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

[adrift]

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 ,

No you didn’t neither did you answer post 52. If it was spiritual only, why did they leave?

 

[Luvtosew]

And then we come to the end of Luke, after the resurection and when Jesus meets two diciples walking down the road

But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.
30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures?

He took bread blessed it and broke it and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and he vanished out of sight, they reconized him then , because before they ate with him, Jesus always took bread and blessed it, as we should do whenever we eat.

 

[Luvtosew]

I don’t know, he tried to explain what he meant to them, but they left anyway.

6:61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
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 him.
6:66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
6:67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
6:68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
6:69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
6:71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil.
6:72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

John Chapter 7

 

[rjcash]

No you didn’t neither did you answer post 52. If it was spiritual only, why did they leave?

I’ll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.” Can’t get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?

 

[gentle_atheist]

I’ll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.” Can’t get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

Is that clear enough?

Spirit = God. Flesh = man. Please read my post #59 to understand what Jesus is saying.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…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.

Hi Luvtosew

Since your post was quoting mine, permit me to see if we can straighten something out first ? The part of your quote highlighted in blue which is cited above, doesn’t correspond to anything I posted in post # 45 , but it appears to correspond to my previous post # 41 , which I specified as “addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF” . It doesn’t have to be a point of contention though.

That being said, the reason for posting post # 41 was to help us try to understand where those who come to CAF to attack the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist may be coming from – It wasn’t a judgment call against other Christians at all – only elucidation as to why some would come here to attack the doctrine or belief in the Holy Eucharist .

"The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life ", [Lumen Gentium]. So if anyone Catholic or not, comes to CAF to attack the doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, (particularly the belligerent ones) , those attacks should be dismantled – if not for anything else, at least for the sake of those Catholics who might be struggling as you once did. Father John Hardon S.J. would’ve been the first to admit to you that enough of them still exist.

Going back to your response , can you see the difference between what I said concerning the Real Presence and what you said ?

I said

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 !

, but you said

…Jesus in the physical body and flesh… I don’t know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies. … for some of it it just isn’t something we can"t believe.

Your definition has not included God’s Human Soul and His Divinity. Before we say we can’t believe it , we have to be able to at least correctly define what we say we do not believe … don’t we ?

Conversely, being able to understand what we mean when we say we do believe (as Catholics) is just as essential. In Understand Your Catholic Faith or Lose It , Fr Hardon says of understanding our faith:

What do we mean by understanding the faith? We mean growing in our grasp of what we believe. I cannot tell you how crucially important it is to know what we are talking about.
The core of God’s revelation is the mysteries which He has shared with the human race. By definition a Christian mystery is something which cannot be rationally conceived before revelation, or fully comprehended even after being revealed.

So it isn’t like anyone Catholic would have a monopoly on fully comprehending the mysteries. Consider for a moment , Father Hardon’s definition of the True Presence – from the same article:

There is only one meaning to the Real Presence. It is Jesus Christ. It is the Son of God who became the son of Mary, who died on Calvary, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is now on earth in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the world. When we receive the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ is in our bodies no less than he was in the womb of His blessed Mother the moment she conceived Him at Nazareth.

So it is God Himself we receive in Holy Communion – that is the correct definition. Now if I apply that definition to what you have said:

… I don’t know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food …

Your statement (as lacking as it is in the proper definition of the Eucharist) has basically said “God is not spiritual food” .

I would encourage you to begin by using the correct definition of the Real Presence . If you don’t think you can, then I hope you realize that your reasoning remains unsubstantiated , at which point, for you , I still think it would help to consider whether by this statement :

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

You mean …

1. 
   *]I don’t think God is able to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) .
   

       ... or are you saying

   *]I don’t think God , intends to change, or desires to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity).
   
   Reduced to its simplest terms, you are either saying : God can’t do it, or He can do it, but he doesn’t want to.
   
   ?

 

[rjcash]

I’ll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.” Can’t get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?

The simple reason they left is they misunderstood Jesus as talking about real flesh. Jesus then made it clear to those that stayed, **“THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING”. **This is in the context of the whole passage. There was NO physical bread and NO physical wine referenced in the passage. Therefore it would be impossible for this passage to be talking about the Eucharist. The RCC clearly teaches bread and wine transubing. NOW CAN YOU HAVE A EUCHARIST WITHOUT PHYSICAL BREAD AND PHYSICAL WINE. Let’s be consistent with your own beliefs!! There was nothing about transub. mentioned. And this passage about eating his flesh was addressed to UNBELIEVERS. The RCC forbids unbelievers from taking communion!! They understood

 

[gentle_atheist]

The simple reason they left is they misunderstood Jesus as talking about real flesh. Jesus then made it clear to those that stayed, **“THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING”. **

Jesus did not say that they misunderstood. He said that they did not believe. Get the difference?

What Jesus is saying is that God gives life, not man. The words of Jesus are the words of God Himself. So if Jesus tells them that they must eat His flesh to live forever then they must not reject it simply because they find it repulsive. After all, they are just mortal men who cannot possibly figure out the secret to eternal life. Who are they to reject the words of God?

 

[Luvtosew]

Hi Luvtosew

Since your post was quoting mine, permit me to see if we can straighten something out first ? The part of your quote highlighted in blue which is cited above, doesn’t correspond to anything I posted in post # 45 , but it appears to correspond to my previous post # 41 , which I specified as “addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF” . It doesn’t have to be a point of contention though.

That being said, the reason for posting post # 41 was to help us try to understand where those who come to CAF to attack the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist may be coming from – It wasn’t a judgment call against other Christians at all – only elucidation as to why some would come here to attack the doctrine or belief in the Holy Eucharist .

"The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life ", [Lumen Gentium]. So if anyone Catholic or not, comes to CAF to attack the doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, (particularly the belligerent ones) , those attacks should be dismantled – if not for anything else, at least for the sake of those Catholics who might be struggling as you once did. Father John Hardon S.J. would’ve been the first to admit to you that enough of them still exist.

Going back to your response , can you see the difference between what I said concerning the Real Presence and what you said ?

I said , but you said

Your definition has not included God’s Human Soul and His Divinity. Before we say we can’t believe it , we have to be able to at least correctly define what we say we do not believe … don’t we ?

Conversely, being able to understand what we mean when we say we do believe (as Catholics) is just as essential. In Understand Your Catholic Faith or Lose It , Fr Hardon says of understanding our faith:

So it isn’t like anyone Catholic would have a monopoly on fully comprehending the mysteries. Consider for a moment , Father Hardon’s definition of the True Presence – from the same article:

So it is God Himself we receive in Holy Communion – that is the correct definition. Now if I apply that definition to what you have said:

Your statement (as lacking as it is in the proper definition of the Eucharist) has basically said “God is not spiritual food” .

I would encourage you to begin by using the correct definition of the Real Presence . If you don’t think you can, then I hope you realize that your reasoning remains unsubstantiated , at which point, for you , I still think it would help to consider whether by this statement :

You mean …

1. 
   *]I don’t think God is able to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) .
   

       ... or are you saying

   *]I don’t think God , intends to change, or desires to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity).
   
   Reduced to its simplest terms, you are either saying : God can’t do it, or He can do it, but he doesn’t want to.
   
   ?

1. 
   God can do whatever he wants, but I don’t think he sends Jesus’s body down to earth to
   
   eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.
   
   Jesus changed water into wine and it tasted like wine, not water. that is transubstaniation.
   I do believe we take the body , blood, soul and divintiy of Christ in a spirtiual sacred sense, remembering every thing he did for us at Calvary. It is how we approach the host and our belief, but to say its his heart muscle, physical body , his actural blood, his veins, is not what I think that verse is saying.

 

[adrift]

I’ll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.” Can’t get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?

NO and stop shouting. It does not explain why they left. What was hard about “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.”
The reason they left is they clearly understood what he meant

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.

.

 

[adrift]

God can do whatever he wants, but I don’t think he sends Jesus’s body down to earth to

eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.

AMEN! That is said each time communion is given it means I believe that it IS the body and Blood of Jesus.

Jesus changed water into wine and it tasted like wine, not water. that is transubstaniation.
I do believe we take the body , blood, soul and divintiy of Christ in a spirtiual sacred sense, remembering every thing he did for us at Calvary. It is how we approach the host and our belief, but to say its his heart muscle, physical body , his actural blood, his veins, is not what I think that verse is saying

But it isn’t what Jesus said. He didn’t say this is a spirtual sense that you are receiving He said this IS. They walked away from Jesus because they too could not accept what Jesus was saying.

 

[NeedImprovement]

God can do whatever he wants, but I don’t think he sends Jesus’s body down to earth to

eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.

I do think about it - a lot actually . Many a Catholic theologian has ruminated on it long and hard too :

From This is My Body, This is My Blood ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Then the Jews started arguing with one another. Did they understand Him correctly? Was He actually telling them He would give His own flesh for food? “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” they asked. Instead of reassuring them that he did not mean to be taken literally, Christ went on:

I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the bread that your ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:48-58).
The evangelist explains that Christ taught this doctrine in the synagogue, but that hearing it “many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language, How could anyone accept it?’” Jesus was fully aware that His followers were complaining and, in fact, asked them, “does this upset you?” But He took nothing back. Rather He insisted, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” At the same time He explained that such faith is not of man’s making, since “no one could come to me unless the Father allows him.”

Following this animated dialogue, we are prepared for the statement, “After this, many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him.” Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

The Church’s decisive revelation on the Real Presence is in the words of the consecration, “This is my body; this is my blood,” whose literal meaning has been defended through the ages. They were thus understood by St. Paul when he told the first Christians that those who approached the Eucharist unworthily would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. There could be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself, unless Paul assumed that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.

…clear as water to me …

It doesn’t appear you’re yet able to work with the correct definition of transubstantiation , so as I pointed out in the previous post , any of your reasoning regarding transubstantiation remains unsubstantiated .

What is also as clear as water to me (and I take no joy in pointing this out at all) is that anyone who has left the Catholic Church has, for all practical purposes lost any belief they had (if any) that Jesus is truly and personally present in the Eucharist, because if they really knew Who was there … they would never leave. That in itself can be attributable to any number of factors. These people have my prayers. I don’t even know how some can get along in the world without the sacrament of Reconciliation - I know I can’t. Those others also have my prayers.

It looks like you won’t be able to work with the proper definition of the Real Presence - even as it is presented by Fr. John Hardon . That would currently bring us to an impasse.

God bless. I wish you well.

 

[NotWorthy]

Spirit = God. Flesh = man. Please read my post #59 to understand what Jesus is saying.

I would change that to “The Flesh = man”. Sometimes Jesus talks about “His Flesh” and the wonderful things that happen to people who partake of it. But when Jesus, and later St. Paul, write of “The Flesh”, 99% of the time they are speaking of “man”, or more exactly, “being stuck in this world”.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I would change that to “The Flesh = man”. Sometimes Jesus talks about “His Flesh” and the wonderful things that happen to people who partake of it. But when Jesus, and later St. Paul, write of “The Flesh”, 99% of the time they are speaking of “man”, or more exactly, “being stuck in this world”.

Good point.

 

[rjcash]

NO and stop shouting. It does not explain why they left. What was hard about “the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words.”
The reason they left is they clearly understood what he meant

Seems you forgot some verses in there. Jesus tells you very clearly the real reason they walked away.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

I will take the words of Jesus!! Not the theology of someone walking away from him! Not’s not how you establish doctrinal teaching.

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring my question about this passage. The RCC does not permit unbelievers to take communion. If this passage is speaking of taking the “Eucharist”, why was Jesus telling unbelivers to do so? "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, " And they walked away, so they were NOT followers.

Also, since the RCC says the physical bread and physical wine is transubed, where is the physical bread ever mentioned in this passgage and where is the physical wine.

Where is wine ever mentioned in the passage?

Look you have to admit the whole transub thing is made up by the RCC. It does not exist anywhere in scripture. Jesus said, this IS my body, not “it will become my body” there was never any mention of it becoming reall, but oh wait it will still have all the properties of bread and all the properties of wine, look like it, smell like it, but it will be in substance. Jesus never taught that! That is just double talk. If it is changed, then it would look like flesh and it would look like blood and it would be FLESH and BLOOD. I will take Jesus word for it over something that is just made up. Jesus said it “was the fruit of the vine”. RCC says it becomes flesh and blood, but it still has all the properties of bread and wine. Jesus what do you say? I said it is “fruit of the vine”! There was never any reason to think otherwise since he was sitting with them in his body with all his blood in his body. They fact is you or the RCC does not take the passage about the Lords supper literally. Remember, Jesus said it was. The RCC says it becomes. Don’t run off to 1 Cor now and we know that John 6 is out of the discussion, since communion was not for unbelivers. In Hebrews it says “they trample under foot the body of Christ” does that mean they went up to heaven and trampled on his body. NO. It’s so obvious that it is still wine, that after the passing of the bread and wine Jesus says it’s still fruit of the vine!! Jesus, I belive you!

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Hello all,

I have a quick question . If Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the last supper, and in particular transformed the wine into his blood, why does he refer to the newly transubstantiated wine as “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29? It seems to indicate that the wine is, in fact, merely wine.

Here is the reference:

Matthew 26:26-29 (New International Version)

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

What does Jesus mean when he refers to the “fruit of the vine” which he will not drink until he drinks it in the Father’s kingdom if the wine is no longer wine but is now his Body and Blood?

Thank you all for your response ,

Aquinas4585

Well if you can recall in the gospel of John Jesus tells his disciples after the Supper a parable about the vine, saying, I am the vine and you are the branches. Every branch that bears fruit my Father prunes and it bears forth much fruit and ever branch that bears none he breaks off…

He also speaks of other parables concerning likewise…

By saying “fruit of the vine” he connects the Sacrament with his teachings. It is a spiritual teaching so he uses this type of connection to show that the Sacrament is his teaching and his teaching is his Sacrament. What Jesus did alot of is weaving a web of Faith in order to make it solid or whole. He points out alot of things from one parable to another to show that it is all one-solid faith.

 

[adrift]

Seems you forgot some verses in there. Jesus tells you very clearly the real reason they walked away.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

I will take the words of Jesus!! Not the theology of someone walking away from him! Not’s not how you establish doctrinal teaching. !

hmmmmm. What is the crack about not the theology of someone walking away from him. You must mean yourself.
You have misquoted
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away?

You accuse me of skipping and then you do.
These versus come after them saying
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
What is the hard saying? This is what you refuse to answer.

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring my question about this passage. The RCC does not permit unbelievers to take communion. If this passage is speaking of taking the “Eucharist”, why was Jesus telling unbelivers to do so? "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, " And they walked away, so they were NOT followers.

Jesus was telling them that in order to have life they would have to

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.

Why is your question?

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.

It is God’s plan. Jesus invites everyone to be saved but not all are.

Also, since the RCC says the physical bread and physical wine is transubed, where is the physical bread ever mentioned in this passgage and where is the physical wine.

Where is wine ever mentioned in the passage?

Jesus doesn’t reveal all here. He tells them

Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

It is latter at the Last Supper that Jesus reveals How.

Look you have to admit the whole transub thing is made up by the RCC.

This is a lie an insult to your host here. It might just get you banned.

It does not exist anywhere in scripture. Jesus said, this IS my body, not “it will become my body”

That is right Jesus said this IS because at that moment it became His Body and Blood.

there was never any mention of it becoming reall, but oh wait it will still have all the properties of bread and all the properties of wine, look like it, smell like it, but it will be in substance. Jesus never taught that! That is just double talk. If it is changed, then it would look like flesh and it would look like blood and it would be FLESH and BLOOD.

A virigin can’t have a baby. A man can’t come back from the dead. What part of is don’t you understand.

I will take Jesus word for it over something that is just made up.

But you deny Jesus’ word just like those who walked away… You walk away for the same reason they did. It was to hard of a saying.

Jesus said it “was the fruit of the vine”.

from Kepha’s post 2
In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood.

RCC says it becomes flesh and blood, but it still has all the properties of bread and wine. Jesus what do you say? I said it is “fruit of the vine”!

Jesus waht do you say.
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.Take, eat; this **is **my body.
And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this **is **my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

There was never any reason to think otherwise since he was sitting with them in his body with all his blood in his body.

The same body that went through a door.

They fact is you or the RCC does not take the passage about the Lords supper literally.

Not a fact.

Remember, Jesus said it was. The RCC says it becomes.

You are mistaken. The words at mass are not that it becomes but that it is.

 

[adrift]

Don’t run off to 1 Cor now and we know that John 6 is out of the discussion, since communion was not for unbelivers.

So that is how you are going to dismiss it. Won’t work. Jesus did not give it to non believers. He weeded them out so that they walked with Him no more because it was to hard for them to believe.

In Hebrews it says “they trample under foot the body of Christ” does that mean they went up to heaven and trampled on his body. NO.

Hebrew 10:29 Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?

It is clear that is what meant by trample under foot means to have contempt. It seems you are reaching here for a straw.

It’s so obvious that it is still wine, that after the passing of the bread and wine Jesus says it’s still fruit of the vine!! Jesus, I belive you!

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.

Luke says that He calls it the fruit of the vine before He blessed the bread and wine. It is so obvious that it is a hard saying for you.

 

[NeedImprovement]

The unusual resurrecting of this thread almost two years after it had been inactive, has at least given us a working model of how **sola scriptura ** attempts to function - although that wasn’t the topic. Contrary to whatever people may wish to claim *hasn’t happened * due to the breaking with the authority of the Magisterium, the evidence (actually it translates into a lack of evidence) is right there.

No one who attacks the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist via sola scriptura , has any authority they can cite to to substantiate their claim . Subsequently, as we have clearly seen demonstrated, they become the sole authority capable of interpreting sacred scripture . Any other interpretation which conflicts with their own personal interpretation - including what the unbroken tradition of the Catholic Church has held and taught and expounded upon throughout the centuries, is simply wrong . When we dare to point that out , for some unexplained reason …… this in turn, can periodically precipitate an overdose of font steroids.

Another inadvertent definition which was given on this second section of the thread , came from Tim ; and it deserves honorable mention and repeating :

I get the point you are trying to make. The new covenant was not ratified until Christ shed blood on the cross so therefor the contents of the cup could not be blood. I get it.

I’ll reply with John 6:53-56, you will reply with something else, and so forth. It is really no use to argue with each other if we know we will not convince each other. I love people too much to argue with them. I love you too much to argue with you. All it is going to do is work us both up to a frenzy.

I would like to offer you a book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre, if you will read it. Check your PM’s.

-Tim-

-Tim-

That has to be one of the best definitions of being a Christian that I’ve read here in quite a while . Thanks Tim … … awesome !

 

[in_servitude]

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.

Now, we’re talking about the “It is finished” statement Jesus makes right before he dies. I asked about the need for Jesus to insert a request for a drink between seeing that everything was finished and making the statement that it was finished.

If I understand you correctly, Jesus is doing this to demonstrate his thirst for God the Father.

The problem I have with that explanation is that it does not explain “hyssop.” What is your explanation for the hyssop being used at this time?

For me, I see it as a tie to Exodus 12 where we see a description of the 1st passover. This is where the Jews had to eat the lamb and place the blood on their doorway in order to be saved (in order to have life in their house). For all of those that did not do this “had their dead” in their house.

Hyssop was the type of branch used to lift the blood of the lamb over head and place it on the lentil. Why would the hyssop be used in this instance just to give Jesus a drink in order to demonstrate his thirst?