Proof that John 6 and the Last Supper are connected

[Randy_Carson]

I do not recall Him saying it “becomes his body” kindly show me the verse?

“becomes” would be a future tense. “Is” is present tense.

Jesus didn’t say, “This becomes my body” because at the moment He said, “This is my body”, it became and was.

"How would that be a sign if you couldn’t SEE it? To me sign is something you see. Guess that makes no sense to the catholic mind. He can see only what his church allows?

What about the Orthodox? They believe Jesus is present in the Sacrament.
What about the Lutherans? They believe Jesus is present in the Sacrament.
What about the Anglicans? Many of them believe Jesus is present in the Sacrament?

None of them are restricted to what the evil Catholic Church tells them to believe, are they?

And what about those of us who are converts, eazy? We “saw” the truth of John 6 before becoming Catholics. Therefore, it had nothing to do with what “the Church” allowed, did it? :nope:

You can only see what YOUR mind allows. Thus, when you try to understand the Eucharist with your mere human intellect, you are like the Jews in John 6, and your natural human flesh avails you nothing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Remember Jesus also said “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.

Please also compare vv.40 and 54 in Jn 6

Thankyou

We believe in Jesus.

John 6:40
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

We believe we must obey him.

John 8:51
51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.

We believe Jesus was serious when He spoke.

John 6:54
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Catholics “do this” because He said, “This is.”

Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

 

[Mark1124]

Here’s a section of an essay I wrote which might help.

The fourth sign John narrates is the feeding of the 5000 (6:1-14). As few scholars would dispute, this narrative is a reference to the Eucharist; Eucharistic references can be found both in the narrative of the sign itself and in the Bread of Life discourse, which follows immediately after the sign and is triggered by the people’s response to the sign. In the account of the sign itself, the language includes clear references to the narratives of the institution of the Eucharist found in the Synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthians. The Gospel of John does not include an account of the institution of the Eucharist; presumably, this is because he expected his readers to be familiar with at least one of the Synoptics. Although I will not argue for it here, I think Luke is the Gospel John was most likely to be familiar with and the one he expected his readers to be familiar with, so I will consider Luke’s institution narrative in particular.

There are several parallels between John’s account of the feeding of the 5000 and Luke’s institution narrative. One obvious parallel is the timing: Luke’s institution narrative takes place at a Passover meal (Lk. 22:15), while John’s account of the feeding of the 5000 has the meal taking place during Passover (Jn. 6:4). And, perhaps even more obvious, the terminology used to describe the distribution of the bread in the two accounts is nearly identical. Luke’s account says “he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them” (Lk. 22:19), while John has “Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them” (Jn. 6:11). The parallels are even more obvious in the Greek: Luke’s account says “labon arton eucharistesas … edoken,” while John has “elaben … artous … eucharistesas diedoken.” Although there is a difference in the forms and the order of the words, the root words are the same (except that John uses diedoken instead of the related word edoken). Such a close parallel is unlikely to have happened by chance, so it is clear that John is intentionally referencing Luke’s account and expects his readers to make the connection as well. And, in case the reference wasn’t clear enough already, John later refers to the miracle as eating the bread “after the Lord had given thanks (eucharistesantos)” (6:23), which would be a very odd way to describe it if John was not intentionally making a reference to the Eucharist.

John’s account of the Bread of Life discourse, immediately following the fourth sign, is also full of Eucharistic imagery. Unlike the account of the sign itself, the Eucharistic parallels are not so much to the language of the institution narrative as to the concept of the Eucharist itself. However, there is one parallel between the two passages which we should note:

Bread of Life Discourse
The bread which I shall give
is my flesh
for the life of the world
(Jn. 6:51)

The Last Supper
This
is my body
which is given for you
(Lk. 22:19)

Although the language of these two lines differs substantially, the parallels in structure and meaning make it clear that John is intentionally referencing Luke’s institution narrative here.

 

[Mark1124]

(continued)

In the Bread of Life discourse, the connection between the sign and the Sacrament it points to is not just something which John is calling attention to for the benefit of his readers, like most of the other signs; rather, it is something Jesus Himself is trying to explain to His hearers. The people, after the sign, come to Jesus not because they saw signs but because they ate their fill of bread (Jn. 6:26). Jesus then attempts a mystagogy, trying to lead His audience from the earthly miracle to the heavenly reality it points to: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life” (6:27). Later in the discourse, Jesus becomes more and more clear about exactly what this heavenly reality is. He refers to Himself as the “bread of life” (6:48) and the “living bread which came down from heaven” (6:51), and immediately after these self-identifications, he says that “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (6:51). The language differs from that of the institution narrative, since Luke uses “body (soma)” (Lk. 22:19) while John uses “flesh (sarx)” (Jn. 6:51), but the concept is the same: the bread is the body/flesh of Jesus.

After this section of the Bread of Life discourse, the Jews are confused, asking “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (6:52). Jesus responds by repeatedly stating the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood (6:53, 54, 56). And in doing so, he has a small but important shift in his terminology: he changes from the normal word for eating, esthiein, to trogein, which means to gnaw; this shift indicates an increased emphasis on it being a literal eating of His flesh rather than metaphorical. A metaphorical interpretation wouldn’t even make sense, since in the Old Testament and in the Aramaic tradition, the symbolic meaning of eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood was brutal slaughter; this is even more reason to interpret it as a reference to the literal eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of His blood in the Eucharist.

Another reason to reject a metaphorical interpretation of eating Jesus’ body and blood can be found in the manna imagery in the Bread of Life discourse. The Jews of Jesus’ time were expecting that, when the Messiah came, he would bring manna; therefore, after He performs the sign of feeding the 5000, the crowd asks Him for manna in order to see if He is the Messiah (6:30-31). This request is what prompts Jesus to begin the Bread of Life discourse, and He surrounds the second half of that discourse (the part in which He speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood) with references to manna (6:48, 58), identifying His flesh and blood as the new manna from heaven. Based on the connections between the Bread of Life discourse and the institution narratives, it is generally recognized by both Protestant and Catholic scholars that Jesus’ comments about eating His flesh and drinking His blood refer to the food and drink He gives His disciples at the Last Supper. But if the bread and wine at the Last Supper is the new, heavenly manna, it cannot be merely a symbol: since the old manna was supernatural bread from heaven, if the new manna was just ordinary bread and wine with a symbolic meaning, the old manna would be greater than the new, which is not how salvation history works. In order for the manna references in the Bread of Life discourse to make sense, Jesus must be speaking of His literal flesh and blood as the new supernatural bread from heaven, namely the Eucharist. Given all of this evidence, it is hard to doubt that the sign of the feeding of the 5000, together with the discourse which follows it and is prompted by it, is meant to point to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Real Presense deniers almost always bring up John 15:1 where Jesus calls himself a “vine” and John 10:9 where he calls himself a “door”–However, these are very clear figures of speech–Jesus is LIKE a vine in that we must be attached (bonded, in “communion”) to Him to have eternal life and LIKE a door in that all most pass through Him (“Jesus is the ONLY Way”) to have eternal life–and in neither of these cases is it recorded that people misunderstood Jesus and Jesus had to correct them like He did in John 3:3-5. 11:11-14, 8:21-23, 8:31-36, 6:32-36, Matt 16:5-12, Matt 19:24-26.
In contrast, HOW can Jesus’ body be like bread or his blood like wine? We can see by Jesus nature as God and Redeemer he is LIKE a vine or a door, but there is no obvious comparison between his body and bread or his blood and wine.

After the SIX repeated declarations in John 6 that Jesus body and blood are TRUE food and drink, the UTTER LACK of figuartive speech in the Last Supper accounts underscore the literal declarations, especially as He equates the body and blood given at the Last Supper to the SAME body and blood given on the Calvary.

Also, Jesus at the Last Supper does NOT say “I am the bread” or “My blood is wine” which is the usage for “vine” and door" back in John. To do would be abut an obvious nonsensical contradiction UNLESS they are allegories or metaphors. Instead, Jesus says “THIS is my body…THIS is my blood” the “this” remaining unspecified until Jesus identifies it (what He is raising in His hands) explicitly as His body and blood.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

In the phrase “Touto estin to soma mou”, ‘touto’ can only refer to ‘soma’; touto is a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) refering to a neuter noun. ‘Soma’ is a neuter noun. "Bread’ on the other hand is a masculine noun so the phrase can’t really be translated as “this (bread/matzoh) is my body”.

For those deniers of the RP who take refuge in claiming these passages are in the “aorist tense”, the aorist tense usually represents the “perfective aspect”–They can be used in the present tense, but when you do, it’s with a (completed) future meaning, absent in all the NT cases refering to the Eucharist–but its moot, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Koine to his disciples.

Many fundamentalists claim Jesus must have been speaking figuratively because there is no word in aramaic (the language Christ spoke) for “represents” so the greek “estin” must mean the non-literal sense. This is truly faulty linguistic scholarship because Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman demonstrated 100+ years ago that 1st century aramaic had over 30 words meaning “represents”, “stands for”, symbolizes", etc…
In Aramaic (and Hebrew, and Arabic) this would have been a nominal sentence without any verb at all, because the Semitic languages don’t use a copula (the “is/are” verbs. So what Jesus would have said, translated directly into English, would have been "This – body-of-me . . . " This leaves no room for any imaginary “represents” signification.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

There is no indication that Jesus again brought up the subject of “Eat my body and drink my blood” until one year later during the Last Supper, which was a Passover dinner–the annual observance would have an obvious 1-year anniversery reminder of the sermon that caused the majority of Jesus’ followers to leave Him for PURELY theological reasons. The Last Supper was Jesus “laying it on the line” with his disciples in private, like he did many times before (Mk 4:34). This solemn occasion was in many ways Jesus’ last will and testament; a last-chance (before the Resurection) attempt to sink some lessons into the sometimes too thick Apostle’s heads. He was in private with the apostles and was NOT speaking to them in parables, similes, or metaphors, but PLAINLY.

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).

biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2022:19

The Lucan greek and the other synoptic Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) is: “Touto estin to soma mou”.

Paul differs slightly: “Touto mou estin to soma” (1 Cor. 11:24).

All four passages translate as “This is my body.” The verb “estin” is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean either “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the first (check any Greek lexicon), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally unless there is some clear indication it is not literal.

“Esti” is the Koine Greek third person sigular indicative of “to be”, in short, it’s meaning is simply “he/she/it IS”, nothing more, nothing less.

One (and RARE) example of “estin” being used in the fugurative sense is in Galatians 4:24-25…

“These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.”

Hence, the representative, non-literal meaning is VERY clear

 

[eazyduzit]

And St Paul also sais that when we eat and drink the Eucharist we are participating in the death and resurrection of Christ, that we eat and drink while discerning the Body and Blood of Christ and if one eat and drinks the Body and Blood unworthily - one eats and drinks to their peril … that to eat and drink when in a state of sin one can become ill and even die …

Christ to is emphatically - multiple times - in very explicit words that we had to eat His Flesh or we would not have life with in us …

So tell me - Listening to Christ - multiple times and also to St Paul … Tell me - why so you feel your interpretation is correct and the Early Christians who wrote extensively about the Eucharist are wrong and I should take your word for this interpretation and not the Churches

Here’s how I see it : I think both sides agree that Jn. 6 is a salvation teaching, but so long as you have brought up Paul’s teaching on the Lords Table I see that he does not include any thing about “eternal life” or say “you will have no life unless” so I don’t
see it as a salvation passage.

Also, the word “Eucharist” means thanks giving and I don’t see that in Jn 6.

Also, although this is not a parable, it is still a teaching and Jesus’ teachings are always about spiritual things and He always illustrates with a physical parallel. So the key to the meaning should be the two parallel verses. Vv. 40and 54 are perfectly parallel would you not agree? Now tell me which is real and which the illustration?

Now show me why u think your interpretation is correct.

 

[YADA]

Here’s how I see it : I think both sides agree that Jn. 6 is a salvation teaching, but so long as you have brought up Paul’s teaching on the Lords Table I see that he does not include any thing about “eternal life” or say “you will have no life unless” so I don’t
see it as a salvation passage.

Also, the word “Eucharist” means thanks giving and I don’t see that in Jn 6.

Also, although this is not a parable, it is still a teaching and Jesus’ teachings are always about spiritual things and He always illustrates with a physical parallel. So the key to the meaning should be the two parallel verses. Vv. 40and 54 are perfectly parallel would you not agree? Now tell me which is real and which the illustration?

Now show me why u think your interpretation is correct.

Well … that’s not how I see it and your view does not mesh with the historical church understanding -

So - Jesus said that unless we eat of His body we will have no life in us … not once but several times … Jesus tells us that His body is real food and real drink … the True Manna that came down from Heaven.

And - St Paul says that if we eat and drink without discerning the Body and the Blood that we eat and drink to our peril [it makes some people ill and brings death to some] but you don’t see any correlation between partaking of the Eucharist [the best “Thanksgiving” meal a person could receive] and the words spoken between Jesus and St Paul

Also - I think the Israelites were very thankful that they did not starve to death - and our Lord provided the Manna … with even greater thankfulness we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord - the True Manna that we eat and that gives us eternal life

 

[slh3016]

Here’s how I see it : I think both sides agree that Jn. 6 is a salvation teaching, but so long as you have brought up Paul’s teaching on the Lords Table I see that he does not include any thing about “eternal life” or say “you will have no life unless” so I don’t
see it as a salvation passage.

Also, the word “Eucharist” means thanks giving and I don’t see that in Jn 6.

Also, although this is not a parable, it is still a teaching and Jesus’ teachings are always about spiritual things and He always illustrates with a physical parallel. So the key to the meaning should be the two parallel verses. Vv. 40and 54 are perfectly parallel would you not agree? Now tell me which is real and which the illustration?

Now show me why u think your interpretation is correct.

:banghead: I think there are 9 pages of reasons why Catholics interpret John 6 as they do and it boils down to this:

1. Jesus said “It is…” SEVERAL times and never corrected those that walked away. Apparently, they took Him literally.
2. The early church fathers taught this as exampled by their writings
3. The ENTIRE church unanimously supported and practiced this belief for 1500 years
4. Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and many others believe in the real presence as established in John 6 for 2000 years!

Why do you keep insisting that John 6:40 and 54 are parallel and not intersecting? I see the point of intersection as being that one’s belief in Jesus (i.e., does what He says) and partaking of the Eucharist (i.e., eating His flesh and drinking His blood).

You still have never answered my previous questions.

 

[MrSnaith]

Here’s how I see it : I think both sides agree that Jn. 6 is a salvation teaching, but so long as you have brought up Paul’s teaching on the Lords Table I see that he does not include any thing about “eternal life” or say “you will have no life unless” so I don’t
see it as a salvation passage.

Also, the word “Eucharist” means thanks giving and I don’t see that in Jn 6.

Also, although this is not a parable, it is still a teaching and Jesus’ teachings are always about spiritual things and He always illustrates with a physical parallel. So the key to the meaning should be the two parallel verses. Vv. 40and 54 are perfectly parallel would you not agree? Now tell me which is real and which the illustration?

Now show me why u think your interpretation is correct.

Hey eazy, I’m earnestly trying to understand your position. I think I get it, but I’m hoping you can clarify a couple of things for me.

1. You keep indicating that v40 is the teaching, and v54 is the illustration. Since v40 declares that believing the Son brings everlasting life (the spiritual teaching), can you please explain exactly how v54 (eating His flesh and drinking His blood) acts as a physical illustration of belief in the Son?
2. Can you point to any other Scriptures wherein “flesh” is likewise associated as it is in John 6?

Thanks!

 

[eazyduzit]

Well … that’s not how I see it and your view does not mesh with the historical church understanding -

So - Jesus said that unless we eat of His body we will have no life in us … not once but several times … Jesus tells us that His body is real food and real drink … the True Manna that came down from Heaven.

And - St Paul says that if we eat and drink without discerning the Body and the Blood that we eat and drink to our peril [it makes some people ill and brings death to some] but you don’t see any correlation between partaking of the Eucharist [the best “Thanksgiving” meal a person could receive] and the words spoken between Jesus and St Paul

Also - I think the Israelites were very thankful that they did not starve to death - and our Lord provided the Manna … with even greater thankfulness we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord - the True Manna that we eat and that gives us eternal life

Why do you avoid answering my question?

 

[eazyduzit]

:banghead: I think there are 9 pages of reasons why Catholics interpret John 6 as they do and it boils down to this:

1. Jesus said “It is…” SEVERAL times and never corrected those that walked away. Apparently, they took Him literally.
2. The early church fathers taught this as exampled by their writings
3. The ENTIRE church unanimously supported and practiced this belief for 1500 years
4. Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and many others believe in the real presence as established in John 6 for 2000 years!

Why do you keep insisting that John 6:40 and 54 are parallel and not intersecting? I see the point of intersection as being that one’s belief in Jesus (i.e., does what He says) and partaking of the Eucharist (i.e., eating His flesh and drinking His blood).

You still have never answered my previous questions.

Thanks for trying to answer my question, but I see some clarification would be in order. Actually, you’re right, the verses have 2 points of intersection, that is the promise of “eternal life” and “I will raise him up at the last day”. These are points of intersection because they say exactly the same thing. They are not 2 different things. Now there are two things Jesus says we must do to obtain the result, but like in a parable, they are not the the same, but they mean the same thing. Example: In Mt. 13 Jesus says that the “seed” actually means the “word”. They are not the same but they mean the same thing. Thus they are parallel. Are you with me so far? This is how a parable is constructed. Again just to clarify, if i have a
parallel bible, the left and right columns may have different words, but they mean the same thing.
"
Eating or drinking can also mean “to accept”, as in Rev. when John is told to “eat” the scroll. Or today when I say don’t drink the Kool aid, i don’t mean it literally. Thus, I don’t think Jesus means to introduce an an alternative choice or way of salvation at this point, for He has already said clearly in the previous chapter, v.24 the very same thing, but not using “body or blood”.
So if I accept your interpretation, then we must conclude that Jesus was NOT speaking plainly in CH.5. Can you see my problem here? Logic and reason demand that you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Thanks for trying to answer my question, but I see some clarification would be in order. Actually, you’re right, the verses have 2 points of intersection, that is the promise of “eternal life” and “I will raise him up at the last day”. These are points of intersection because they say exactly the same thing. They are not 2 different things. Now there are two things Jesus says we must do to obtain the result, but like in a parable, they are not the the same, but they mean the same thing. Example: In Mt. 13 Jesus says that the “seed” actually means the “word”. They are not the same but they mean the same thing. Thus they are parallel. Are you with me so far? This is how a parable is constructed. Again just to clarify, if i have a parallel bible, the left and right columns may have different words, but they mean the same thing.

Bold mine.
The problem is Jn 6 is not a parable.

Eating or drinking can also mean “to accept”, as in Rev. when John is told to “eat” the scroll. Or today when I say don’t drink the Kool aid, i don’t mean it literally.

While it may be true that eating or drinking can also mean “to accept”, as in Rev 10 or Jer 15:16, there is a specific symbolic/figurative meaning in the scripters for eating someone’s flesh or drinking someone’s blood. We shouldn’t isolate the words “eating” & “drinking”. Rather, we should look at the whole phrase, especially how it is used throughout the inspired scriptures, to better understand Christ’s intent. Lion of Narnia has pointed this out previously…

Besides, there already was an alternative and figurative meaning to “eat someone’s flesh and drink their blood” in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke (as well as in Hebrew, Koine Greek, Modern Greek, and Arabic). To apply it to what Jesus said is to make him speak complete nonsense, because it means “to assault, persecute, slander, and destroy”. It is used as such several times in scripture (Ps 27:2, Isa 9: 18-20, Isa 49:26, Mica 3:3, 2 Sam 23: 15-17, and Rev 17:6, 16). So unless you really want to claim Jesus proclaimed “he who attacks me and slanders me shall have eternal life” you, like the crowd at Capernaum, are left with the literal meaning only. If Jesus did not provide an alternative symbolic meaning, then the literal meaning he repeatedly confirmed or the common figurative meaning are the only choices.

Thus, I don’t think Jesus means to introduce an an alternative choice or way of salvation at this point, for He has already said clearly in the previous chapter, v.24 the very same thing, but not using “body or blood”.

Jesus telling His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life is not an alternative choice or way of salvation as compared to Jn 5:24.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believed him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” Jn 5:24 (RSVCE)

This does parallel with Jn 6:40 “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (RSVCE). However, this parallel does not take away from Jesus advancing His teaching that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Also the context of each chapter is somewhat different. This part of Jn 5 speaks to Jesus’ authority as Son of God, which does fit with Jn 6:40. And, such authority is required for Him to say in Jn 6 that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink which we must eat to have eternal life. So, to use Jn 5:24 in the way you’d like requires one to drop the context of Jn 5 in order to fit your interpretation of Jn 6 as a whole.

So if I accept your interpretation, then we must conclude that Jesus was NOT speaking plainly in CH.5. Can you see my problem here?

The interpretation you contest shows clearly Jesus speaking plainly in Jn 6 (the bread of life discourse), this does not take away the plan speak in Jn 5.(which speaks to the authority of Jesus as Son of God). I do not see your problem. Where do I miss it?

Logic and reason demand that you can’t have it both ways.

Only if one follows illogical exegesis of Jn 6 and related passage.

How was the teaching on John 6 & the Last Supper, you claim to be true, handed on, orally & written (2 Thess 2:15), without corruption for 2000 years? Which person(s) did God designate & guide to preserve His teaching on John 6 & the Last Supper, as you know it, thru the millennia?

 

[phil19034]

In a conversation with my {obstinate, Protestant} brother-in-law last night, he brought up some readings that he’d done concerning the Eucharist and adamantly stated that in his opinion that Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse in John 6 WAS NOT related to the Last Supper. Off hand, we did not have any resources available to us to show him this error, because we had been basing our argument solely from what we are learning from Catholic sources (i.e., Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre, etc.).

Can someone point me to resources that can conclusively show the connection between the two as well as answer the questions of whether or not the Last Supper was a Passover Seder meal. Scott Hahn believes it is, but is that the official teaching of the Church? Are there differing opinions? Do any of the church fathers refer to a) the connection between John 6 and the Eucharist and/or the Last Supper, and b) the Seder meal.

Also, I saw a Journey Home broadcast recently on youtube in which the interviewee talked about Jesus entering Jerusalem on the 10th day of Nisan (the day the lambs were brought in for Passover), Pilate declaring “I find no fault in him” on the day the lambs would have approved or disapproved as a sacrifice, and Jesus being on the cross at the same time the approved lambs were being slaughtered. However, I have been unable to find that exact broadcast again and would like to know where I can read more about this because my husband and I were floored when we heard this.

Thanks so much!

Have you listened to Scott Hahn’s CD called “Understanding the Eucharist”?

If not, I would recommend this first. You can buy it here: lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/understanding-the-eucharist?promoCode=104130

God Bless

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

True, and then God himself often authenticated His word with “signs and wonders following”.

How would that be a sign if you couldn’t SEE it? To me sign is something you see. Guess that makes no sense to the catholic mind. He can see only what his church allows?

These statements have had me thinking the last couple of days. Have you ever heard of the Miracle of Lanciano around 700 A.D.? What do you think of it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[PRmerger]

Eating or drinking can also mean “to accept”, as in Rev. when John is told to “eat” the scroll.

Do you think Jesus’ disciples would leave him if he meant they just had to “accept” his body and blood?

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.–John 6:66

And Jesus doesn’t call them back and say, “Hey! What’s so hard about ‘accepting’ my body and blood? Come back! You misunderstood me!”

Also, how does one “accept” his body and blood?

 

[slh3016]

Have you listened to Scott Hahn’s CD called “Understanding the Eucharist”?

If not, I would recommend this first. You can buy it here: lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/understanding-the-eucharist?promoCode=104130

God Bless

I’ve asked him to do that already (along with The Fourth Cup, etc.) and he said he would THAT night. I’ve asked him for him followup and he still NEVER replies regarding that

 

[eazyduzit]

Do you think Jesus’ disciples would leave him if he meant they just had to “accept” his body and blood?

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.–John 6:66

And Jesus doesn’t call them back and say, “Hey! What’s so hard about ‘accepting’ my body and blood? Come back! You misunderstood me!”

Also, how does one “accept” his body and blood?

Notice That in the next chapter “after these things…the Jews sought to kill him” . Now just saying some crazy sounding things about nibbling his flesh and drinking his bloodwould not have been worthy of death. The Jews understood that by this he was claiming to be equal with God. Blasphemy is worthy of death.

Peter understands that He has the WORDS of eternal life

5:24 says that he who “believes on Him” has already passed from death unto life.If I already have life,it is not making sense that I really don’t have it and more is things must be done to have it?

 

[PRmerger]

Notice That in the next chapter “after these things…the Jews sought to kill him” . Now just saying some crazy sounding things about nibbling his flesh and drinking his bloodwould not have been worthy of death. The Jews understood that by this he was claiming to be equal with God. Blasphemy is worthy of death.

Peter understands that He has the WORDS of eternal life

5:24 says that he who “believes on Him” has already passed from death unto life.If I already have life,it is not making sense that I really don’t have it and more is things must be done to have it?

You didn’t answer the question, eazy.

Why did the Jews leave Jesus in John 6:66 if he was only talking about merely “accepting” his body and blood? What’s so difficult about that?