Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

[Luvtosew]

Regardless of what anyone says, we are subject to the Truth. Our statements do not change the Truth any more than two fleas arguing about the true nature of the animal they are on. I think there’s a statement in the bible about how “teachers” are judged harshly. Those that lead people astray may have a difficult time with their judgement.

What does Luvtosew say about Lanciano? It was (and continues to be) a miracle that showed up right when the questions about the true nature of the Eucharist started to gain traction. I figure that a person that is trying to lead people away from the Eucharist would want to investigate the signs provided to us.

I’m not trying to change anyones thinking in how they think, I have read all about the Lanciano miracle and answered about that in a previous post in this thread. I’m not here to change anyone mind, maybe my own but no matter what anyone says I have not been able to change my mind after over a year,and I have read much about it, maybe more than a lot of Catholics have. So like I said we all believe what we believe. We are all together as one in the Christian family and well you may not agree totally with other Christians either. Its just the way it is, I had no plans to leave the Catholic Church after over 50 years of being Catholic, but thats what happened recently.
I also want you to know I have had many sleepless nights concerning this, and it has caused a lot of distress for me , but I have made a decision now so, its the one I had to make.

 

[NeedImprovement]

** For those who believe they require clarification , this post is addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF *:

If our desire is to gain at least partial understanding of some of the essence of the psychology/mentality behind those mechanisms which might impel a non–Catholic Christian to come to CAF to attack the sacramental theology and the Doctrine of the Eucharist, Catholic scholars and historians provide us with the tools we need . Although the OP posted the question in the CAF Sacred Scripture forums , it’s theme is central to *sacramental theology *, which is Catholic Doctrine; and this extending to (but not exclusively reliant on) some solid descriptive support from metaphysics .

My best friend is a Baptist – originally from Nashville Tennessee , and I have never had even a slightest argument with him on the ways our individual beliefs in Christ may differ or vary . In turn, that can make me seriously wonder sometimes why Christians come to CAF to attack belief in the Eucharist .

In the foreword to his Conference on “This is My Body, This is My Blood , Father John Hardon, S.J. , says :

Saint Robert Bellarmine, writing in the sixteen hundreds, counted over two hundred interpretations of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, “This is my Body…this is my Blood.” Over the centuries, this has been the principal source of division among the Protestant Churches of the world.

My purpose in this conference will be twofold: first to identify and explain what the Catholic Church understands by the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and then to see how basic to Protestantism is the denial of the Real Presence.

… going on to point out that the “beginning of our faith” in the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist…

comes from the discourse recorded by St. John, writing toward the end of the first century

…then proceeding to bring us through the 6th Chapter of the Gospel according to John .

An ensuing section entitled *Protestant Roots of Heretical Catholicism * catches us a little by surprise – focusing first on the critical problem of a lack of faith, or a weak faith in the True Presence within the Holy Catholic Church herself :

I never tire repeating the direct order I received from Pope John Paul II in 1986 and 1988 to do everything in my power to restore faith in the Real Presence in the United States, where it has been lost, and strengthen this faith where it still exists.
According to the Holy Father, unless this faith in the Real Presence is strengthened and restored, he feared for the survival of the Catholic Church in more than one diocese in our country.

It all began with the Protestant so-called reformation. In countries like ours, where Protestantism has become the prevailing culture of a nation, two truths of the Catholic faith have suffered profoundly. They are **faith in the priesthood **and faith in the Real Presence.

So we should be able to at least comprehend that, a Protestant who comes to attack the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist at CAF , is going to come armed to attack the priesthood at the same time – not necessarily because they hate priests or the priesthood, or even Catholics , but because they profess a faith bereft of any belief in the True presence in the Holy Eucharist – hence bereft of the ministerial priesthood ; because outside of Jesus Christ himself, there is no priesthood – priests are only priests in Christ – the High Priest. So the ministerial priesthood is something which they are unable to understand even remotely ; and it thus follows that they would need some rather (ahem) “elaborate” reasoning (which must initially be used to convince themselves) to try and interpret the Last Supper, and even Chapter 6 of the Gospel according to John in a way that would neither require nor refer to the priesthood – a priesthood which, incidentally Christ did institute on Holy Thursday.

Speaking on the Rule of Faith, Catholic Encyclopedia describes some of the consequences of non-Catholic theologians’ mode of thinking , once they broke with the authority of the Magisterium :

… But in formulating their various theories, non-Catholic theologians have never seemed to realize the absolutely vital character of the question at issue, and have contented themselves with illogical views, which have done more to alienate thinking men than the direct and unveiled assaults of infidels and agnostics. At the Reformation the only authority deserving of the title was overthrown, and since then men have been seeking, at all costs, to replace it by some form other than that of the Apostolic Church, from which they cut themselves adrift…

So we have this struggle : While it is essential for us to defend all attacks on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist , whatever that may entail, we are supposed to do our best to remain patient- even compassionate o see my username) with those who are attacking it.

I guess I still have a lot to learn : When I was younger, I never paused to be patient or compassionate when I had to stop someone beating up either of my brothers (Then again, at least my brothers thought I was being compassionate towards them … ).

 

[rjcash]

The discussion on John was in response to someone else bringing it up. I simply said if you want to use it then answer those questions. So it was their choice to answer or not. It was not meant to divert the discussion, but to answer those questions if they were going to use John 6. If you are instructing me to stick with the passage quoted then, please instruct ALL to do the same.

I am all for sticking with the original discussion, but then I have to ask why someone always runs off to I Cor. or John 6 in the discussion. My subsequent posts tried to deal with specific language by comparing it to the idea stated in Hebrews that a new testatment is based on the death of Christ. Someone addressed that, but DID not answer it. I do think people have a problem sticking with a direct question, since no one has answered **any **of mine directly! They usually go off on some tangent, one even about Jesus disappearing!

My general response to the OP, is: Of course it is meant as “fruit of the vine”, Jesus said it, so that should settle it. But I had a question about clarification, which no one dealt with directly.

So I will restate my original response to the original post about the “fruit of the vine” being taken as literal.

My posted response was to those who take it literally, which results in the real issue of “real presence”. So please stick with my question, which was:

So I guess what you are saying is that while Jesus sat with them in his own body, he drank his own blood with them and then will do the same in the Kingdom? In other words when we are with Jesus in the kingdom and he is physically present in his body, then we will be drinking his blood from his body and so will he? This is also based on comparing it to the passage in Luke,

“18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

… 20 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. It says, “after he had supped”.

So this is a question.

My expected responses would be something like, “yes, that is what we think” or “no that is not what we think” or “well that presents a problem”, is he really drinking his own blood and will he drink his own blood in the kingdom and will we? Those are examples of answering a question directly, not “well Jesus disappeared then suddenly reappeared.”

The main idea here is if you take it to mean real presence (which is not a literal interpretation, it is a derived interpretation), then you would also have to say that he meant it literally in the kingdom as well. And that Jesus did this with them, i.e. drank his own blood!

The other idea expressed is that Jesus said he would do this again. So he drank his own blood with them while seated with them in his own body, holding his own blood in this passage. Then he will do that again in the kingdom, i.e. drink his own blood with them while holding his own blood while seated in his own body. So I asked for clarification on is that what you are saying?

Now for the one who mentioned that I am wasting time by posting these questions either read and answer my original question that dealt directly with the OP or stop responding to my post. If you don’t think this is a forum to ask questions and have discussions, then maybe just hit the unsubscribe button. These ARE QUESTIONS. I did state what I believe about it, so maybe that makes you think it is an argument. But after I stated my thoughts on it, out of respect and too make sure I understand, I asked for clarification on what would be meant if it is taken as real presence. If these simple questions cause you distress, sorry. But in this forum questions and discussions are what it’s about. At the top of the web page it says, “Catholic Answers”. I am still waiting for mine. Please have the courtesy to look at my questions and actually answer them directly. Here is an example of one indirect answer. I get it … but I could go to John then you would have an answer for that. Well that did not directly answer the question I posed. I try to ask questions first, so I can make sure I understand what everyone is saying. Then I will discuss it later. Please have the same courtesy. So answer my questions directly, please!!

If you have a problem with my question, then it is always best to ask for clarification, like I did, instead of going off on tangents, accusing me of arguing, and not sticking with the post, etc., answer directly then!

You can try to interpret my intent and then dodge the question, but then this web site would not be “Catholic Answers” would it?

 

[rjcash]

RJcash, I know that you refuse to see the Eucharist in John 6, but my friend, the Church has clearly seen the Eucharist in John 6, from the very 1st century. Bishops, who were disciples of the Apostle John (Ignatius), who spent extended periods of time with the Apostle John, saw the Eucharist very clearly in John 6. This teaching of the Church is the most consistent of any our teachings. To me, its a non-negotiable.

So, I’m really not concerned with what you see or don’t see mentioned. But I tell you what… break your comments on John 6 out and start a new thread. I don’t have much time right now to rebut you, but I will over the weekend.

“the Church” has NOT indeed seen the Eucharist in John 6. I might be wrong, but I think it would be better to say, “some” of the church. Augustine did not, not in John 6. But out of respect for your position I will ask the question, becuase I might have missed it. Where in John 6 does it state anything about the elements being present? Where is physical"bread and physical wine mentioned? Who is it addressed to, believers or unbelievers? etc. If you want to use John 6, then answer all of the questions I asked about it. You have NOT answered those questions. This is my opinion, but I think it is because you do not want to engage with the text directly! He is telling them they can have eternal life NOW, if they eat his flesh and drink his blood NOW. Was his offer to them insincere? That is the literal interpretation! If you want to respond to me, then deal with the TEXT and not what you think someone else thinks about it. I am only asking you questions about it, which you have NOT answered. So if you want to use John 6 then deal with the text and stop reading into it things that are not there. Either take it litrally or not, but don’t make up stuff about it. Again, this thread is not about John 6, but if you want to quote it, then those questions would have to be addressed.

As you your statement, “So, I’m really not concerned with what you see or don’t see mentioned.” That’s a strange response, since this site is “Catholic Answers”. I aksed questions! But to be clear. It does matter what is in the TEXT!! They are the words of Jesus and it is not a good idea to add things that are not there, that is the point. These are all basic questions of observation and are the first principles of dealing with any text, i.e. what does the text actually say and what does it not say! Or what am I reading into it?

 

[adrift]

So I guess what you are saying is that while Jesus sat with them in his own body, he drank his own blood with them and then will do the same in the Kingdom? In other words when we are with Jesus in the kingdom and he is physically present in his body, then we will be drinking his blood from his body and so will he? This is also based on comparing it to the passage in Luke,

I only have a few moments so I am only going to address this.

Where does it say that Jesus drank. All I see is that He gave it and told His Apostles to drink.

Hope to discuss this further latter when I am not so rushed.

God Bless You

 

[NeedImprovement]

Belief in the True Presence of our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist – entirely –Body ,Blood, Soul, Divinity ; our loving Lord Jesus – right there in person !

How inspiring this faith can be to us when we see it fostered and nourished in the soul of a little child . St. Therese of Lisieux had this faith from a very young age … and in her childlike simplicity, she actually became a Doctor of the Church.

In her autobiography The Story of a Soul , she speaks of how, even when she was still too young to attend the longer Sunday celebrations of the Mass , she would anticipate with joy her sister bringing her back some of the bread (not Holy Communion) which was customarily blessed at the Parochial Mass …

On Sundays, as I was still too small to go to the long services, Mamma stayed at home to take care of me. I was always very good, walking about on tip-toe; but as soon as I heard the door open there was a tremendous outburst of joy–I threw myself on my dear little sister, exclaiming: “Oh, Céline! give me the blessed bread, quick!”[8] One day she had not brought any–what was to be done? I could not do without it, for I called this little feast my Mass. A bright idea struck me: “You have no blessed bread! --make some.” Céline immediately opened the cupboard, took out the bread, cut a tiny bit off, and after saying a Hail Mary quite solemnly over it, triumphantly presented it to me; and I, making the sign of the Cross, ate it with devotion, fancying it tasted exactly like the real blessed bread.
(…)
[8] The custom still prevails in some parts of France of blessing bread at the Offertory of the Mass and then distributing it to the faithful. It is known as pain bénit. This blessing only takes place at the Parochial Mass. [Ed.]

Her daily afternoon walks with her father always included a visit with the Blessed Sacrament …

Every afternoon I went out for a walk with him, and we paid a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in one or other of the Churches. It was in this way that I first saw the Chapel of the Carmel.

… and, from even such a young age, her love for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament…

The feasts! What precious memories these simple words bring to me. I loved them; and my sisters knew so well how to explain the mysteries hidden in each one. Those days of earth became days of Heaven. Above all I loved the procession of the Blessed Sacrament: what a joy it was to strew flowers in God’s path! But before scattering them on the ground I threw them high in the air, and was never so happy as when I saw my rose-leaves touch the sacred Monstrance.

The True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist - something which even a child can believe - so passionately and intensely.

How is it that we adults can sometimes have such difficulty in believing that Jesus is Truly Present - Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity ?

And what about arguments of disbelief or against the fact that on Holy Thursday, “Christ instituted the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrament of the priesthood.” … particularly the *Sacrifice *of the Mass … ? Just how congruent is our thinking in these matters if :

We can’t believe Christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass on Holy Thursday , but we can believe that the next day , He died for *our *sins - *which hadn’t even been committed yet *? …

 

[Luvtosew]

Belief in the True Presence of our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist – entirely –Body ,Blood, Soul, Divinity ; our loving Lord Jesus – right there in person !

How inspiring this faith can be to us when we see it fostered and nourished in the soul of a little child . St. Therese of Lisieux had this faith from a very young age … and in her childlike simplicity, she actually became a Doctor of the Church.

In her autobiography The Story of a Soul , she speaks of how, even when she was still too young to attend the longer Sunday celebrations of the Mass , she would anticipate with joy her sister bringing her back some of the bread (not Holy Communion) which was customarily blessed at the Parochial Mass …

Her daily afternoon walks with her father always included a visit with the Blessed Sacrament …

… and, from even such a young age, her love for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament…

The True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist - something which even a child can believe - so passionately and intensely.

How is it that we adults can sometimes have such difficulty in believing that Jesus is Truly Present - Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity ?

And what about arguments of disbelief or against the fact that on Holy Thursday, “Christ instituted the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrament of the priesthood.” … particularly the *Sacrifice *of the Mass … ? Just how congruent is our thinking in these matters if :

We can’t believe Christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass on Holy Thursday , but we can believe that the next day , He died for *our *sins - *which hadn’t even been committed yet *? …

I felt I had to comment on your indication about how children believe and some adults don’t. As a Catholic for many years I believed I was recieving the Host as spiritual food, in faith, until I found out about transubstantiation and that the bread was Jesus in the physical body and flesh. Now I don’t believe I was ever taught as a kid what transubstantiation was, I would of remembered that I would think. I don’t know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies.

I copied from the Douag Rheims bible and I know thats the one many use.

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. [27] Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. [28] You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. [29] And now I have told you before it comes to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe. [30] I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing.

[26] **Teach you all things: Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error. **

The bold print is how the CC interprets that scripture, to make it sound like only the original apostles and their successors have the Holy Ghost,

Well I need to say, God, is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we all have the Holy Spirit in us, all of us, and Jesus went to heaven and we got the gift of the Holy Spirit, whom abides in us, as we are spirits inside of bodies.

So see its not like some of us refuse to believe, but we (whoever and me) do not believe in transubstantiation.

And also Jesus did sacrifice himself on the Cross, and commanded his spirit to the Father, and we should never forget that, “It is finished” he said. He did what he came to do.

I am not here to try to get anyone to believe what I believe but I’m just stating why some adults may not believe as the CC teaches on this matter, it has nothing to do with ignorance or refusal or authority problems, for some of it it just isn’t something we can"t believe.

 

[rjcash]

I only have a few moments so I am only going to address this.

Where does it say that Jesus drank. All I see is that He gave it and told His Apostles to drink.

Hope to discuss this further latter when I am not so rushed.

God Bless You

Hi, I know it’s a long message, so you must have missed it. Here it is, so please read the entire quote. Let me know if this answers your question directly. Seems that no one wants to answer mine directly. Instead they go off on tangents, like the latest post. Still not answering.

Here it is:

20 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. It says, “after he had supped”.

Let me know if this answers your question directly! If not please clarify your request. Thanks!

 

[in_servitude]

And also Jesus did sacrifice himself on the Cross, and commanded his spirit to the Father, and we should never forget that, “It is finished” he said. He did what he came to do.

Why do you suppose that he asked for a drink after he observed that it was finished? The wine is sandwiched between his observation that it was finished and him saying it was finished. If it was really finished - why not just say, “It is finished.” and leave it at that. But, for some strange reason, he gets a sudden bout of thirst. What is the theology there?

 

[rjcash]

**
“I don’t know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies.”**

Excellent Point!! That is exactly the point Jesus made in John 6, which everyone wants to go back to!

The whole point of redemption is that the penaly of sin is death. There is only one thing that can pay that penaly in our place, which is Christ’s death! That’s all that he was trying to communicate, “this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.” In this verse “shall be” is future tense. But the point is that his death on the cross will pay the penalty of sin! After that it’s a glorius commemoration! Just like he said! Sine his death paid the penalty! Not eating flesh or drinking blood!

It’s all about his one time, once and for all, historic death that “is finished”!

 

[Luvtosew]

Why do you suppose that he asked for a drink after he observed that it was finished? The wine is sandwiched between his observation that it was finished and him saying it was finished. If it was really finished - why not just say, “It is finished.” and leave it at that. But, for some strange reason, he gets a sudden bout of thirst. What is the theology there?

Yes he says it to fulfull Psalm 22:15 and 69:21 and , I thirst is talking spiritual thirst to be reunited with his Father, as earlier he cried out , why have you forsaken me,

and in Psalm 63:1
1 O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly;
My soul thirsts for You, my flesh [c]yearns for You,
In a dry and weary land where there is no water.

 

[adrift]

Hi, I know it’s a long message, so you must have missed it. Here it is, so please read the entire quote. Let me know if this answers your question directly. Seems that no one wants to answer mine directly. Instead they go off on tangents, like the latest post. Still not answering.

Here it is:

20 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. It says, “after he had supped”.

Let me know if this answers your question directly! If not please clarify your request. Thanks!

No it doesn’t answer the question.

It doesn’t matter that you use Luke instead of Matthew.

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire** I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine**, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

I looked at several translations including the Greek and only two used the pronoun “he”. The others just say after supper I don’t find that it matters much. I think what is being meant is that after the meal is when Jesus took the bread and the cup and blessed them. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank and then gave it to His apostles.
In this Scripture Jesus says before the blessing, before the change to being Blood that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine.

Saying that after supper, does not equate to Jesus ate what He blessed.

 

[adrift]

**
“I don’t know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies.”**

Excellent Point!! That is exactly the point Jesus made in John 6, which everyone wants to go back to!

The whole point of redemption is that the penaly of sin is death. There is only one thing that can pay that penaly in our place, which is Christ’s death! That’s all that he was trying to communicate, “this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.” In this verse “shall be” is future tense. But the point is that his death on the cross will pay the penalty of sin! After that it’s a glorius commemoration! Just like he said! Sine his death paid the penalty! Not eating flesh or drinking blood!

It’s all about his one time, once and for all, historic death that “is finished”!

51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

What would be a hard saying?
Why did they leave Him?

 

[rjcash]

No it doesn’t answer the question.

It doesn’t matter that you use Luke instead of Matthew.

I looked at several translations including the Greek and only two used the pronoun “he”. The others just say after supper I don’t find that it matters much. I think what is being meant is that after the meal is when Jesus took the bread and the cup and blessed them. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank and then gave it to His apostles.
In this Scripture Jesus says before the blessing, before the change to being Blood that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine.

Saying that after supper, does not equate to Jesus ate what He blessed.

The full qoute was in my earlier post, here it is again, from the Douay:

Luke 22:20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

20 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.

Did you see it this time?

 

[rjcash]

1 Cor. 11:25 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.

The word “henceforth” is in the order you selected, must have been from Mt., since Lk has it after.

Hencefore, is easily understood as from that point on, from the point of participation. But it does say he will do it again!!

 

[Luvtosew]

I just found this from the Douay-Rheims Bible,

6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

If then you shall see, etc. . .Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time orrect their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and onsequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

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 ay, 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 hrist (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken lesh for us, nor died in 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 eceive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.
6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray

 

[adrift]

The full qoute was in my earlier post, here it is again, from the Douay:

Luke 22:20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

20 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.

Did you see it this time?

Shame on you for this response obviously you didn’t see this

I looked at several translations including the Greek and only two used the pronoun “he”. The others just say after supper I don’t find that it matters much. I think what is being meant is that after the meal is when Jesus took the bread and the cup and blessed them. Nowhere does it say that Jesus ate or drank and then gave it to His apostles.
In this Scripture Jesus says before the blessing, before the change to being Blood that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine.

Saying that after supper, does not equate to Jesus ate what He blessed.

No matter how big you put it. It doesn’t say that Jesus ate the Body and Blood He gave to the Apostles.

I repeat saying that He supped does not equate to he ate what He blessed.

I also pointed out that in the Greek there is no pronoun.

 

[adrift]

I just found this from the Douay-Rheims Bible,

6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

If then you shall see, etc. . .Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time orrect their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and onsequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

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 ay, 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 hrist (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken lesh for us, nor died in 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 eceive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.
6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray

Are you saying that Jesus dying(flesh) did no good?

 

[Luvtosew]

Are you saying that Jesus dying(flesh) did no good?

I’m not saying anything , I didn’t write any of that, of course he flesh profitted us what he did at Calvery for us, that is bible verses, not anything I wrote.

we take the host spiritually ,

 

[gentle_atheist]

I just found this from the Douay-Rheims Bible,

Oh brother, what a confusing commentary. Here’s what it should say:

6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jesus is pulling rank on His listeners. He’s saying, “Shall I show you who I really am?”

6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Spirit = God. Flesh = man. It is the spirit (God) who gives life; the flesh (man) profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit (God’s words) and life.

6:65 But there are some of you that believe not.

They refuse to believe what Jesus is telling them because it is so revolting to them. They refuse to place their trust in Jesus.