Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[ufamtobie]

"MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST" Sunday Mass -May 25, 2008-

The Jews at that time had the same beliefs as many Protestants do today for scripture says in:
*** (John 6: 52) At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat.”***

The Quarrel still continues here today in this forum how sad.
Do you Protestants see the same beliefs as do the Jews above?

(John 6: 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU, if you do not eat the FLESH of the Son of Man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.

If you don’t take Our Lords words literally and eat and drink believing that it is his flesh and it is his blood how can you be saved. Don’t be like those Jews above who left him, you still have a chance ask Jesus to give you the Grace to believe. Or do you want to leave like the Jews above.

(John 6: 60-61)After hearing his words, MANY of his disciples remarked, :This sort of talk is HARD TO ENDURE! How can anyone take it SERIOUSLY. Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in PROTEST at what HE HAD SAID. "Does this SHAKE YOUR FAITH? he asked them.

Does it shake your faith.

Ufamtobie

 

[Chris_LaRock]

"MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST" Sunday Mass -May 25, 2008-

The Jews at that time had the same beliefs as many Protestants do today for scripture says in:
*** (John 6: 52) At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat.”***

The Quarrel still continues here today in this forum how sad.

(John 6: 53) Thereupon Jesus said to them: Let me SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU, if you do not eat the FLESH of the Son of Man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.

If you don’t take Our Lords words literally and eat and drink believing that it is his flesh and it is his blood how can you be saved. Don’t be like those Jews above who left him, you still have a chance ask Jesus to give you the Grace to believe. Or do you want to leave like the Jews above.

(John 6: 60-61)After hearing his words, MANY of his disciples remarked, :This sort of talk is HARD TO ENDURE! How can anyone take it SERIOUSLY. Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in PROTEST at what HE HAD SAID. "Does this SHAKE YOUR FAITH? he asked them.

Ufamtobie

The original Greek of the NT seems to confirm it’s the literal body and blood. Just look at the Jewish passover that foreshadowed the communion servic. The literal body and blood of the lamb was used.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Below, please find scriptures which are used “symbolically” when referencing eating and drinking. In these passages, the terms eating and drinking means to assault. If our Lord had been speaking symbolically about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he would have meant for us to assault him. This makes no sense what so ever. (Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. Our Lord was specific about what he meant.) As you’ve already pointed out, when his followers left him, he did not call them back and explain he was speaking symbolically or using a parable.

Psa 14:4 Shall not all they know that work iniquity, who devour my people as they eat bread?

Isa 9:18 For wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the brier and the thorn: and shall kindle in the thicket of the forest, and it shall be wrapped up in smoke ascending on high.
Isa 9:19 By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
Isa 9:20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isa 49:26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

Mic 3:3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

2Sa 23:15 And David longed, and said: O that some man would get me a drink of the water out of the cistern, that is in Bethlehem, by the gate.
2Sa 23:16 And the three valiant men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the cistern of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and brought it to David: but he would not drink, but offered it to the Lord,
2Sa 23:17 Saying: The Lord be merciful to me, that I may not do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? therefore he would not drink. These things did these three mighty men.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire.

 

[brkn1]

The original Greek of the NT seems to confirm it’s the literal body and blood. Just look at the Jewish passover that foreshadowed the communion servic. The literal body and blood of the lamb was used.

The literal body of the lamb was eaten, but not the blood as you imply with the word “used”.
The passover lamb was symbolic of the salvation of Israel from Egyptian bondage and salvation from losing the first born in the family on the actual passover day. It also pointed forward to the true Lamb of God, Who would save us from damnation by His ONE sacrifice on Calvary to redeem all that the Holy Spirit brings to saving faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our present day breaking of bread looks back in remembrance towards that one sacrifice of our Redeemer. The elements used are literal bread and wine, which represent the body and blood of our Lord Jesus in symbolic form, not the literal body and blood of Jesus as the unbelieving Jews then incorrectly understood Jesus’ words about Himself.

Jesus would not tell anyone to do anything against the law prescribed by God for man. It was commanded even to Noah and his family to never eat the blood.
(Genesis 9:4) “But the flesh with the life thereof,which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
The law of God written by Moses also says the same thing about not eating or drinking blood.
Jesus would not then tell everyone to disregard such a command by God and start drinking blood. Cannibalism is also forbidden by the law which Jesus came to fulfill, not change.

The flesh and blood that Jesus came to give us was that ONE sacrifice of His body and the shedding unto His death of his Blood for our redemption from the penalty for our sins.
We eat of His body and blood when we believe in saving faith by the working of the Holy Spirit in us unto salvation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are commanded to break bread in communion in grateful and loving remembrance of what our Lord Jesus Christ did to save us.

 

[pismopal]

Interesting issue and pivotal in my journey to the true Church. I have never received a satisfactory answer as to why non catholics do not accept that “…this is My body…”.
My protestant friends typically say something like " We only go by the Bible and Catholics don’t." In reading John 6 it is clear that Christ had plenty of opportunity to correct the impression that He obviously gave to those around Him but they refused to believe it as some do today.
By refusing to believe Christ’s words the disbeliever is echoing the sentiments of those who walked away after hearing the truth, exclaiming…" This is a hard saying, who can believe it?
I am waiting to hear someone justify this disbelief in the words of Christ.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Interesting issue and pivotal in my journey to the true Church. I have never received a satisfactory answer as to why non catholics do not accept that “…this is My body…”.
My protestant friends typically say something like " We only go by the Bible and Catholics don’t." In reading John 6 it is clear that Christ had plenty of opportunity to correct the impression that He obviously gave to those around Him but they refused to believe it as some do today.
By refusing to believe Christ’s words the disbeliever is echoing the sentiments of those who walked away after hearing the truth, exclaiming…" This is a hard saying, who can believe it?
I am waiting to hear someone justify this disbelief in the words of Christ.

During my RCIA time, we had a Passover meal, officiated by a Jewish couple in Hebrew, while we followed along with an English translation. It was very helpful. I believe that the more you learn about Passover, the better you understand the Eucharist.

As already mentioned, Jesus gave people a way out if they chose to take it. If the whole idea of flesh and blood was too upsetting to them, they could leave. Changing the Passover ritual, which Jesus did in a very remarkable way, was unheard of. Eating the flesh of a person was forbidden by Jewish law, as was the drinking of blood. So every change Jesus made was controversial. Jesus also ended the Last Supper before the ritual was formally completed, because its completion was actually on the cross. This too was controversial. Yet it is documented in the Gospel.

In spite of the changes, the Apostles stayed with Jesus and took Him at His word. I am taking Him at His word too. I don’t understand why people don’t believe Jesus when He says something where the meaning is very plain. This is the most important thing Jesus gave us, so He made it very straightforward, so all could understand. Yet many do not accept it. Is it that they really don’t believe Him? Or perhaps that they do not believe He can effect the change in the Eucharist that he says occurs? If so, then Jesus must not be God. Taking Jesus at His word, in the end, is confirming His Divine nature.

 

[SyCarl]

Let’s look at what Jesus says and what the logical consequences of taking it literally and in the way that the Catholic Church does.

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:54 NASB)

It is said that Jesus is clearly speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But is that all He says? He also says he who eats and drinks has eternal life. No restriction is placed on the “he who”. If we take the clear and plain meaning of the words Jesus is saying anyone who eats and drinks is saved. If a pagan or athiest goes to Mass and illicitly receives the Eucharist, has he eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood. Under the Catholic view he clearly has even if he shouldn’t have. Has he met the requirements of eating and drinking? If so, then on the literal and plain meaning of Jesus words, that person has eternal life even though he has no faith whatsoever. Now it might be said that we cannot take this statement in isolation and that Paul clearly indicates that someone who eats and drinks unworthily suffers. But then we are adding something to Jesus’ plain and clear words here and it appears He his not speaking as plainly and clearly as we thought. “He who” clearly doesn’t mean anyone. If this part isn’t to be taken literally, why should the rest be?

So it appears that only part of what Jesus says is plain and clear. But Catholic teaching tells us more. The Council of Trent tells us:

CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

CANON 11.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

This is repeated in the present Catechism. So although Jesus clearly says both eat and drink, the Church denies this clear and plain meaning by saying you get everything by eating. Why then does Jesus say eat and drink both here and in the description of the Last Supper in the other 3 Gospels if He doesn’t mean to both eat the bread and drink the cup.

It seems that the Church is very selective in what clear and plain words are to be taken literally. The clear and plain words don’t mean everyone who eats and they don’t really mean both eat and drink as separate actions.

With respect to “This is My body”, the use of the word is doesn’t make it perfectly clear. If I point to a map and say this is the road to Atlanta, does that mean that the line on the map is literally the road. Of course not, but we still use the word “is” to show it.

Augustine makes this point as well.

1. You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.-Augustine (Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
   newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

 

[pismopal]

SyCarl
Excuse me but you are accusing the Church of being very selective about the words to be taken literally. That is really a stretch. Many non Catholic sects deny the words of Christ and maintain that communion is just a symbolic memorial issue and I don’t think this position is selective, this is really just a repeat of " this is a hard saying, who can believe it?" Lets be biological for purposes of this argument…is it possible to eat flesh without ingesting blood? This I think is the basis for the Church’s wise decision in this matter. If you can offer credible evidence from an expert in this field who offers an opinion that flesh can be ingested without the presence of blood…even trace presence…maybe I will rethink my conversion…not.

 

[pismopal]

SyCarl
Sorry for the late post as I have been out of state. You have gone to a lot of trouble to rebute Christ’s words and I think you believe strongly in your position but you are really on thin ice. Just follow the advice you hear from a lot of Catholics…read the Catechism and the supporting Bible citations and then you may see things differently(I did). I would like you on our side actually.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl
Excuse me but you are accusing the Church of being very selective about the words to be taken literally. That is really a stretch. Many non Catholic sects deny the words of Christ and maintain that communion is just a symbolic memorial issue and I don’t think this position is selective, this is really just a repeat of " this is a hard saying, who can believe it?" Lets be biological for purposes of this argument…is it possible to eat flesh without ingesting blood? This I think is the basis for the Church’s wise decision in this matter. If you can offer credible evidence from an expert in this field who offers an opinion that flesh can be ingested without the presence of blood…even trace presence…maybe I will rethink my conversion…not.

For biological purposes, no, you could not separate flesh and blood. However we are not dealing with a biological question; we are dealing with a divine command. Jesus says eat and drink, not just eat. If He is being literal, we should take His entire direction literally.

By the way, I do believe in the Real Presence but I think that Jesus is just there for people who eat with faith. Otherwise His words say that anyone who eats receives His flesh and blood. I think this was on Ephrem the Syrians mind when he said for those who eat without faith they receive just bread, which of course is not the Catholic view.

There remained yet another act that would abolish the Passover and would become the Passover of the Gentiles, a source of life to the end. Our Lord Jesus took bread in his hands, plain bread at the beginning, and blessed it, made the sign of the cross over it and sanctified it in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit, and he broke and distributed it in morsels to his disciples in his kindness. He called the bread his living body, and he filled it with himself and with his Spirit. He stretched forth his hand and gave them the bread that his right hand had sanctified. Do not regard as bread what I have given you now…eat it, and do not disdain its crumbs. For this bread that I have sanctified is my body. Its least crumb sanctifies thousands of thousands, and it is capable of giving life to all who eat it. Take, eat in faith, doubting not at all that this is my body. And he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If anyone doubts and eats it, it is plain bread to him. He who believes and eats the bread sanctified in my name, if he is pure; if he is a sinner, he will be forgiven. He, however, who despises it or spurns it, he may be sure that he is insulting the Son, who has called the bread his body and truly made it so. Receive of it, eat of it, all of you, and eat in it the Holy Spirit, for it is truly my body, and he who eats it will live forever. This is the heavenly bread that has come down from on high onto the earth. This is the bread that the Israelites ate in the wilderness and did not esteem. The manna that they gathered, which came down to them, was a figure of this spiritual bread that you have now received. Take and eat of it, all of you. In this bread are eating my body. It is the true source of forgiveness. -Ephrem the Syrian (Memra for the Fifth Day of the Great Week (Holy Thursday), Sermon 4) Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVa John 1-10, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 236.)

I am content to leave the mechanics of how it happens to God and just obey the command.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I’m leaning toward accepting the literal body and blood argument, but am still unsure. I’d hate to have Jesus tell me on the last day that it was only symbolic, and that I had been committing idolatry.

It’s a problem with my conscience, so I’m careful not to embrace it fully without knowing for sure.

 

[c659smith]

I’m leaning toward accepting the literal body and blood argument, but am still unsure. I’d hate to have Jesus tell me on the last day that it was only symbolic, and that I had been committing idolatry.

It’s a problem with my conscience, so I’m careful not to embrace it fully without knowing for sure.

I am a bit confused by your confusion? Is there something in the Gospel that tells you Christ said something other than

This is my Body and this is My Blood whoever eats My Body and drinks My Blood shall have Eternal life.

Do you think Jesus would have let all those followers leave Him to be condemned to Hell by a misinterpetation?

Jesus stated and repeated many times that I am the way to the Father no one comes to the Father except through Me. Are you confused here also?

There are statements in the Gospel that are parables and there are facts that are repeated throughout the New Testament.

If thine eye offends thee pluck it out.

Do we take this literally well I hope not for there are many things that God finds offensive. Rather to get rid of the item that’s causing the offense such as porn addiction on the internet, one would get rid of the computer.

However if there is no other way then one must take Jesus literally and decide which is more important, the sin which will condemn one forever or to rid which is found to be offensive to God.

Not necessarily a body part.

Jesus is not saying to pluck your eye out or else.

Jesus is saying though that if you do not eat His Body and Drink His Blood you will have no life within you.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I am a bit confused by your confusion? Is there something in the Gospel that tells you Christ said something other than

This is my Body and this is My Blood whoever eats My Body and drinks My Blood shall have Eternal life.

Do you think Jesus would have let all those followers leave Him to be condemned to Hell by a misinterpetation?

Jesus stated and repeated many times that I am the way to the Father no one comes to the Father except through Me. Are you confused here also?

There are statements in the Gospel that are parables and there are facts that are repeated throughout the New Testament.

If thine eye offends thee pluck it out.

Do we take this literally well I hope not for there are many things that God finds offensive. Rather to get rid of the item that’s causing the offense such as porn addiction on the internet, one would get rid of the computer.

However if there is no other way then one must take Jesus literally and decide which is more important, the sin which will condemn one forever or to rid which is found to be offensive to God.

Not necessarily a body part.

Jesus is not saying to pluck your eye out or else.

Jesus is saying though that if you do not eat His Body and Drink His Blood you will have no life within you.

Jesus also called himself the door to the sheepfold. He didn’t mean this literally, as he didn’t have hinges or a doorknob on his body.

 

[c659smith]

Jesus also called himself the door to the sheepfold. He didn’t mean this literally, as he didn’t have hinges or a doorknob on his body.

You are absolutely correct and was to explain what He meant to mankind.

Now Jesus did not say Amen Amen I say to you I am the door to the sheephold. Jesus also understand we did not walk on four legs and say Bah!

 

[brkn1]

Look at the context of (John 6).
Jesus had recently fed the five thousand. This was a great sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
The people then wanted to take Jesus by force and make Him king. v.15
Jesus tells them, “…Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”
The people were looking to get their bellies filled. Salvation was not on their mind in seeking the Lord.
Jesus pointed to Himself as the “meat” that “endureth unto everlasting life”.
The people still wanted to fill their bellies when they demanded a sign from Jesus such as the mana or bread from heaven.
Jesus then gave them the parable about being the “true bread from heaven”; and He further explained that they must “eat” Him and “drink” His blood. This parable is similar to the other time when the people demanded a sign and Jesus told them that he would give them no sign, but the sign of Jonah. Jesus is not going to talk straight to people who are not true seekers of Him as the Messiah. It was prophesied that He would speak this way to confuse such false seekers.

One of the more important explaining verses that everyone seems to overlook is (John 6:57):
57." As the living Father hath sent Me, and I LIVE by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall LIVE by me."
Jesus does not literally “eat” the Father who is a Spirit in order to LIVE, just as we do not literally “eat” Jesus in order to LIVE.
Jesus confirms this idea in v. 63 : " It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE."

If Jesus were telling the people to literally eat Him, as they mistakenly thought, then they would have been correct to leave Jesus, since the law forbids such cannibalism and drinking of blood. Jesus would never go against the law that he came to fulfill.
Jesus gave His flesh ONE time to redeem all that the Father had given Him. Those given to Jesus would believe as Peter said in verses 68-69
“…Thou hast the words of eternal LIFE.”
" And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (That is the simple gospel.)

As Jesus said earlier, “…, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” (John 6:29)

To be blessed by God’s Grace, so that we can truly believe in the Lord Jesus as our Christ, is to always be spiritually eating of Him, as He is in us by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is how we are saved. Jesus is the gift of LIFE, or the gift of the Bread of Life, which is the “work of God” (Grace).

 

[c659smith]

Look at the context of (John 6).
Jesus had recently fed the five thousand. This was a great sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
The people then wanted to take Jesus by force and make Him king. v.15
Jesus tells them, “…Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”
The people were looking to get their bellies filled. Salvation was not on their mind in seeking the Lord.
Jesus pointed to Himself as the “meat” that “endureth unto everlasting life”.
The people still wanted to fill their bellies when they demanded a sign from Jesus such as the mana or bread from heaven.
Jesus then gave them the parable about being the “true bread from heaven”; and He further explained that they must “eat” Him and “drink” His blood. This parable is similar to the other time when the people demanded a sign and Jesus told them that he would give them no sign, but the sign of Jonah. Jesus is not going to talk straight to people who are not true seekers of Him as the Messiah. It was prophesied that He would speak this way to confuse such false seekers.

One of the more important explaining verses that everyone seems to overlook is (John 6:57):
57." As the living Father hath sent Me, and I LIVE by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall LIVE by me."
Jesus does not literally “eat” the Father who is a Spirit in order to LIVE, just as we do not literally “eat” Jesus in order to LIVE.
Jesus confirms this idea in v. 63 : " It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE."

If Jesus were telling the people to literally eat Him, as they mistakenly thought, then they would have been correct to leave Jesus, since the law forbids such cannibalism and drinking of blood. Jesus would never go against the law that he came to fulfill.
Jesus gave His flesh ONE time to redeem all that the Father had given Him. Those given to Jesus would believe as Peter said in verses 68-69
“…Thou hast the words of eternal LIFE.”
" And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (That is the simple gospel.)

As Jesus said earlier, “…, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” (John 6:29)

To be blessed by God’s Grace, so that we can truly believe in the Lord Jesus as our Christ, is to always be spiritually eating of Him, as He is in us by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is how we are saved. Jesus is the gift of LIFE, or the gift of the Bread of Life, which is the “work of God” (Grace).

This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

And Jesus taught this at the last supper on how to this. For He is the Pascal Lamb, the last Sacrafice.
The Holy Spirit is the one who completed the transubstansiation

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Jesus also understand we did not walk on four legs and say Bah!

I would be the first to do so if He has asked us to.

 

[c659smith]

I would be the first to do so if He has asked us to.

Has Christ been with the protestants since the beginning?

John 12

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

This is where the Church gets it’s authority out of scripture.

John 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

John 26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

The Purpose of This Book (the bible)
John 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jess is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Now this is Christ’s Church --the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, and Sacred Traditions

.

 

[Hisalone]

Look at the context of (John 6).
Jesus had recently fed the five thousand. This was a great sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
The people then wanted to take Jesus by force and make Him king. v.15
Jesus tells them, “…Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”
The people were looking to get their bellies filled. Salvation was not on their mind in seeking the Lord.
Jesus pointed to Himself as the “meat” that “endureth unto everlasting life”.
The people still wanted to fill their bellies when they demanded a sign from Jesus such as the mana or bread from heaven.
Jesus then gave them the parable about being the “true bread from heaven”; and He further explained that they must “eat” Him and “drink” His blood. This parable is similar to the other time when the people demanded a sign and Jesus told them that he would give them no sign, but the sign of Jonah. Jesus is not going to talk straight to people who are not true seekers of Him as the Messiah. It was prophesied that He would speak this way to confuse such false seekers.

One of the more important explaining verses that everyone seems to overlook is (John 6:57):
57." As the living Father hath sent Me, and I LIVE by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall LIVE by me."
Jesus does not literally “eat” the Father who is a Spirit in order to LIVE, just as we do not literally “eat” Jesus in order to LIVE.
Jesus confirms this idea in v. 63 : " It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE."

If Jesus were telling the people to literally eat Him, as they mistakenly thought, then they would have been correct to leave Jesus, since the law forbids such cannibalism and drinking of blood. Jesus would never go against the law that he came to fulfill.
Jesus gave His flesh ONE time to redeem all that the Father had given Him. Those given to Jesus would believe as Peter said in verses 68-69
“…Thou hast the words of eternal LIFE.”
" And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (That is the simple gospel.)

As Jesus said earlier, “…, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” (John 6:29)

To be blessed by God’s Grace, so that we can truly believe in the Lord Jesus as our Christ, is to always be spiritually eating of Him, as He is in us by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is how we are saved. Jesus is the gift of LIFE, or the gift of the Bread of Life, which is the “work of God” (Grace).

 

[c659smith]

Hisalone:
It is through the Holy Spirit and God that transubstansiation takes place. Even the Apostles celebrated this.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Paul Confirms This

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

So you get your interpetation of the real presence from who and where?

What is their authority? and who gave them such authority/*