The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nevim said:
(Edited for charity violation)
Click to expand...
It is, (Edited for charity violation)

A lot of rethoric with no substance. First off the orginal faith of the Apostles as witness to in the Book of Acts was Nazerene Judaism, not Roman Catholic.

(Edited for charity violation) Aw crud…did I miss something? If so, (and it looks like I did.) someone PM me with the details if you think it’s worth it.

I wasn’t even talking to this guy…:confused: Oh well.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Darn it! I knew Nevim would get suspended, hopefully it is just suspended and not banned.

I am still waiting for a explanation of his interpretation of Scripture. So far, it has not been forthcoming at all.

It could be from Acts and Peter’s vision.Or it could be from 1cor 10:16-17 and 1cor 11:9-30.

I don’t think I’ll hold my breath though, even if Nevim does not end up banned.
 
For Nevi, and all those on his side,

Since Scripture doesn’t seem to be enough for you, since you interpret it differently than us;

Do yourself a favor by searching the first 1,000 years of Christianity for one, just one, orthodox Christian that believes as you do concerning the Eucharist.

When you have exhausted your search, then prostrate yourselves before God and implore Him to let you know why the Eucharist was considered the Real Body and Blood of Jesus for all those years till your so-called truth came to light some 1500 years after the fact!
 
CANman said:
For Nevi, and all those on his side,

Since Scripture doesn’t seem to be enough for you, since you interpret it differently than us;

Do yourself a favor by searching the first 1,000 years of Christianity for one, just one, orthodox Christian that believes as you do concerning the Eucharist.

When you have exhausted your search, then prostrate yourselves before God and implore Him to let you know why the Eucharist was considered the Real Body and Blood of Jesus for all those years till your so-called truth came to light some 1500 years after the fact!
Click to expand...
Here is a nice one from CA Library The Real Presence.

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]).
 
Hey ill answer for him…

The torah speaks of drinking of blood and eating of flesh because it has to do with offerings to God, my interpretation of leviticus chapter three is simple.

“If someone in presenting a peace offering makes his offering from the herd, he may offer before the LORD either a Male or Female animal, but it must be wihtout blemish.”
"
It goes on to say “From the Flock” or to…

“a GOAT”

The author goes on to further saying…
“And after laying his hand on its head, whe shall slaughter it before the meeting tent; but Aaron’s sons shall splash its BLOOD on the sides of the alter. From it he shall offer as an oblation to the LORD the FATTY MEMBRANE over the inner organs, and all teh fat that adheres to them, as well as the two kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the lobe of the liver…All this the priest shall burn on the altar as the food of the sweet-smelling oblation. ALL THE FAT ARE BELONG TO US (just kidding… “All the fat belongs to the LORD”) This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants whereever they may dwell. You SHALL NOT partake of any FAT or any blood”
Leviticus 3:12-17

I dont know, it could just be this Catholic Youth Bible (NAB) Translation (of a translation of a …etc), but from what i read, i dont see anywhere where it says anything that coincides and ruins the teaching of the Eucharist clearly explained by Jesus… and most of the apostles and saints and the catholic church’s teaching for thousands of years.

Do you?

If so, let me know. Is the Lord the GOAT? and did he sacrafice himself for GOD for HIS peace offering?

No, i think not. I think the Lord sacraficed him self for US, because he is TRUE MAN/TRUE GOD after all, so who else can he sacrafice to? Satan? hah!
In his Holy Sacrafice, he took his life and gave us a gift (the Eucharist) to partake in, honeslty i think you can live without it, but not for long… You must trust in what God says. and find answers (EXTREMELY THOROUGH) to every conflicting belief!

I hope i cleared something up, or brought up something to pick on me for 😃

MAy the Grace of God be with you always!
 
As I have stated earlier, John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Abiien said:
Hey ill answer for him…

The torah speaks of drinking of blood and eating of flesh because it has to do with offerings to God, my interpretation of leviticus chapter three is simple.

“If someone in presenting a peace offering makes his offering from the herd, he may offer before the LORD either a Male or Female animal, but it must be wihtout blemish.”
"
It goes on to say “From the Flock” or to…

“a GOAT”

The author goes on to further saying…
“And after laying his hand on its head, whe shall slaughter it before the meeting tent; but Aaron’s sons shall splash its BLOOD on the sides of the alter. From it he shall offer as an oblation to the LORD the FATTY MEMBRANE over the inner organs, and all teh fat that adheres to them, as well as the two kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the lobe of the liver…All this the priest shall burn on the altar as the food of the sweet-smelling oblation. ALL THE FAT ARE BELONG TO US (just kidding… “All the fat belongs to the LORD”) This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants whereever they may dwell. You SHALL NOT partake of any FAT or any blood”
Leviticus 3:12-17

I dont know, it could just be this Catholic Youth Bible (NAB) Translation (of a translation of a …etc), but from what i read, i dont see anywhere where it says anything that coincides and ruins the teaching of the Eucharist clearly explained by Jesus… and most of the apostles and saints and the catholic church’s teaching for thousands of years.

Do you?

If so, let me know. Is the Lord the GOAT? and did he sacrafice himself for GOD for HIS peace offering?

No, i think not. I think the Lord sacraficed him self for US, because he is TRUE MAN/TRUE GOD after all, so who else can he sacrafice to? Satan? hah!
In his Holy Sacrafice, he took his life and gave us a gift (the Eucharist) to partake in, honeslty i think you can live without it, but not for long… You must trust in what God says. and find answers (EXTREMELY THOROUGH) to every conflicting belief!

I hope i cleared something up, or brought up something to pick on me for 😃

MAy the Grace of God be with you always!
Click to expand...
Ok, if Jesus was just speaking figuratively then why did His detractors think of the Law, which refers to literal blood? It would seem that for this interpretation to be valid Jesus Himself had to be speaking about His literal blood to draw this conclusion.
 
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him he hath sent.” (John 6:28)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)
 
believers said:
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him he hath sent.” (John 6:28)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)
Click to expand...
Your use of John 4 makes absolutely no sense in relation to the point you’re trying to make. In John 4, Jesus is speaking of *his *food (to do the will of the father), and in John 6, he’s speaking of giving his flesh to be *our *food.

Furthermore, you’re completely mis-interpreting John 6:58. The manna in the desert was not food that led to eternal life - it satisfied only temporal hunger - so, of course those who ate manna in the desert died, but not as a result of eating the manna. The food Jesus gives - the real food (John 6:55) - gives eternal life (John 6:54), not merely temporal sustenance.

If the eucharist isn’t really Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, then don’t you find it strange that he said it was food *indeed *and drink indeed? The NAB translates it as “true food” and “true drink.” Douay-Rheims calls is “real meat.” The NIV even translates it as “real food” and “real drink.” Would Jesus have deliberately fooled his followers by referring to something that’s symbolic as “real,” “true,” or “indeed?”

I’d love to see one piece of evidence from early church history that the eucharist was viewed and practiced as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s death.
 
Dancelittleewok said:
Ok, if Jesus was just speaking figuratively then why did His detractors think of the Law, which refers to literal blood? It would seem that for this interpretation to be valid Jesus Himself had to be speaking about His literal blood to draw this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Abiien is a Catholic and believes whole heartedly in the Eucharist. We know each other from Mass. Just FYI Ewok. 🙂
 
believers said:
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Jhn 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him he hath sent.” (John 6:28)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)
Click to expand...
I will actually give a new response to this same post that you posted over in Protestant Communion #306. I do like the colors you added to the end on this one:) .

There is one glaringly obvious problem with this. The Catholic Church does not teach that the living bread is Manna. And the Catholic Church does not in any way deny that there is ALSO a symbolic aspect to communion.

Please, show me one ECF who taught that the living bread of Christ was ONLY symbolic in nature otherwise you are one of the false teachers that “come along” that scripture warns us about, twisting scripture to fit their own modern interpretation.

May God keep you safe.

Maria
 
Believers, you have completely steamrolled the carefully written Gospel of John. Please carefully reread my post again:
mikeledes said:
As I have stated earlier, John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Now lets examine the passage you make reference to and see if it fits with the pattern I mentioned above.

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

It fits perfectly with the **Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification **pattern.

The food that Jesus is talks about in John 4:32-34 refers to HIS OWN MISSION to save the world. This was the reason why He was sent (John 3:16) and this is the work that he came to accomplish. His clarification of what his food is only applies to the immediate context of the passage.

God bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
As I have stated earlier, John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.
Click to expand...
Michael, this is an excellent post; thank you!👍 👍 👍
 
Church_Militant said:
Thanks Joshua.
So far as I’m concerned…a church without the miracle of the Eucharist isn’t worth going to. Say whatever you will, these passages are very clear as is the literalness of Jesus statements in John 6. Without the Eucharist, there IS NO CHURCH!

Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
Click to expand...
When Jesus spoke in John 6 it was a year before his death and he spoke in the present tense therefore it could’nt have been literal, it was a spiritual abiding in him. To believe this is literal is completely inconsistent with the rest of the NT, perhaps we are also branches.
 
Steve,

Not only is it consistent but it is historical. Two thousand years worth! God communicates to his people through history.

Peace,
David
 
UNDERSTANDING THE EUCHARIST
A comparison of language found in John 2 & John 6

Protestants often reject the literal meaning of the Bread of Life Discourse preferring a metaphorical or symbolic understanding of Jesus’ command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”. A comparison of His teachings in John 2 and John 6 reveals that this interpretation is incorrect. In John 2, we read:When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2: )
In this passage Jesus says, “Destroy this temple,” but the Jews misunderstood him to be referring to the Temple in which they were standing. Actually, Jesus was using the Temple as a metaphor for his body, but the Jews did not know this; they understood Him literally and thought He was referring to the Temple of Solomon which had taken forty-six years to construct, and they challenged Him as to how it would be possible to re-build the stone Temple in only three days. Of course, Jesus realized that they did not understand his language, but He was not ready to reveal His death at that time. He remained silent and allowed the Jews to remain in confusion. The Apostle John, however, tells us, his readers, that “the temple he had spoken of was his body.” All things are explained for us, and the misunderstanding was clarified by John’s parenthetical aside.

This misunderstanding continued throughout His trial before the Sanhedrin and His crucifixion.The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ " Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. (Matthew 26:59-63)

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:39-40)
Jesus never “corrected” their misunderstanding, because He meant what He said about His body being raised in three days very literally.

(continued)
 
Later, in the Bread of Life Discourse found in John 6, we see a remarkably similar situation:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 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 him up at the last day.” At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:35-69)

Jesus said, “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Here, Jesus was speaking literally about His flesh, and this time, the Jews understood Him at once. Again they questioned how this could be possible – just as they had done when he spoke about destroying “this temple.” In fact, many of them ultimately abandoned Him over this teaching. Once again, Jesus did not offer any explanation.

Today, Protestants often argue that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His body and blood and simply remained silent (again) regarding the true meaning of His words just as He had done earlier in John 2. However, on this occasion, John provides NO alternate explanation or interpretation for the reader other than the plain words that Jesus spoke. This is because John, writing several decades after the events recorded in his gospel, knew the literal interpretation of Jesus’ words is the only accurate understanding of them.
 
Maybe I missed it, but have you dealt with

Matthew 26:28-29
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Click to expand...
Mark 14:24-25:
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
Here Jesus apparently calls the blood the fruit of the vine.

and 1 Cor 11:23-29
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:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
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.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Click to expand...
“Bread” and “flesh” seem to be used interchangeably.

These passages are used to argue against transubstantiation. Is the blood still the fruit of the vine? Is the flesh still bread? That is what Jesus and Paul seem to be saying.

This is not an argument against the bread being real food and the wine being real blood, it’s just, uh, you have to deal with what “real” really means. In John 6 where Jesus says His flesh is real food the Greek is better translated His flesh is truly food.

These points need to be covered if you wish to lock in transubstantiation. It will not surprise me when the avalanche hits…
 
I must be missing something in your question.

Of course Jesus calls the bread his flesh…that’s what the bread has become. The wine has become his blood.

The words can be used interchangeably…Catholics know when bread and wine have been consecrated. If not, they ask.

Could you clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top