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

[ufamtobie]

Your outburst does not seem to prove what you claim you received in the Eucharist. You are rather hostile and not at all what someone would expect if Jesus were in you.

BRKN1,

I noticed you have sent me a private email, However I will not open it! I need not to debate with you, regarding The Eucharist, or any other beliefs you may have according to Bkrn1! Through the Grace of God, I already have the TRUTH! Jesus is TRUTH Jesus is the Eucharist.

Unlike yourself, and Pontius Pilate “what is truth” You are still looking for the Truth and quite frankly you are at the Right Place to find it, that is, if, you open your heart to the TRUTH.

If you have anything to say to me, say it to me in the public forum so that all here can read it.

You are sounding like a Johovas Witness, pounding on my email’s Door., get a hold of yourself.

Ufamtobie

Ufamtobie

 

[brkn1]

BRKN1,

I noticed you have sent me a private email, However I will not open it! I need not to debate with you, regarding The Eucharist, or any other beliefs you may have according to Bkrn1! Through the Grace of God, I already have the TRUTH! Jesus is TRUTH Jesus is the Eucharist.

Unlike yourself, and Pontius Pilate “what is truth” You are still looking for the Truth and quite frankly you are at the Right Place to find it, that is, if, you open your heart to the TRUTH.

If you have anything to say to me, say it to me in the public forum so that all here can read it.

You are sounding like a Johovas Witness, pounding on my email’s Door., get a hold of yourself.

Ufamtobie

Ufamtobie

I never sent any private email to you. It might be a moderator asking you to get ahold of yourself, but I promise that it was not anything from me. Sincerely, brkn1

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

(Malachi 1:11) “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and A PURE OFFERING for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”

This verse is speaking about the time of “a pure offering”, which is the one and only Perfect, Pure, and Final redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

Jesus was the Perfect and Pure High Priest, Who offered Himself as the Perfect and Pure Sacrifice to the Father for our sins.
This is in fulfillment of all the previous imperfect and temporary offerings, with all the carnal ordinances, done by those imperfect priests that came before Jesus Christ.
The only One, Who could offer such a perfect and pure offering, was the God Man and High Priest, Jesus Christ.

There can be no such further offerings or sacrifices today, since anyone, but Jesus, would be an imperfect priest.
Another problem would be that the Perfect and Pure Offering had to include the shedding of blood (death) of the sacrificed Offering.
Jesus died only once (Heb.7:27), and He rose in glory to never die again.
Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 8:1), “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25)

Hi brkn1,

I agree with what you said above. Jesus did make the sacrifice once for all, and is to this day our one and only High Priest in heaven making intercession for us.

May I ask you a couple questions?

1. Does Jesus ever liveth to make intercession for us only once, or does He make intercession for us whenever we sin and fall short of the glory of God and need His intercession for the forgiveness of the sins we confess?
2. If Jesus makes intercession for us by presenting His sacrifice to the Father for the forgiveness of our sins more than once, does this negate his once for all sacrifice? Or is He presenting the merits of His once for all sacrifice for the forgiveness or our sins as needed throughout our lives?
3. Is Jesus’ once for all sacrifice available only at the time of His sacrifice on the cross, or is it available to sinners from generation to generation to generation for all who live on this earth until He returns?
4. Can a once for all sacrifice that is sufficient for all eternity ever be repeated over and over and over?

The question to number 4 is no it cannot. Our participation in the body and blood of Jesus through the Eucharist is participation in that once for all sacrifice which is eternal, and that can NEVER be repeated. It is God’s grace that generation after generation after generation can receive the gifts of that once for all sacrifice of Jesus. It is God’s grace that we can partake of that once for all sacrifice in our lives each and every day if we so choose. The Eucharist is the once for all sacrifice of Jesus given to us by Jesus at the Last Supper so that we may freely participate in, and, receive the life Jesus offers to us by His once for all sacrifice.

You cannot repeat that which is eternal, but you can have access to that which eternal at any time in your life, and in lives of all generations, who desire to participate and receive the blessings of that once for all sacrifice!! Praise God!!!

 

[mangy_dog]

Jesus did not bring His flesh down from heaven. That means that He was not talking about His flesh as “bread which came down from heaven”. You did not really address that point.

There is another problem with the word eateth that Jesus used to describe “eateth” of this bread in (John 6:58).
That “eateth” means “gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables of fruits” as an animal would do in a continuing way.
The other word “eat” mana in the same verse is the normal eating or consuming of a meal as during a Passover feast.
The gnawing and crunching can not have a physical sense to it, since that would imply damage to bone. No bone was broken in Jesus’ one sacrifice on Calvary, so gnawing and crunching does not fit or make sense.
Exactly why would Jesus use that form of the word “eateth” if it was supposed to be talking about gnawing on His flesh as a meal? You don’t gnaw on flesh.

Wow barkin1,

This is quite a revelation! How could the entire catholic church be so wrong for over 2000 years?!

I will send an e-mail to the vatican…immediately about your discovery.

Maybe now we can go in every direction that the other christian denominations are going.

Hey! would you like to be nominated for a position of leadership in this new church?

 

[brkn1]

Wow barkin1,

This is quite a revelation!

It is right in the Bible. (John 19:36) “For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be broken.” See also (Psalm 34:20). Gnawing on a bone by an animal would break the bone eventually as the animal tried to get at the bone marrow. That would not line up with the Eucharist being the same sacrifice as the one sacrifice on Calvary. I’m sure the RCC was already aware of that discrepancy and chose to ignore as they invented “transubstantiation” to explain the Eucharist.

How could the entire catholic church be so wrong for over 2000 years?!

They must have leaders that are like bulldogs. They clamp down and hang on, no matter what evidence is presented. 2000+ years of clamping down causes lock-jaw and can not be changed.

I will send an e-mail to the vatican…immediately about your discovery.

I think that will be a waste of time, since I heard that the Jehova Witnesses have jammed all the email doors so that the RCC ignores any new information from “valid” emailers.

Maybe now we can go in every direction that the other christian denominations are going.

That is how a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” might think and God does not approve of such thoughts. The money making schemes of many churches, such as “pay for purgatory” and its opposite “you will get rich if you join and pay”, have got many people leary about new churches.

Hey! would you like to be nominated for a position of leadership in this new church?

You might make some money in this new idea about bringing your dog to church idea. There are a lot of pet owners that might fall for the program. You had better hurry up to lock your position in though, since I have heard about some RC churches over here that have a bless your pet day. There is probably a restriction on mangy dogs, since they don’t want other dogs to catch mange.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Is it just me or am I the only one to notice the argument below is being overlooked and not addressed? It seems to me, some are arguments are best buried deep in the thread if you use the wrong scriptures when discussing with a Sola Scripturist.

St. Paul, speaking of the chalice of benediction which they bless asks, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? He also asks, “…the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” No symbolism here, St. Paul believed in the real presence of the Lord.

Quote:
1Co 10:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Below, St. Paul instructs the Church of Corinth on the Eucharistic communion. He tells in verse 26, everytime you eat of the bread and drink of the chalice you show, or commemorate, the death of our Lord until he comes again. Please note he uses the word often, as in as often as you do this. I point this out as some protestant churches do this once a year, symbolically. Is once a year often?

Please note, St. Paul warns of receiving unworthily in verse 27. In verse 28, in St. Paul’s instructions to the Church, he tells the Church to let a man prove himself. Once a man has proved himself, to be a believer, let him eat of the bread and drink of the chalice. Now in verse 29, St. Paul feels the necessity to repeat his instructions in verse 27 by saying, for he that eat and drink unworthily does so at the risk of bringing judgement upon himself because they have not discerned the body of the Lord. I don’t see any symbolism here. I firmly believe that St. Paul believed himself and taught the real presence of the Lord in the bread and chalice. Is receiving the bread and chalice as symbolic, discerning the body of the Lord?

Quote:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 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.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

So you can see there is basically no difference in the King James version and the Catholic version of the Bibles, please see the King James version below.

Quote:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

I’ve heard the argument that this is a spiritual meaning. If this were so, it would be like saying, let a man prove himself before the Church allows him to be a Christian. This makes no sense from a protestant or Catholic perspective. Protestants say you only need faith, St. Paul seems to indicate that a man must prove himself then LET him partake of the bread and chalice. Does this mean protestants get faith and then ask the church to allow them to believe in Christ, or be a Christian?

I’ve brought up these points before in a thread of the same topic. It was ignored.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[mangy_dog]

It is right in the Bible. (John 19:36) “For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be broken.” See also (Psalm 34:20). Gnawing on a bone by an animal would break the bone eventually as the animal tried to get at the bone marrow. That would not line up with the Eucharist being the same sacrifice as the one sacrifice on Calvary. I’m sure the RCC was already aware of that discrepancy and chose to ignore as they invented “transubstantiation” to explain the Eucharist.
They must have leaders that are like bulldogs. They clamp down and hang on, no matter what evidence is presented. 2000+ years of clamping down causes lock-jaw and can not be changed.

I think that will be a waste of time, since I heard that the Jehova Witnesses have jammed all the email doors so that the RCC ignores any new information from “valid” emailers.

That is how a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” might think and God does not approve of such thoughts. The money making schemes of many churches, such as “pay for purgatory” and its opposite “you will get rich if you join and pay”, have got many people leary about new churches.

You might make some money in this new idea about bringing your dog to church idea. There are a lot of pet owners that might fall for the program. You had better hurry up to lock your position in though, since I have heard about some RC churches over here that have a bless your pet day. There is probably a restriction on mangy dogs, since they don’t want other dogs to catch mange.

You poor soul. You are truly worthy of pity.

Neither you nor Lucifer will prevail against the one, true Catholic church.

You will accomplish nothing…you will “spin your wheels” and accomplish nothing.

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

 

[brkn1]

Is it just me or am I the only one to notice the argument below is being overlooked and not addressed? It seems to me, some are arguments are best buried deep in the thread if you use the wrong scriptures when discussing with a Sola Scripturist.

St. Paul, speaking of the chalice of benediction which they bless asks, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? He also asks, “…the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” No symbolism here, St. Paul believed in the real presence of the Lord.

Quote:
1Co 10:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Below, St. Paul instructs the Church of Corinth on the Eucharistic communion. He tells in verse 26, everytime you eat of the bread and drink of the chalice you show, or commemorate, the death of our Lord until he comes again. Please note he uses the word often, as in as often as you do this. I point this out as some protestant churches do this once a year, symbolically. Is once a year often?

Please note, St. Paul warns of receiving unworthily in verse 27. In verse 28, in St. Paul’s instructions to the Church, he tells the Church to let a man prove himself. Once a man has proved himself, to be a believer, let him eat of the bread and drink of the chalice. Now in verse 29, St. Paul feels the necessity to repeat his instructions in verse 27 by saying, for he that eat and drink unworthily does so at the risk of bringing judgement upon himself because they have not discerned the body of the Lord. I don’t see any symbolism here. I firmly believe that St. Paul believed himself and taught the real presence of the Lord in the bread and chalice. Is receiving the bread and chalice as symbolic, discerning the body of the Lord?

Quote:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 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.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

So you can see there is basically no difference in the King James version and the Catholic version of the Bibles, please see the King James version below.

Quote:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

I’ve heard the argument that this is a spiritual meaning. If this were so, it would be like saying, let a man prove himself before the Church allows him to be a Christian. This makes no sense from a protestant or Catholic perspective. Protestants say you only need faith, St. Paul seems to indicate that a man must prove himself then LET him partake of the bread and chalice. Does this mean protestants get faith and then ask the church to allow them to believe in Christ, or be a Christian?

I’ve brought up these points before in a thread of the same topic. It was ignored.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I thought I already answered the point you made. It could have been in another thread though.
We most certainly do commemorate the one Sacrifice when we partake of the Eucharist. There is no re-sacrifice as many insist. It still amazes me that the word “Do” has been turned into “sacrifice” by those who claim to be literalist.
If we participate in the commemoration in an unworthy manner, that is the same as saying that we do not really take the one sacrifice that Jesus did for us seriously. It becomes an insult instead of a commemoration. It is a form of lying and dishonesty against the Holy Spirit to pretend commemoration and not be sincere. Ananias and Sapphira found out what happens when a person approaches God in such an insincere (unworthy) manner. The same happened to those that Paul spoke of when they came to Communion drunk or they would not share their food with the poor. That is worse than not providing for your own family, when you have the opportunity. They are your family in Christ.
Notice how the red letters of Paul’s explanation always has “this do…in commemoration of Me.” Our commemoration is until the Lord finally does come and we experience the physical Presence along with the spiritual Presence that we always have with Him now through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling Presence, when we are born again.

 

[brkn1]

You poor soul. You are truly worthy of pity.

Neither you nor Lucifer will prevail against the one, true Catholic church.

You will accomplish nothing…you will “spin your wheels” and accomplish nothing.

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

You are barking up the wrong tree mangy dog.
The Lord Jesus has already done all the accomplishment and I rest in Him alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We most certainly do commemorate the one Sacrifice when we partake of the Eucharist. There is no re-sacrifice as many insist.

That sounds a like Catholics.

If we participate in the commemoration in an unworthy manner, that is the same as saying that we do not really take the one sacrifice that Jesus did for us seriously.

Actually, St. Paul doesn’t say, "we do not really take the one sacrifice that Jesus did for us seriously. He said, “…shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” which he clarifies by stating, “not discerning the body of the Lord.”

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are barking up the wrong tree mangy dog.
The Lord Jesus has already done all the accomplishment and I rest in Him alone.

Actually, I thought you rest in Him and your interpretation of scriptures?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

I thought I already answered the point you made. It could have been in another thread though.
We most certainly do commemorate the one Sacrifice when we partake of the Eucharist. There is no re-sacrifice as many insist. It still amazes me that the word “Do” has been turned into “sacrifice” by those who claim to be literalist.

 

[anthony022071]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I:
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325])

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Council of Ephesus:
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

 

[FdeS2]

Thank you, anthony022071!

Just a heads up, though… he’ll find a way to disregard the quotes from our Church Fathers. He already has, and I don’t think he’ll be stopping any time soon. Those who close their eyes to many (in)credible points of evidence with hardness of heart cannot see what is right before their eyes. I really enjoyed reading them again, though! Thank you!

Yours in Christ,
Daniel

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

" (14:1–3)

Pope Clement:
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices.”
(Letter to the Corinthians 44:4 [circa A.D. 80])

St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [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])

St. Justin:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)

St. Irenaeus:
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2)

Great work anthony022071! I dont think protestants or noncatholics take the seriousness of the apostolic succession. Here you provide historical proof before any doubting eyes, that the apostolic church has a pope in the first century after Peter, believing and teaching the oral and written teachings of the apostles about the Eucharist. Then you have all these historical figures as saints and martyrs proclaiming the belief in the Eucharist as we Catholics do 2000 years later. What part of sacred Tradition, and Apostolic succession is missed from these historical facts. That the Roman Catholic church is still the same body of believers in heaven and on earth today in the communion of saints.

Good information here anthony; Peace be with you

 

[Saint2B]

One note on the point about Jesus saying “eat AND drink”. In Communion, if on one Sunday, I eat the Eucharist, and on another day, drink the Precious Blood, then I have fulfilled what Jesus said. He didn’t say unless you ALWAYS eat … and drink … TOGETHER, then there is no life in you. Jesus did not specify you had to do both at the same communion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One note on the point about Jesus saying “eat AND drink”. In Communion, if on one Sunday, I eat the Eucharist, and on another day, drink the Precious Blood, then I have fulfilled what Jesus said. He didn’t say unless you ALWAYS eat … and drink … TOGETHER, then there is no life in you. Jesus did not specify you had to do both at the same communion.

You forget what he commanded the apostles to “Do in memory of Me” at the last supper take the cup of blessing which is the blood, and the breaking of bread which is his body, take eat and drink. The only time the bread may be given without the cup of blessing, is during a communion service when there is no priest to offer Mass. Other than that both cup of blessing and the breaking of bread are done in Mass to proclaim the death of the Lord until he returns see 1Cor.11.

Peace be with you

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

"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

Ufamtobie, this was beautiful. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Josh316]

"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

Right on! look at my signature