holy Spirit empowers those whom God has redeemed. Without redemption, there will not be the sending fo the Holy Spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

Christ’s redemptive work was completed on the cross, hence “It is Finished!”.

Wrong. Until Christ has risen, redemption is not finished. We would have remained in the sadness of Good Friday without the Joy of Easter. If Christ had remained dead, we would have remained dead.

So no, you got that wrong. “It is finished” means the passover is finished. That is why He said these words after he had taken the wine offered to Him at the cross.

I agree that He still needed to ascend to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit had to come to leads us into the truth.

Yes, you got that right.

 

[benedictus2]

Well the same can be said, if he meant it to be his real body why didn’t he say, this is my real body, it really is my body. But he didn’t now did he. So the argument of why he didn’t say this or that can go both ways.
But that is exactly what He meant. The apostles understood this to be so. They needed no clarification. And the reason for this is because, the year before at the same passover, He gave the discourse on the bread of life (John 6).

They said, this is very hard to understand, How can anyone accept it? Now what was Jesus talking about before this. Jesus was talking about being the bread of life and eating his flesh. They took him literally and that is not what Jesus was saying. He was saying that you need to believ in him, that he is the Son of God and he was sent down from heaven as the bread of life to save the world.

Yes they took Him literally because it is precisely what Jesus was saying.

So here is the text to make sure we are clear about this:
John 648 I am the bread of life.**
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;**
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.**
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,* you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.**
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.**
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.**
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

*With the words I highlighted, Jesus made it very clear what He was saying. Notice How he did not remain with the terminology of bread, he changed this terminology to flesh and to blood (repeating it 6 times) so that you will have no mistake as to what He means.

 

[benedictus2]

He was saying that you need to believ in him, that he is the Son of God and he was sent down from heaven as the bread of life to save the world.
He was talking about his Father, God and they only knew that he was the son of Joseph and that they know his father and mother. How can he say, I came down from heaven? They could not understand this about him being the son of God and that he is the bread that came down from heaven.

How is Jesus the Bread that came down from Heaven? How is Jesus bread and how does His being the bread of Life mean that He has come to save the world? What does bread and salvation have to do with each other.?

And they didn’t understant the eating his flesh which means you are to believe in him and the Father who sent him.

Well I just posted the text in my previous post and there is nowhere in that text can you equate flesh with believing in Him.

If that is all that is required, He would have left at at verse 40 : For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.

But He didn’t. He went on and on and on.

See they could not believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Jesus said, the things I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But some of you don’t believe. What were they to believe, that they are to believe in him and who he says he is.

Yes, that too. But more primarily based on this discourse that you have to believe that what He says is true. That when He says that His flesh is food that will you life then you believe that. That when He says that His blood is true drink, you believe that becausse you believe Him. If you believe that He is Son of God then you will believe that all these things that He has said are true.

Then they left and Jesus asked the remaining disciples if they were going to leave also and Peter said, Lord to whom would we go? You alone have the WORDS that GIVE ETERNAL LIFE. We BELIEVE THEM and we know you are the Holy One of God. See they believe in Jesus.

Yes they did. They believed in Jesus, so at the last supper when Jesus said eat this, this is my body, drink this, this is my blood, they did as He asked them.

That is where the main difference is. But because the others did not believe that He was capable of giving them His flesh and blood without the repulsion attendant to it, then they left.

Peter and the apostles because they believed that He was the Son of God, took it on faith that whatever He asked of them, will be good. They did not know how He was going to give them His flesh and blood but they went along with Him anyway because they believed in Him.

It is only when you believe enough in the Lord that you will be able to accept this hard saying, because it is indeed hard saying.

They believed that he was the bread of God, the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. How did Jesus give life to the world. By his suffering and death on the cross. Keep in mind that this was before the Last Supper, when Jesus, as you believe, made bread and wine into his body and blood. How can he or why would he say these things when it had not yet happened, the Last Supper.

That is the prelude. He knew what He would be doing at the Last Supper. Here, with this discourse, He is preparing them. That is why when they finally got to it at the Last Supper, there was no “What do you mean that is your body, your blood?”. There was no “How can that be your body?”. There was no “Why are you saying all these things which are not part of the passover ritual?” There was none of that becuase they had be prepared for it, the year before.

And why didn’t John mention the Last Supper if it was so important and that Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood?

You could equally ask, why didn’t Mark, Luke and Matthew mention the Bread of Life discourse?

Could it be that John understood it to be just a symbol and not actually his body?

If you re-read John, you will notice that John did not have a passover meal. He just had Jesus having dinner with His disciples. In John’s account, the meal happened before passover, because Jesus was killed at the time they were slaying the lambs for the passover.

Eating his flesh or his body meant that you Believe in him and all the Good he stands for.

No, if that is what He wanted to say, He would have cut his discourse short at verse 40. I suggest you re-read the entire chapter 6 slowly and ruminate on every word.

 

[benedictus2]

Catholics believe in Transubstatiation.
It does not matter what non-Catholics believe, that is why they are not Catholic.

But it does matter because we want everyone to believe what we believe about the Eucharist so that they too may be nourished by the Body and Blood of Our Lord, that they’re joy may be full.

 

[rev_kevin]

But that is exactly what He meant. The apostles understood this to be so. They needed no clarification. And the reason for this is because, the year before at the same passover, He gave the discourse on the bread of life (John 6).

Yes they took Him literally because it is precisely what Jesus was saying.

So here is the text to make sure we are clear about this:
John 648 I am the bread of life.**
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;**
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.**
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,* you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.**
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.**
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.**
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

*With the words I highlighted, Jesus made it very clear what He was saying. Notice How he did not remain with the terminology of bread, he changed this terminology to flesh and to blood (repeating it 6 times) so that you will have no mistake as to what He means.

48 Yes he is the bread that came down from heaven. The bread of life from heaven gives eternal life to everyone who eats it. The bread of life from heaven from heaven is Jesus, we agree with this. Jesus came from heaven to be the sacrifice for our sins, we can agree with this. He gives eternal life, we agree with this. To everyone who eats it. Now this is where the disagreement comes in, to eat it means to believe in him.

50 This bread I give you is my flesh, his body to die on the cross for our sins, we can agree with this.

53 Unless you eat the flesh, here is where we disagree, means unless you believe in me. You do not have life within you, means your spiritual life, your soul is dead, I hope we can agree with this.

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, here we disagree, believe in me.
And I will raise them on the last day, you will be with me in heaven, we can agree with this.

55 My flesh is true food, true spiritual food, and by blood is true drink, spiritual drink, Those who are spiritual hungry will be fed by the word of Christ and those who thirst for the word of Christ, will not be thirsty.

56 I in them and them in me, Christ will never leave you once you accept and believe in him. Probably disagree.

57 Because I live by the power of the Father, those who believe in me or the power of me will live spiritually. Provbably disagree.

58 I am the true bread from heaven, agree its Jesus, Anyone who eats this bread, anyone who believes in Jesus, probably disagree. Will live forever, spiritually, agree, and not die as your ancestors did, even though they ate the manna, they ate regular food and died physically but if you eat the bread from heaven, believe in Jesus, your spirit will not die.

60 They could not accept that he was from God, the Son of Man, they did not believe in and who Jesus was so it would be hard for them not to understand because they could not accept Jesus for who he really is. Probably disagree.

 

[benedictus2]

rev Kevin; 6662533:

I have read all of John 6 several times and know what he said about himself.

It seems not or you would have got the rest of the meaning of John 96

Because he is the bread of life that came down from heaven. Why would he make bread into his real body if its made out of flour?

So that you will not be repulse by eating His flesh. His flesh and blood is veiled in bread and wine so that you will not be repulsed. If people were to line up for communion expecting to be gnawing on this meat on the altar, I doubt very much that you will see them going for communion.

I was responding to what you wrote, didn’t you say that the rememberance would only be a rememberance of the meal. Read what you wrote.

What I said was without the “This is my body…… This is my blood….” Then all we would be doing would be remembering a meal. But because of the “this is my body…. Blood”, then it is much more than just a meal.

And?

I was quoting you the institution narrative to prepare you for the later explanation.

And?
Same thing with this one.

When you break bread in church you are to remember his sacrifice.

Yes, that too but much, much more than that. Because He said “this is my body…blood” then it comes much more than just a mental recollection, you become actually present at that sacrifice and the bread that you break is no longer just bread but His flesh given for the life of the world, His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

The wine was a symbol of his blood that was to be shed for our sins.

No it isn’t or He would have said that. He said this is my blood.

[QUTOE] Using them as a symbol.

Sorry but no. In all the text of the Bible He did not say they were a symbol and the apostles did not understand them to be just symbols…

Bread was a main staple that was eaten at every meal. So he used the bread as a symbol because every time they would break bread at a meal they would remember his sacrifice.

Nope, because the ‘THIS’ in “Do THIS in mememory of me” referred to what He did earlier, which is an offering of His body.

  Also, the term here is anamnesis. Anamnesis is much deeper than just memory.  It means a reliving of the even.

So thats what he believes but that is not what Jesus meant.

Sorry but St Augustine knows more about what Jesus meant than you do. The Church for 1000 years believe the same, until Berengarius came, whose theory the church declared as heretical. Then 600 years after that Calvin and Zwingli came to revive Berengarius’s heresy.

NOW THIS IS UNCALLED FOR. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM THEM. SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT A CHILD WOULD DO.

Sorry about that, but my goodness, you insist on twisting Jesus’s words and making Him say things He did not say.

  If you truly love the Lord you will let what He said be and just follow it instead of twisting it because it does not suit your own view of things.

Oh I believe he has the words of eternal life and I would never walk away from him.

Then like Peter you should eat His body and drink His blood. And not by believing in Him. But by exactly that: eating His body and drinking His blood because that is what He requires of His true disciples.

I know that, thats why he used the bread as a symbol of his body.

Wrong, that is why He gave us Himself in the form of bread and wine.

No they knew what he meant before the last supper. John 6 68-69 “Simon Peter replied, Lord, to whom would we go? You alone have the words that give eternal life. We believe them and know you are the Holy One of God.”

No they didn’t. When Peter said that, He was going strictly on faith. He did not know how he was supposed to “feed” on Jesus’ flesh then or how he was going to drink his blood. But then came the last supper and they knew. They were going to eat his flesh in the form of bread and drink his blood in the form of wine.

No it was on the cross that he showed how.

Wrong again. Were they supposed to take Jesus flesh piece by piece and eat Him on the cross? How did Jesus show them that on the cross?

  Also How is He bread on the cross? Cross and bread don’t correlate.

The only way you can correlate the cross and bread is if we say that Body that hung on the cross is the same bread that we partake of in the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

rev Kevin; 6662533:

My Bible says, I assuer you anyone who believes in me already has eternal life. John 6:47

True, but every Bible says after verse 47:

*48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, s*o also the one who feeds on me **will have life because of me.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus also talked in parables, did everyone get what he was saying then. NO so why didn’t he say, Hay this is what I meant when I said this…Because those who believed understood and those who didn’t believe didn’t understand.

Yes, but Jesus did explain the parables to the twelve. But this time around He was not telling parables.

The same when the other disciples left and some stayed, Peter said it, not hard to understand why they stayed. They have come to believe and know he is the Holy One of God. The others didn’t understand that.

Oh don’t you have any doubt about it. Peter did not understand either. Nor did the other disciples that is why their first reply was “To whom shall we go?” It was like saying if there was some other credible Rabbi there they would probably have followed that one . They didn’t know. They believed that He was talking plainly in the same way as those who left. But the big difference is that they truly believed in Him. I think what is in operation here was true humility. They are being asked to accept a hard teaching, but there was no one else to go to and they know Jesus, they believed Him to be the Son of God. So if He is the Son of God then what He is saying must be true, so they accept what He says even though they do not understand how Jesus is going to make that posssible.

The first part of your post is easy to say what, if you were a prostant would say because you are Catholic and believe the way the CC teaches and their teachings. If you werer a prostant you probably would say, What?

I think what Cinnette was saying was if she was protestant would go by the logical merits of the argument.

 

[benedictus2]

I have given you scripture and what they mean. All you give me is Jesus said this is my body, and say what else would it mean besides his real presence. [spelt it right this time] At least I have given what it means, and not just saying, he said this is my body. I have given scripture and meaning, scripture and meaning.

Actually we have given scripture and it’s meaning. I actually have given more scriptural supoprt than you have. Also, the meaning I have put forth did not go counter to what Jesus actually said.

What you have done was eisegesis. What you should have done is exegesis.

 

[rev_kevin]

How is Jesus the Bread that came down from Heaven? How is Jesus bread and how does His being the bread of Life mean that He has come to save the world? What does bread and salvation have to do with each other.?I suggest you re-read John 6 starting form verse 35-40, Here you will find your answer to bread and salvation.

Well I just posted the text in my previous post and there is nowhere in that text can you equate flesh with believing in Him.Once again re-read John 6 verses 47-48, Let me quote it for you, "I assure you, anyone who BELIEVES in me already has eternal life. Yes I am the bread of life.

If that is all that is required, He would have left at at verse 40 : For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.

But He didn’t. He went on and on and on.
Why did Jesus go on and on. Because in verse 41 it says that the people began to murmur in disagreement. Thats why.

Yes, that too. But more primarily based on this discourse that you have to believe that what He says is true. That when He says that His flesh is food that will you life then you believe that. That when He says that His blood is true drink, you believe that becausse you believe Him. If you believe that He is Son of God then you will believe that all these things that He has said are true.LIke I said, his flesh is spiritual food and his blood is spiritiual drinkl, if you eat his flesh, [believe in him] you will not go hungry spiritually and if you drink his blood, [thirst for him and his teachings] you will not thirst spiritually.

Yes they did. They believed in Jesus, so at the last supper when Jesus said eat this, this is my body, drink this, this is my blood, they did as He asked them.They knew he was saying it symboliclly.

That is where the main difference is. But because the others did not believe that He was capable of giving them His flesh and blood without the repulsion attendant to it, then they left.Yes but they did not understand what he meant by this. That it was not really eating his real body and drinking his real blood, but it was a symbol.

Peter and the apostles because they believed that He was the Son of God, took it on faith that whatever He asked of them, will be good. They did not know how He was going to give them His flesh and blood but they went along with Him anyway because they believed in Him.Not only did they believe in him it says that they knew he was the Holy One of God.

It is only when you believe enough in the Lord that you will be able to accept this hard saying, because it is indeed hard saying.

That is the prelude. He knew what He would be doing at the Last Supper. Here, with this discourse, He is preparing them. That is why when they finally got to it at the Last Supper, there was no “What do you mean that is your body, your blood?”. There was no “How can that be your body?”. There was no “Why are you saying all these things which are not part of the passover ritual?” There was none of that becuase they had be prepared for it, the year before.Yes the knew he meant it as a symbol so there would be no need to ask questions.

You could equally ask, why didn’t Mark, Luke and Matthew mention the Bread of Life discourse?

If you re-read John, you will notice that John did not have a passover meal. He just had Jesus having dinner with His disciples. In John’s account, the meal happened before passover, because Jesus was killed at the time they were slaying the lambs for the passover.

No, if that is what He wanted to say, He would have cut his discourse short at verse 40. I suggest you re-read the entire chapter 6 slowly and ruminate on every word.

He went on because as verse 41 says "Then the people began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, I am the bread from heaven.
Now may I suggest you re–read the entire chapter 6 slowly and runinate on every word yourself. You might understand it and the meaning of it.
The only relation between the Eucharist and what we are talking about here is the phrase,eat my flesh and drink my blood, I don’t see this meaning the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

48 Yes he is the bread that came down from heaven. The bread of life from heaven gives eternal life to everyone who eats it. The bread of life from heaven from heaven is Jesus, we agree with this. Jesus came from heaven to be the sacrifice for our sins, we can agree with this. He gives eternal life, we agree with this. To everyone who eats it. Now this is where the disagreement comes in, to eat it means to believe in him.

Well no. Because He had already used the word believe before. But He changes the usage of the word to “eat”, “drink” “feed”. And in the Greek original text, it is actually a much more confronting word that he uses. The word is trogon which means to gnaw. The reason he says that believing in Him is important (comes in very early in the text at verse 40, is because unless we truly believe in Him we will not be able to accept what He is asking us to do. Only true believers will be able to accept without question what is being said here.

50 This bread I give you is my flesh, his body to die on the cross for our sins, we can agree with this.

Partially. Yes, He is to die on the cross for our sins but no this verse does not mean that. It means exactly what it says, that the bread will be His flesh, the same flesh that will die for our sins.

53 Unless you eat the flesh, here is where we disagree, means unless you believe in me. You do not have life within you, means your spiritual life, your soul is dead, I hope we can agree with this.

If Jesus wanted to say that He would have said that, in the same way that He said so in verse 40 and 47. When He said unless you eat, he meant unless you eat.

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, here we disagree, believe in me.

Again, if he wanted to use the word believe, He would have done so because He did this in verse 40 and 47. He means exactly what he said, you will have life if you eat His flesh and drink His blood.

And I will raise them on the last day, you will be with me in heaven, we can agree with this.

Yes

55 My flesh is true food, true spiritual food, and by blood is true drink, spiritual drink, Those who are spiritual hungry will be fed by the word of Christ and those who thirst for the word of Christ, will not be thirsty.

Partially true. Those who are spiritually hungry will be fed by the Body and blood of Christ. He has used the word “word” before, but not in this instance because He wants no one to make a mistake with what he means here.

Just take note of how he repeats Himself here, each time really hammering in the words. Not lightening up, not watering anything down.

56 I in them and them in me, Christ will never leave you once you accept and believe in him. Probably disagree.

Contestable but I agree to a point.

57 Because I live by the power of the Father, those who believe in me or the power of me will live spiritually. Provbably disagree.

Yes, definitely disagree there because that is not what Jesus said. Allow Him to speak for Himself.

Probably the reason you find this dificult is you have not formed a complete theology on this. I wrote a wide Biblical approach on another thread. I will expand on that and post it here.

58 I am the true bread from heaven, agree its Jesus, Anyone who eats this bread, anyone who believes in Jesus, probably disagree.

Yes on the same grounds as before. He had already used the word believe before but this time He changes. The earlier use of believing in Him was actually a prelude to the hard saying that will follow. It is like this: If you believe in Jesus, you will be able to accept what He is saying even if it does not make sense to you, even if it is repulsive to you.

There is a similarity here with Abraham After being given Isaac, God tells Him to sacrificice His son. But Abraham goes without question. This is the kind of faith that Jesus demands of His followers in verse 40 and 47 because there will be a really difficult command to follow.

But like Abraham, if we follow, we will know that God will not make us do something repulsive. It is like when we take Omega3 pills. If we were asked to suck the oil from a live fish we probably would not want to take it. But in little manageable pills, it is okay.

I have to stop posting now as I need to cook dinner.

It is Pentecost Sunday tomorrow so Happy Pentecost! May the Lord fill you with His Spirit and empower you to spread the Good News. The Good News is Jesus Christ.

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes, but Jesus did explain the parables to the twelve. But this time around He was not telling parables.

Oh don’t you have any doubt about it. Peter did not understand either. Nor did the other disciples that is why their first reply was “To whom shall we go?” It was like saying if there was some other credible Rabbi there they would probably have followed that one . They didn’t know. They believed that He was talking plainly in the same way as those who left. But the big difference is that they truly believed in Him. I think what is in operation here was true humility. They are being asked to accept a hard teaching, but there was no one else to go to and they know Jesus, they believed Him to be the Son of God. So if He is the Son of God then what He is saying must be true, so they accept what He says even though they do not understand how Jesus is going to make that posssible.

I think what Cinnette was saying was if she was protestant would go by the logical merits of the argument.

To the 12 but not the ones who left. I was using the parables as a example.

To whom shall we go. The were saying, there is no other way, Though there are many philosophies and self-styled authorities, they knew that Jesus alone has the words of eternal life. How can you say they didn’t know when it say quite clear they did, verse 69 “We believe them, and we KNOW you are the Holy One of God.” So how can you say they didn’t know. We believe them, meaning they believe what he was saying. It was the other disciples who did not believe in what he was saying and was too hard for them to understand but not the 12. The Father brought the 12 to Jesus as we can see in verse 65. After Jesus said this the other disciples left because the Father did not bring them to Jesus, but he did the 12.

And that is what I’m doing, going by the logical merits of the argument, but I would use a different word besides arguement. I would us this, differences of beliefs, not argument.

 

[Cinette]

I have given you scripture and what they mean. All you give me is Jesus said this is my body, and say what else would it mean besides his real presence. [spelt it right this time] At least I have given what it means, and not just saying, he said this is my body. I have given scripture and meaning, scripture and meaning. You have not proven that Jesus said so. Once again all that is said is, this is my body. LIke you say, I can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it ti penetrate into your heart-thats his job. You give up, I never will, because Jesus never gave up and I try to as much like Jesus as I can and do what he wants and that is to make disciples of all nations.
God’s love
Rev Kevin

*Listen sweetheart - you keep saying that Jesus didn’t mean what he said and I (and others) keep telling you that Jesus knew perfectly well what he meant! In fact he repeated and reinforced it several times. What more do you want!

Cinette*

 

[benedictus2]

To the 12 but not the ones who left. I was using the parables as a example.

But when He explained the parables to the apostles, He did not explain them BECAUSE the others had left. He did not explain it so that the others will stay. He explained them merely so that the apostles will understand.

But with the bread of life discourse, He did no explaining at all. Not to those who left and not to the apostles.

To whom shall we go. The were saying, there is no other way, Though there are many philosophies and self-styled authorities, they knew that Jesus alone has the words of eternal life.

Yes definitely that. But also, “To whom shall we go” means we can’t leave even if we want to because you alone have the words of eternal life. It means that even though we also think that what you are saying is indeed hard saying, we will stick with you because we believe in you.

This is similar to when you are 100% convinced that the Lord is asking you to do something even though it does not make sense but you do it anyway because the Lord asked you to do this.

Peter’s word is basically saying: If you say so then it must be so. That is faith.

How can you say they didn’t know when it say quite clear they did, verse 69 “We believe them, and we KNOW you are the Holy One of God.”
We believe THEM. What is the THEM. The THEM is what Jesus had just said earlier, that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. As I said before, yes, they believe that they must do that. But HOW, they did not know yet. The HOW they only knew at the last supper.

So how can you say they didn’t know. We believe them, meaning they believe what he was saying.

The object of “Know” and “believe” in your statement are two different things. The object of “believed” is the eating and drinking of Jesus’s blood. That, they believed they must do because Jesus said so.

The object of “know” is the how. How are they going to eat his flesh and drink His blood? That aspect they did not know then. They only knew the HOW of it at the last supper.

It was the other disciples who did not believe in what he was saying and was too hard for them to understand but not the 12.

That’s right.

The Father brought the 12 to Jesus as we can see in verse 65. After Jesus said this the other disciples left because the Father did not bring them to Jesus, but he did the 12.

Yes, I think you are right there although I have reservations in saying I concur with that 100% because I think that later on some of them will have been converted (perhaps after the resurrection) in which case they will definitely have been brought to Jesus by the Father as well.

This is the same case as with those who leave the church and then come back to the Church later on. At first they cannot accept her teachings and then as they mature and do more studies they come around. Some people take time before they can believe. For others believing is easy. But all these come from God whether the round about way or the direct way.

 

[benedictus2]

He went on because as verse 41 says "Then the people began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, I am the bread from heaven.

Exactly! He went on to explain what He meant. But notice He did not go into it straight away. He has a little bit of sparring with them first. Then He gets to verse 47 where He makes this a condition, that one must believe in HIm. Because unless one believes in Him, that person will not be able to stomach (pardon the pun) what He will say in verse 48 to 57.

When Jesus says in 47, anyone who believes in me already has eternal life, He is confirming here that those who believe in Him will also believe what He will say in the verses to follow (48-57) and so will do exactly what He says in those verses and thereby attain eternal life.

Verse 48-57 becomes some sort of litmus test therefore for whether you believe enough in Jesus or your don’t.

Now may I suggest you re–read the entire chapter 6 slowly and runinate on every word yourself. You might understand it and the meaning of it.

My reply above shows you that I have.

The only relation between the Eucharist and what we are talking about here is the phrase,eat my flesh and drink my blood, I don’t see this meaning the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Well, if Jesus meant us to eat his flesh and drink His blood literally, and since He that a pre-condition for life (unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man… you will not have life) then this must be something that He offers not merely to the twelve who were at table with Him but to everyone else who will believe in Him. That means He also will offer that to those whom He call blessed, those who not having seen Him nonetheless believe (that is us).

If so, then this act of transforming the bread into His flesh and the wine into His blood, must be made possible at every “re-membrance” of that supper. Therefore, when we have the Eucharist, the bread and wine becomes truly Jesus meaning that it is truly Him, the resurrected Jesus Christ. That is what the Real Presence means. That this bread is no longer bread but is truly our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

But because we are on this side of eternity we are unable to perceive this. Our limited mortal bodies are incapable of seeing this reality which will only comprehend on the other side of eternity.

St Thomas Acquinas composed a beautiful song about this and in part it goes.

Godhead here in hiding (in hiding because we do not perceive HIm as he is but instead see only the bread and wine)
Whom I do adore.
Covered by these shadows
Shape and nothing more (meaning the forms of bread and wine)
See Lord at your service
Lo a heart lies here.
Lost all lost in wonder
**at a God so near.
**
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived: (meaning our senses -touch, sight, taste - fail to full comprehend this mystery.
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
And here comes a very important part
What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra you deny Christ in the Eucharist then?

Please read John 6:35-71 until it sinks in. This is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Jesus told them quiet clear I AM the Bread that came down from heaven. Why do you reject those words of Jesus? He is quiet clear in repeating the bread that I give you is my flesh for the life of the world.

Yes, rinnie, I do deny Christ in the Holy Eucharist. For me, also in that time when I was a Catholic, Jesus WAS NEVER in the Holy Eucharist. This is the reason why I never felt comfortable in the Holy Mass!

This is one of the Reasons why I, inofficially, quitted with the RCC when I was 16.

I will tell you what I think about the Last Supper a last time (because I did so too often in this thread!):

"„Who remembers what Jesus has done for us in the Last Supper, will not want to go back under the lordship of the Sin.”

„Jesus started the Last Supper during the Passover Feast. This Jewish Feast should not only remember the liberation of the People of Israel from the Egyptian Slavery. It is also a link that God liberated us from the lordship o Satan and from the Sin so that we are able to go to the “heavenly Canaan”. The centre of the Passover Feast is the Passover-Lamb whose Blood saved the Israelites from the judgement of God over the Egyptians (Genesis 12).
This Passover-Lamb is a symbol for Christ Jesus, whose sacrifice on the Cross liberates us from our Sins.

Jesus, however, transformed the Passover into the Last Supper (Matthew 26:17-30). After He has died for us on the cross for all our sins, this feast should remember His sacrifice and should encourage us to announce His Death for our Sins. So the bread is a symbol for His Body and the Wine for His Blood (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
Jesus has often used allegories and symbols for explaining the Truth (Matthew 13:3; John 16:25). He Himself said, for example, that he was the Door, the Light or the Path. So, also Bread and Wine are only Symbols, who should remember us on Jesus’ sacrifice.

However, those symbols were understood literally later on. And so in the RCC the teaching of the Transsubstitution arose in the RCC. This is a bloodless repetition of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross.
The thought of this kind of substitution and the daily, bloodless repetition of Jesus’ Sacrifice is not biblical. Jesus was only once sacrificed for our Sins (compare Hebrew 6:6, 7:26+27, 9:22+28; 10:10-18; 1 Peter 3:18)"

Best wishes, Esdra